It’s a tweet-fight, and I gotta admit, it’s entertaining to watch.
It started like this:
Interesting theory presented to me at lunch. Do you guys think something bio-chemically happens to women who don’t marry and/or have children?
Evidentiary support: @chelseahandler @kathygriffin @SarahKSilverman
— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) May 17, 2018
Now, to be fair, this was kind of a lame way to insult these women, if you ask me. I mean, I think Kathy Griffin, Chelsea Handler, and Sarah Silverman are vile, despicable creatures for all kinds of reasons, but choosing not to marry or to be childless (or being unable to have kids, whatever the case may be) isn’t one of those reasons. This just seemed unnecessarily mean.
Kathy Griffin responded.
If this tweet was an attempt to hurt my feelings @RealCandaceO it's not gonna work. I'll be pissed if I have 1 egg left. Women like me, @SarahKSilverman, @chelseahandler make decisions about our lives…thought you supported freedom?
It must kill you that you know you're a phony https://t.co/6PuNF89bD0
— Kathy Griffin (@kathygriffin) May 17, 2018
So did Silverman:
It seems to me that by tweeting this, you would like to maybe make us feel badly. I’d say this is evidenced by ur effort to use our twitter handles so we would see. My heart breaks for you, Candy. I hope you find happiness in whatever form that takes https://t.co/LustG8xwge
— Sarah Silverman (@SarahKSilverman) May 17, 2018
And Candace replied:
Chelsea is defending Palestinian terrorists.
Sarah feels bad for MS-13.
And you think decapitating a President is funny.Masculinity isn’t toxic, modern feminism is. https://t.co/UcQzko6YTP
— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) May 17, 2018
And see – on those points, she’s absolutely correct. Those are the reasons to find those three women vile and despicable. Candace didn’t need to go after their procreating choices.
So far, Chelsea Handler hasn’t weighed in because I think she’s too busy defending Hamas right now. But this fight is young, y’all. Don’t count her out just yet.