I almost wish he'd said it about the Nubians or the Hebrews instead, so that we'd have a fighting chance of a monster backlash.

I love that Doug has now set the bar so low that sensible comments like, "Um, you're off by like 200 years... and the underlying thesis makes no sense whatever" are put forward humbly as "nit-picking".

haha... nifty work: better proof of your set credentials than a fistful of Teamsters swag.

I agree totally with the needed skillsets you listed, but lumping them all together as "privilege"? Never in a million years, if we can help it.

The extra mile? Doug is an ultra-marathoner of language abuse.

So there's a near-perfect correspondence between the number of aspiring male cinematographers, editors, writers, directors and grips (interesting ordering you used, btw) and the number of positions?

"I feel horrible if I'm being trite about it, and someone has had a bad experience" is fluent privileged-speak for "I acknowledge my situation is a bit different than average"

There's are no "brand-new palimpests", Dougie.

How many of those dates went into the weeds when he mentioned trying to OD on pills for period pain, I wonder?

Possibly the bipartisan quote of the year... bravo.

The dude can turn a phrase, no doubt about it.

And I tend to be a little slow (at best) to wave the male-privilege flag... but this guy really gives one no choice.

Good point - but the writing style strikes me as hard to imitate.

I agree that's a terrible formulation (though it was framed as a conditional). The next logical question has to be: "Should I get this screening done?"

Let's hope you're a good proxy for the population!

Yup! Well put.

Offered as a tentative possibility, but maybe a little late-medieval corsetry?

Thanks. It's an insidious form of harm, too - trolling, MRA spazziness and other random site hazards are usually easy to spot and dismiss.

I'm only noticing them now. They are dual-awful: partly for the layout/clarity issue you note; and partly because they're so cheesy-looking and intrusive they look like paid content. Which probably explains why I mentally skimmed over them 'til now...

As another commentator pointed out, the top link is actually to an article on the risks of excessive breast-cancer screening — or the opposite of Anna's intended point (sic).