If it wasn't even CLOSE to universal, then the headline is so misleading as to be a lie. And there is a gulf between equal rights and the blanket assumption of this attitude. A fucking gulf.

This is such revisionist bullshit, Kate. Pull your head out of the fiction being written by modern idiots, and do some actual fucking research. The higher your social class, the less equality you'd find, but the VAST MAJORITY of people are NOT wealthy Downton-Abbey-type families. The average woman would tell her…

Where are the hundreds/thousands of multinational/large corporations founded by women?

You do realize that Joan Rivers covering the Red Carpet for E! is not in any way related to the event put on by the Oscars themselves, right?

So because the grand majority of people don't feel something needs to change, we don't need to allow people agency to change things for themselves if they have deep personal feelings on the matter?

I love how you can just mock the way other people feel about control of their bodies while expecting them to afford you every bit of courteousness in your pursuit of control of your own.

Yeah, just live with what somebody else decided for NO FUCKING REASON to do to the most INTIMATE PART OF YOUR BODY. Yeah, just live with it.

That's pretty much what "mansplaining" is too. Welcome to equality. You get your shit called, too, now.

I love how you can just mock the way other people feel about control of their bodies while expecting them to afford you every bit of courteousness in your pursuit of control of your own.

YEAH, SO CRAZY! Who the hell would want to advocate for people having control over their own bodies????!

Can you imagine caring about your personal agency? About having a decision that affects your most personal parts without your consent?

I love how you can just mock the way other people feel about control of their bodies while expecting them to afford you every bit of courteousness in your pursuit of control of your own.

Really? Mothers are supposed to give their bodies "for their children?" But ra-ra Roe v Wade?

I'm pretty sure everyone has a right to not be stabbed to death, and that everyone knows that. I'm also pretty sure people have a right to hate whoever they want. These rights are not mutually exclusive.

If you haven't read a single Jonathan Franzen book, and if you mostly read on plains, then you're really not someone who should worry about what he thinks. His audience is intellectuals—male and female.

How can you not be sure where he thinks the "legitimate problem" lies? He says it in plain English—in literary fiction. You do know the difference between literary and commercial fiction, right? I would hope so, given that you've chosen to write and publish an article on the subjects.

As sad as this is, I can't help but feel everyone who is advocating for more "realistic" beauty standards is missing the point.

What education, exactly, confirms that homosexuality is an occurrence of "nature" rather than "nurture?" Cause you can only call it "natural" if it occurs as a point of "nature" rather than something that occurs through environment and circumstances.

What education, exactly, confirms that homosexuality is an occurrence of "nature" rather than "nurture?" Cause you can only call it "natural" if it occurs as a point of "nature" rather than something that occurs through environment and circumstances.

I expect you to use the word "Black" in every article you write that calls out a crime committed by a black person or a group of black people.