In response to California’s “Yes Means Yes” rape bill, Ezra Klein has shared a chilling anti-male article where he stated his desire for men to live in fear, be robbed of their legal due process, and suffer punishments even if innocent of any wrongdoing. His opinion was published on, a news site which he founded and currently serves as editor-in-chief. Vox receives 20 million unique visitors a month and is sponsored by the Mastercard corporation. It is part of the Vox Media network which also operates The Verge and Polygon.

Background on California’s “Yes Means Yes” law

On September 28, 2014, California passed bill SB-967, which applies to college students and re-defines consensual sex. Male students will now have to prove that women gave them “affirmative consent.” The bill contains the following:

Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent.

If a male student is unable to prove that affirmative consent was provided by a woman he had sexual intercourse with, a college tribunal may expel him without police or judicial involvement. This means that tribunals are now legally authorized to use a new definition of sex to expel and punish male students without involving the courts.

Affirmative consent is an entirely new concept that has not yet been tested in any international court system. Here is a licensed California lawyer’s interpretation of the bill:

To convict a man of rape, the prosecution must show you overcame the girl’s consent. This standard was generally applied to college students accused of rape as well. No longer.

To kick a young man out of college, a kangaroo court only has to show she wasn’t that into it.

Another possible scenario that could expel a male student is if the woman was sober and conscious but quiet during the sex act. She could later claim that she did not give affirmative consent and, based on that definition, have the male successfully kicked out of school, effectively ending his education and greatly hampering his future economic potential.

Ezra Klein’s take on the Yes Means Yes law

On October 13, 2014, Klein published “Yes Means Yes” is a terrible law, and I completely support it” on It contains several disturbing passages which reveal a vehemently anti-male viewpoint.

The Yes Means Yes law is a necessarily extreme solution to an extreme problem. Its overreach is precisely its value.


If the Yes Means Yes law is taken even remotely seriously it will settle like a cold winter on college campuses, throwing everyday sexual practice into doubt and creating a haze of fear and confusion over what counts as consent. This is the case against it, and also the case for it. Because for one in five women to report an attempted or completed sexual assault means that everyday sexual practices on college campuses need to be upended, and men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter.


Critics worry that colleges will fill with cases in which campus boards convict young men (and, occasionally, young women) of sexual assault for genuinely ambiguous situations. Sadly, that’s necessary for the law’s success. It’s those cases — particularly the ones that feel genuinely unclear and maybe even unfair, the ones that become lore in frats and cautionary tales that fathers e-mail to their sons — that will convince men that they better Be Pretty Damn Sure [in gaining consent].

In unambiguous language, Klein states the following:

1. An unfair law is precisely what we need to fix a problem that is based on flawed rape studies. It is not true that “1 in 4” or “1 in 5” women will be raped ([1] [2] [3] [4]), and the Department of Justice’s own figures show sexual assault is clearly on the steady decline.

2. Men should feel fear, confusion, and anxiety when entering any sexual relationship with a woman. This is an alarming viewpoint that is more commonly possessed by far-left extremists known as social justice warriors, whose totalitarian methods to date have been the marginalization of men through censorship and economic punishments. Klein is advocating for dystopian gender relations where men must be constantly worried about having their lives ruined before every act of sex, bringing new meaning to the term “sexual anxiety.”

3. It is acceptable for innocent men to be punished by quasi-legal tribunals in order to stoke fear and apprehension in all men. Due process is a legal concept that has been used in Western societies since the Roman era, but Klein wants to remove this legal requirement for men. This would create an unfair and likely unconstitutional two-tiered legal system where both due process and the presumption of innocence is removed for men but still applicable for women.

Even among the most radical of feminists who claim that all heterosexual sex is rape, it is tough to find a more anti-male and misandrist viewpoint than what Klein has written, and even Klein’s media peers have chimed in to show dismay in his position ([1], [2], [3], [4]). One journalist went as far as to describe him as going “off the rails.”

I looked into Klein’s background a bit further and what I found suggests that this opinion is not an isolated outlier but a consistent pattern that overlaps with far-left extremists known as social justice warriors.

Is Ezra Klein a social justice warrior (SJW)?

I’ve previously studied the SJW movement. Here is a brief encapsulation:

Social justice warriors believe in an extreme left-wing ideology that combines feminism, progressivism, and political correctness into a totalitarian system that attempts to censor speech and promote fringe lifestyles while actively discriminating against men, particularly white men. They are the internet activist arm of Western progressivism that acts as a vigilante group to ensure compliance and homogeny of far left thought.


SJW’s utilize censorship, discriminate against white men, and disagree with basic human rights concerning due process that has existed in the Western legal canon for centuries. They are against free speech as granted by the US Constitution and don’t believe that all men are created equal. They disregard science and wrongly apply labels, accusations, and criminal allegations to those who dare cross their path.

Based on this definition, Klein has left a trail that suggests he is such an extremist.


