No need to apologize. I see where you’re coming from. I’ve been a commenter since ~05 and agree things have become less cohesive. I just get snippy when people lob the “monolith” retort in response to any comment addressing the editorial perspective of a blog or site generally. It’s usually a silly evasion of the…

It shouldn’t be controversial, but the NYT article says it is.

Every publication is staffed by an assortment of changing editors and contributors, but it’s perfectly commonplace and sensible to allude to, e.g., the NYT’s view, Salon’s view, etc. on an issue. Jezebel isn’t a viewpoint-neutral Facebook wall where an arbitrary assortment of internet randoms post unrelated, unvetted…

Agree.

Jezebel’s masthead and its community manifest clear cohesive views on some subjects (for example, there’s a pretty uniform consensus here that “teaching men not to rape” is okay and even vital at American universities).

“Not raping and killing women” isn’t comparable to, say, the hijab question (is it okay to ban it? Is it okay to enforce it?)

If you read the NYT article, the concepts being taught are things like: “Forcing a woman to have sex with you is impermissible.” This isn’t advanced feminist theory, and targets manifestations of misogyny that are overwhelmingly male-on-female.

Forced cultural assimilation is looked down upon for good reason—it privileges the value system and traditions of whatever the home country is, reinforcing the marginalization of the immigrant. What happens, however, when the immigrant’s culture generally tolerates violence against women?

Rachel Verona Cote doubtless would have, since she thinks scotus justices write the amicus briefs.