Because as women we’re not required to “stand up for others” every time we clap back against sexism. We can do it just for ourselves. Everyone who experiences sexism is qualified to critique it. And she wasn’t even speaking out about sexism in general, just one SPECIFIC type of sexism aimed directly at HER and her…

Right? This “she’s too privileged for her voice to count here” argument makes no sense. If you’re oppressed enough to experience sexism you’re oppressed enough to speak on it, period. And as a Black woman and an intersectional feminist I can’t follow the racial angle of this article at all. If JA was speaking out…

Thank you. I just straight up distrust “feminist” arguments aimed at policing and critiquing individual women’s survival strategies within misogynistic systems rather than the systems themselves. That is not my feminism.

Thank you! My feeling is that women who aren’t thin, white or famous face similar (and worse) attacks on their reproductive agency every day. And I can’t see anything wrong with a famous woman using her public platform to push back against this widespread “your womb is our business” sentiment even if it affects her in…

To me it reads like she was trying to make an argument based in intersectional feminism but misunderstood/misrepresented what intersectionality means. It’s intended to reflect the complexities of how oppression and privilege play out within various women’s lives, not divide women up into demographic groups and…

Yeah, I'm a little tired of the sort of victim-blamey responses from feminists whenever women (particularly women who have any type of privilege, like wealth) criticize things like slut-shaming, body-shaming, victim-blaming, etc.

Aniston refuses to answer question: She’s “defensive.”

There’s also the fact that to a certain degree women are forced to commodify their bodies if they want to have lucrative and satisfying careers as artists. Maybe they’re just theatre geeks who want to get good roles but that generally is more likely to happen if they have played the game of building themselves up as a…

Damn. I have been with y’all for a long time, reading and loving your articles. And then every now and then you have to drop some mess like this to remind me we aren’t really on the same team.

I think everyone can sympathize with the ‘why bother with a remake,’ until you look at the history of film and see that most everything is a remake or a reboot. The question is whether something is a quick cash-grab or something of aesthetic merit and genuine inspiration. No one really freaked out when Michael Bay…

JA hasn’t struggled about finding a designer dress but she has struggled with years of tabloids speculating about the status of her uterus and mocking her for being the “loser” in that whole “lover’s triangle” she found herself in when her hubby kicked her to the curb publicly for his co-star.

While women are oppressed differently—depending on the color of skin, money made, conventional attractiveness, gender identification, age—they are all oppressed.

... why did Star Trek have to be remade? Why did Fright Night? Why would literally any massively popular and moderately original movie be remade? Because the movie business is, first and foremost, a business, and they want to make money.

Yes, I guess that’s what the essay is getting at? That because JA is thin, White, and conventionally attractive she needs to “take a seat” and stop complainingabout how these standards of beauty are oppressive because she has essentially become one of the standards of beauty other women are held to.

“Discusses” or “is forced to answer intrusive questioning by a “reporter” with an already defined agenda who will then make answer the central focus of the piece in order to sell magazines.”

Yes, I know there’s a lot of criticism of the TPP. Because I’ve read the deal, and read and listened to analysis on both sides, because I don’t just depend on my “gut skepticism” and tired retread media narratives when making a decision on what I believe or who I’m going to vote for.

This is the problem with politics though.

People put all of their hopes into a politician that they think is different, and they believe in whatever revolution they’r being promised. They hang onto every word, they believe every bit of mud that he/she slings at the opponent, so then when they turn around and support…

Wait, seriously? You didn’t know that TPP is a negotiated multilateral trade deal and can’t be fussed to do some research on what Obama has done to regulate bank excesses since the 2007 great recession but you’re “skeptical” of Clinton because you sort of maybe heard she takes money from corporations?

Depends on what you mean by “fight the banks.” Like, dismantle them and then there’s just no more banks? No, of course not. But she has put forward a comprehensive financial reform agenda that takes the Obama/Dodd-Frank scheme of regulations and strengthens its framework, while adding things like stronger capital…

I’m assuming it’s the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” approach, which is dumb as fuck in this situation because Bernie and Hillary are not enemies, have not ever been enemies, nor will ever be enemies. They were campaigning against each other, sure, but their platforms are basically identical and their political…