It really doesn't matter, because there is so much evidence elsewhere. This post doesn't mask it, but it's present in just about every post—even Mark's.

Because girls are responding to the social expectations about objectification that this site is always railing against. Boys don't dress in the same way. The problem isn't with the rules. It's not even with the girls. It's with societies expectations on the girls.

A lack of taste and self respect, perhaps...

People on this site routinely label all men as women haters. So, I really don't know what rock you've been living under.

Because men are responsible for their actions, regardless of how they were conditioned. I'm not going to weigh in on women. I'm just telling you how is with men. The end.

It's too bad your brain cells are failing to help you understand that you would have a very different sense of morality if it weren't for nascent Christian morals having been woven into the fabric of Western civilization over the last two millennia. Also, if you've ever watched GMA you know they don't provide a format…

I've been trolling Gawker Media sites for a long time, and I can say with some certainty that what you're suggesting is a "common" or "predictable" thing is — in fact — not. Also, "manbros?" Despite Mark's saying it "started" earlier, there is only one comment in this vein, and it's from a woman who believes she is…

I like how Mark releases the 0.9 versions of his articles regularly — allowing us to "beta test" his articles so we can find clusterfucks such as: "...and reported that she suffered speech and has problems..." or "considering that this woman only suffered minor issue is astounding."

It seems you're missing the point. The article in question doesn't say or even suggest it wasn't a "thing" prior to them acknowledging it. They are simply stating it as a fact for anyone who wasn't sure. Also, while large posteriors have been "big" for women of color for a long time, the fact that it is branching into…

When it comes to literally anything, no you cannot. If you elect yourself the arbiter of this issue, then what stops me from electing myself the arbiter of any issue that might impact you?

Sorry, friend. Just determine for yourself that you can rise above it. Take baby steps, and hopefully you will find the rewards of showing vulnerability can outweigh the pitfalls.

You seriously don't think that the majority of drivers they get won't come from the rest of the taxi driver pool? This won't add too many jobs. It will mostly displace them from serving everyone to serving women only.

The fact that men are more "dangerous" being used as a justification is akin to the fact that women are "weaker" being used as justification for other things. Incidentally, we are not allowed to use one justification. There is no special hierarchy that places one issue above the other. That's all in your head.

"You're not suffering..." is literally an impossible sentence. You cannot say what does or doesn't hurt someone else. You're acting exactly like the sort of man you purport to have suffered because of. This video doesn't affect me one way or the other, but that was never the statement or the idea. The original…

It's interesting that nothing I say indicates that I believe I or other cis men have suffered more than anyone else. Nothing was made as a comparative statement. You're actually the only one of the two of us who is making the claims that your suffering eclipses that of others. You've done so in this last comment. You…

If the strategy of feminism is to use empathy to garner support for their positions, wouldn't it make sense to show a little empathy yourself? Why are you so blatantly uncomfortable with the idea of male vulnerability? Why are women still considered brave for being open about what has hurt them, but people like you…

The women in these movies are also imaginary, but women on Gawker sites have been ranting about how these imaginary depictions have hurt them. Why is this any different?

I've said the very same thing in other comments on this site. Science doesn't assign value. It describes facts, and gives context to observations. I couldn't agree with you more.

Why exactly would a gay person be averse to sex with the opposite gender, or a straight person be averse to sex with their own gender?

Churches aren't subsidized by tax money... Did nobody teach you the difference between a subsidy and an exemption?