1. He used an SJW slur against the #GamerGate movement

Gamer Gate is a decentralized movement that aims to expose corruption and nepotism in gaming journalism at sites like Kotaku, Rock Paper Shotgun, and Polygon, which happens to also be owned by the Vox Media network. It began after the revelation that a female SJW developer had sex with influential members of the gaming journalist community in order to enrich herself while pushing an SJW agenda.

Ezra Klein on Twitter   Whatever good points #GamerGate had to make are getting buried underneath the raging misogyny  http v3DrpYP00I

A common tactic of SJW’s is to label an opinion or cause as “sexist,” “misogynist,” or “racist” to shut down all support for it, as Klein does above.

2. He started a secret email list called JournoList to push a leftist agenda

He began JournoList in order to better coordinate and manufacture a leftist narrative on major news sites. Not surprisingly, emails within the list display a conspiratorial tone. JournoList was so controversial when it was revealed that it cost the job of his co-worker and friend David Weigel at the Washington Post.

Klein’s JournoList was apparently used a template for gaming journalists in their own secret list: GameJournoPros. Many members of the secret gaming list have been under the microscope by Gamer Gate for their corrupt practices and insistence on pushing an SJW agenda that is irrelevant to gaming. Just like JournoList, GameJournoPros was dismantled after being publicly revealed (by journalist Milo Yiannopoulos).

3. He liberally applied the “sexist” label to those critical of a woman

Klein used the “sexist” label to critics of Janet Yellen when she was nominated to lead the Federal Reserve.


Like previously mentioned, such ad-hominem labels are meant to shut down rational discourse and valid concerns instead of factually addressing the issue at hand.

4. He insinuates that racism could be eased if white people offer financial compensation

When working for the Washington Post, he stops one step short of taking on the position that whites living today must correct the wrongs of the past by compensating minorities and ushering in even more policies:

The idea that racism is over — or even just that policy should be colorblind — has a clear winner: the group that benefited from the years of racism and that now doesn’t have to pay any compensatory costs.

Klein is one of the more hardline social justice warriors in that he directly advocates for strong governmental intervention to improve societal problems that is perceived in his mind but not necessarily backed up by data.

5. He compares Islamic terrorists in America to Christians

He stated in an interview that radicalization of Muslims is not a problem before highlighting the violence of Christian adherents.

The most relevant portion is from 1:53 to 2:25

This interview aired two years before the Boston Bombings, where two radical Muslims from Chechnya killed four civilians and injured 280 others. A common SJW tactic is to embrace all religions but Catholicism to exhibit their disdain for Western values.

6. He insinuates that not discriminating against majority race job applicants is “really dangerous”

In an interview for NY Mag to promote the launch of Vox, Klein shares how he actively discriminates against certain applicants for the sole purpose in creating a diverse newsroom.

We focused on [diversity] early on but didn’t succeed in the way that we should have. We had some hires that we really hoped would work that fell through for totally normal reasons and then we didn’t correct quickly enough. Look, you have to be committed to it. If you’re not, you get into the problem we began to have: People feel that maybe it’s not a culture that cares about [diversity]. And that’s really dangerous.

SJW’s view white people as having the most amount of privilege, meaning that they can be actively discriminated against to correct any imbalances that they feel or perceive. In SJW ideology, equality can never be achieved without open discrimination against majority groups.

The MasterCard corporation is currently sponsoring Klein’s extreme anti-male views

MasterCard currently has a sponsorship agreement with to display two advertising banners on every article, including Klein’s opinion piece where he states that men should live in fear and not receive due process.


It is unfair to expect MasterCard to read every article on, so I emailed their public relations team 24 hours ago as a representative of Return Of Kings to ask them if they were aware that their brand is splashed besides Klein’s anti-male writing. (The email was sent to [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected])

As of publication, they have not responded, forcing me to conclude that they are aware of Klein’s position and wish to continue sponsoring it. If you have a MasterCard, you are free to ask them what agenda they are trying to push by supporting Klein’s work.


Ezra Klein has the right to exercise his free speech to promote an SJW brand of anti-male hatred, and MasterCard is free to sponsor it, but I personally feel uncomfortable using the two MasterCards I’m in possession of. Every time I use one at the register, I’m essentially giving approval to Klein’s view that that men should endure hardship and suffering without being guilty or even charged of any crime. As SJW ideology creeps into the mainstream, we have to start asking ourselves difficult questions about using consumer products that sponsor those who want to marginalize our role in society or outright ruin our lives.


I can no longer find Mastercard’s ads on, even though they were present while writing this article over the weekend. They have not replied to the inquiry I sent on Sunday afternoon, so either they removed their ads quietly since then or it’s a coincidence that their exclusive campaign run on Vox ended after I emailed them. The current sponsor is, ironically, a video game produced by Take-Two Interactive.


A reader noted that Mastercard ads continue to run on the site.

Read Next: The Anti-Male Commercial

Send this to a friend