I dislike this approach, as well. We need more clarity, not less. Even if she doesn’t want to name names, she can still describe situations and reactions.

I don’t know anyone who would claim that feminism is in a really good place right now. The observation that feminism means a lot of different things to different people is a common one - and it’s a situation that I seriously doubt this book is going to do anything to help.

Why would a fine make any sense for situations like this? All that does is take money away from the family unit, which likely includes the victim. It’s like forcing the victim to pay for their own abuse.

I’ve actually had good experiences with the NYPD.

I was going to say the same thing. The original is so much better.

It sounds like she made a blanket statement like “that’s sexist” without really indicating what ‘that’ refers to. I’m confused as well.

That was the most boring trailer ever.

If this woman wins her case and it is determined that she had parental rights this whole time, the child should turn around and pursue criminal/civil charges for neglect.

I don’t understand how she’s suing her child. If a medical provider gave care without proper permission (which it sounds like they had, anyway), wouldn’t it be the provider in the wrong? How can she sue the child?

I think that transparency is necessary to the same degree that the accusations/results are public.

A strawman, apparently. I’ve never heard anyone claim that literally 100% of rape accusations are true.

That seemed like a misstep to me, too. For an author, she seems to be not very good at explaining things.

If you read the actual letter, I think that you’ll be put at ease more. It’s not anti-victim at all and they’re not claiming that he’s innocent.

It does seem strange that they fired a member of the faculty without releasing any information about it. Having a cloud of secrecy does more harm than good in situations like this. I think it would be fairly easy to keep exact details and names private.

Or maybe those people shouldn’t be on it in the first place. The list is there so that people can be aware of truly dangerous individuals. There’s no public service done by puting everyone on the list including people who urinate in public.

There are ways to talk about sexual attraction that are respectful of the person you are attracted to.

If the fact that someone is attractive is mentioned in the context of a more balance conversation, then there’s probably no harm done. But if the only qualities you highlight about a woman are the qualities that will get you off, then you are reducing her. If the things you deem most notable about her are the aspects…

I read a lot about how the movie was supposed to present a ‘neutral’ take on his life and it about made me sick. It was neutral because they didn’t want to condemn his attitudes.

This is a great point. I think that this is one of the reasons why sexist behavior at work is so appalling.

I think it’s less of this particular act and more about the type of environment where things like this are common and normalized. If it were an isolated instance of some guys being jerks, it would be bad. But the fact that a lot of people don’t even recognize that they’re being jerks is what makes it worse.