Saw the headline, tried to read the whole article but don’t have time. It’s not a TLDR issue. I just don’t have any time right now, but feel a deep need to say, “DON’T LISTEN TO THOSE PEOPLE!”

I’m an adoptee. I loved my parents (they’re both now deceased, after long lives.) Adoption is better than foster care or…

I take it you mean, the men are peers with one another, the women are peers with one another, but the sexes, as groups, rarely interact? From my experiences elsewhere, the disempowerment of the women sounded accurate as a general portrayal, setting aside the bonus issue.

I realize these women chose this path, so my…

Fair enough. What’s your opinion of the overall portrayal of the gender dynamics in these relationships?

It didn’t sound like two equals “establishing a budget.” It sounded like an owner offering up a doggy treat. I think that’s the main reason people reacted to that anecdote as strongly as they did. I, and probably most people who read the initial Times puff piece, get how finance remuneration works.

Having said that,…

Between the painfully stupid pull quotes and the blue steel gaze, I’m really wishing Chris Pratt would do a lot less promotion.

Oh! Oh! Can I join this club? Huge chunks of the script were sloppy and incoherent, and the attitude towards women was offputting. Did we really need the obligatory/tired “we know he’s the awesome hero because he screws around and his randoms are pissed”?

It really traded on charm. And the charm was potent. But... Oh,…

I agree. The Times actively participated in this deceptive promotion. Where’s their asterisk for their own involvement?

I know this is just rich lady privilege and MUCH less important than all the other misleading crap the Times shovels out, but its very pointlessness makes it more irksome, somehow. Did they just get…

Drat. Replying to myself out of embarrassment. Make that “the Times” and “The Nanny Diaries.” Should put an asterisk somewhere, or wait for the Post to shame me into it?

So that initial promo push in the time all about how this is a legit anthro study is utter bullshit? This is just a rich lady “memoir”?

I mean, “telescoping” and all that didn’t exactly shock me. But at least The Nancy Diaries push didn’t suggest it was a sociological study.

It still sounds like rationalization, though. I quit J. Crew years ago, for other reasons. But a) what I keep hearing is that while the prices are higher at JC now, the quality is lower. It’s simply rational to elect not to buy expensive clothing that is so poorly made it won’t last. b) the words seems to suggest some…

I accidentally caught the whole Seinfeld/Cowherd interview, and this doesn’t really capture the jaw-droppingness of it. He praised Cowherd numerous times for how smart and funny he is and how great his POV is. They agreed that the reason people are bitching is that the economy is “so great” people have to make stuff…

But isn’t a lot of this due to the hollowing out of the class system? Where is the broad based, aspirational, middle to creeping towards upper middle shopping segment that would buy J. Crew even without the jacked up prices?

I’ve been assuming that whoever ratted them out called People too, but People makes money off them, apparently (so the Intertubs tell me). This was win/win for InTouch — break a real story, make a ton of money, AND damage its rival.

Stupid is one thing, selfish and clumsy is another.

Just say no, Natasha.

Your lead graf suggests that you’re very much Team Drug Company. I’m not sure why that would be. This drug is NOT equivalent to Viagra, and would need to be taken every day. I followed earlier, far more detailed reporting on this, and there didn’t seem to be much evidence of this being meaningful useful for low…

But some of them go into it because they LIKE hurting children. They like having power over someone weaker than they are. Some are pushed into. Colleges notoriously tell their weakest students to major in education. You move into administration because it’s better pay and fewer maddening rules and restrictions.

But…

Yeah, that pains me. What that principal did was WRONG. Do they have a younger child still there, so they’re afraid to rock the boat? I can’t think of any other excusable reason for this.

Indisputably. I think Goodell LOVES punishing all these men. But just like we as a culture are starting to acknowledge that beating little kids isn’t the way to teach them to behave, this, too, is not merely ineffective but creates more harm. It is kind of funny that they punished Peterson for punishing his son, with…

Are you saying this is better? Also, where is your evidence about the recidivism? You’re making it sound as bad as with pedophilia, and I have never read anything like that.

I am once again going to say that if the NFL stopped being so into covering up or punishing, and instead instituted treatment programs for these guys to learn to manage their rage and handle their relationships differently, it would be win/win.

The way the NFL does things now, productive players are eventually lost to…