I wish they'd put that tweet at the end, because I couldn't read any more after that.

So awesome! (says fellow history geek)

I know, but I did have a moment there! :-)

Points to you for making me have nerd anxiety: Did I type Venusian!!!?? But no, I was correct.

PAPIST!*

Yeah, I read somewhere it was some kind of fancy Venetian plaster.

I . . . really enjoyed this anecdote. It's the little things that help the day get better. Thank you :-)

I know, but that person came off as not someone I really wanted to talk to, I guess. I'm not trying to pile on, though I can see how you might be feeling picked on at the moment.

daily mail as a source?

This is true, but- and there is data available on this - there is a privilege scale of sorts. The more privilege you have (and white, male, cis, het is pretty much the jackpot especially if you add financial security) the less experience you have of being dismissed or mistreated. So it is correct to say that men are…

You mean outside of 80% or more of books assigned us to read in school and everything that is taught to us and expected of us from the day we were born? Generally the dominant entertainment expects women to be able to relate to male characters, watch and enjoy "masculine" stories, but men/boys aren't expected to do…

I think a better way to have phrased it might have been to leave out the "Indian" and say "men who were raised in environments where women are considered inferior" and "men who need better education regarding sex and gender" or something like that. This would encompass the class of Indian men you have dealt with…

It doesn't. That's why I pointed out that the article had mischaracterized the bill. If you mean where in the bill does it say that, the full bill is here: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/related/p…

It's actually even worse: What it does is cap the income that can be considered for child support at $150,000. So it caps it at more like 40k.

It actually caps child support at significantly less than that. It means that you can't assess any income over 150,000/year for the purposes of calculating child support. So it really caps it at more like 30-40 grand/year.

Tone doesn't always come across in text, so: You do know I'm not saying this was a Romeo/Juliet law kind of a case, right? I'm clarifying that they can't just nail him for statutory as a way to charge him with something. If the state is saying they aren't alleging non-consent, then they can't fall back on the…

That does make a certain amount of sad, frustrating sense.

Dear trolls who blame the rape on Daisy's behavior,

I would like that t-shirt please.

You probably know this, but the gross dude who replied to you can be dismissed by hitting x on his comment. That's what I did so that no one else has to see his vile apologism.