Words fail me on this story but they do not fail journalist David King.
The Australian carries King's news article about a 36 year old "well dressed" businessman who has been charged with bestiality and the mutilating deaths of many rabbits and some guinea pigs. Numerous dead rabbits were found in and around his Sydney office, killed in acts of "violence and ferocity". Brendan Francis McMahon [from a good Catholic family?] has been ordered to stay away from pet shops and rural areas.
President of the Australian Companion Rabbit Society Lara Nettle came to the hearing and commented on the links between the sexualisation of rabbits and depiction of female sexuality. Makes sense to me. There's the playboy Bunny, the fact that prostitutes are known as "bunnies", the phrase "going at it like rabbits"...
Journalist King describes these as "bizarre comments". He makes no value judgement of McMahon's behaviour. I call such reporting truly bizarre.
Much later (added below as a coomment and here too): I suppose it's possible that the sub-editor - or someone higher than a sub-editor - actually inserted it. But my guess is that the original story contained even more editorialising which was cut out, leaving this one, powerful word.
Is being anti-feminist the same as being misogynist and anti-women? I don't suppose so. I'm unsure exactly which of these characterises the intent and impact of this word, 'bizarre", in this article, but I think it is definitiely anti-feminist. It's an attempt to denigrate a woman's opinion - more than an opinion, an intellectual theory which she offers to give some context for the man's behaviour. This contextualisation, a feminist contextualisation, is what is under editorial attack. Three days later, I'm still astonished both by the cruelty to the animals and the nastiness of that editorial point of view.
A few days later: Lara Nettle wrote to me. Update here.