Okay, sure, sometimes being sexy and being in sexy outfits/poses is part of the character. There is no problem with that independently. The problem is that the gender ratio of characters in which it "suits their character" is terribly unequal. This seems to be partly because of how much of the creators behind comics…

As noteworthy players in popular culture and therefore societal thinking, I do think that they have a moral obligation to consider the impact their works have.

I personally think that sexual objectification is worse, especially given rape and harassment.

I said "just the same" - meaning objectified in the same way as women characters.

Wonder if we'll get any of those genius commentators who think that men characters are objectified too just the same because they have big muscles.

So, was anyone else reminded of patriarchal language structures when they read of all-female X-Men? Not that you can't personally identify as female but also a man...but I doubt all of those characters are trans.

I know that some people are trying to reclaim the word, but I fear that continued usage of the word won't really help things. The word seems to have too much background as an insult specifically against women, as well as objectifying them.

Hopefully.

You shouldn't be proud of sexism.

It wasn't exactly the picture of equal rights and standing, mind you...

I see no reason why men "need" to be doing that as opposed to women. I'm pretty sure women are capable of hunting animals. I would not be surprised if the hunter-gatherers were more egalitarian towards biological gender than some civilizations were/are.

Your culture is terrible.

This may sound callous, but I am comforted by the thought that people like him won't be around forever.

It wasn't to begin with?

I don't see anything disallowing people who donate to this atheist woman from also donating to people of theistic faith or religion. It's not just one or the other.

I don't remember anyone mentioning deism in context of this.

I see this and many other charity groups as both intending to help people and further their cause (and I don't believe pursuing better perception of atheists in society is a bad one by any means). It's rarely either or.

There is no needed dichotomy here. You can be generous AND have activist goals in mind. Atheists are a minority and often face prejudice. While it's ideal to help everyone, that is often not practical. We have groups that focus on helping certain groups of people (like women) for a reason.

What's this juice part supposed to be anyway?

Of the two, I definitely prefer the donation drive to the religious right's conspiracy theories.