Nah, it’s not, but thanks for coming out to play.

Nope—didn’t mean “the opinions of women who have internalized rape culture and use it to do their part in reinforcing it on others.” That we should dismiss. Which I did, and is presumably why you’re replying to yourself.

Based on how dismissive and combative you’re being toward women’s concerns and experiences all over the rest of this thread now that I’ve read it, please don’t engage further with me. You are not a good person, and your approval is—if anything—an insult.

Rejecting people’s incorrect interpretations doesn’t mean you never entertained/aren’t aware of them. It just means you won’t pretend they’re true to protect the feelings of people who are wrong when that wrongness has a tangible negative impact on your life.

Luckily yours isn’t the only opinion that matters on whether this constitutes “nothing.” If he had dressed as a piece of candy corn and people didn’t like it, you’d have a point. But he dressed as something that is *specifically often used in bars*, went to a bar where the people it’s normally used against might be,…

A PSA: the moment you equate someone dressing up as something typically used to assault a group of people that faces systemic discrimination with...literally anything that doesn’t also fall into that category, you don’t have an argument.

I’m amused by the fact that you, specifically, were able to write that Neymar is the most disrespected/detested player in Spain without experiencing cognitive dissonance.

Yeah, wow—sounds like they’re super sensitive, and you’re a reflective and rational person who’s capable of self-criticism and never exaggerates or works himself up into a tizzy.

The reasons are specified, bud. Tons of people spelled them out for you in this very comments section. You don’t buy them because you don’t understand them, but that doesn’t make them “unspecified” or remotely less legitimate.

Nah. It’s not actually a matter of opinion—it’s basic sociology. Context matters. You not wanting or being able to see it doesn’t mean other people are obligated to pretend the difference doesn’t exist.

Yes, because men being held accountable for women’s choices—let alone their own choices—is endemic in our society. You’re really smart!

Yeah, but you’re also equating them. Which ignores both history and any semblance of context in the present. Most commenters on that piece, even, agreed that it wasn’t “OK.” What people are taking issue with is your inability to understand how they’re “not OK” in very, very different and significant ways.

Well, that and the fact that the way women “rate” men hasn’t historically had a massive impact on whether they’re hirable, how much money they make, whether they deserve basic decency, etc.

It wouldn’t be the same, though, because they don’t live in a world that treats them like that more broadly. If the women did this to the guys it would still be a bad thing to do, but there’s no way to make it the *same* thing. That’s sort of why the whole thing is so awful in the first place.

“See how easy that is to reverse?!?!” is one of those helpful “disregard—I’m dumb” flags.

I mean, as long as you don’t assume you having thought this means everyone else does/did, too, or that...what’s the issue?

Ugh. One of these. This article isn’t about what works for individuals on an interpersonal basis. It’s about how names and the characteristics we associate with them impact people’s lives in a broader, more structural sense. Stop making it about you.

Literally nobody said or implied black people aren’t or can’t be named Dave or Emily. The racial/socioeconomic stereotypes associated with names impact people’s lives in very real ways, and it doesn’t help anybody to be all “I don’t see color!” about it.

You don’t have to stop to notice what people are doing right in front of you. Some people can multitask. And you don’t have to be riveted by something, or have never seen it before, to register that it’s happening.

You’re the only person interpreting “giving more than zero fucks about anybody other than yourself” as “staring at random people for extended periods of time.”