I read a comment that kind of summed up an issue with the press coverage of MeToo. Basically, it seems like a lot of the press has focused on clickbait and/or overemphasizing the role of those who may have had some direct or indirect complicity instead of outing predators and the major power players that enable their…

Yes. Manning is not Edward Snowden. It is astounding how many people don’t grasp this. If you haven’t read the wikipedia article on Manning, I recommend that you do because it provides a great intro to her biography. She was neglected so much as a child. Her mother was an alcoholic. She may have suffered fetal alcohol…

That’s way too complicated.

1st wave: 19th and early 20th century. Main focus is legal: suffrage, property rights. Largely white, middle class.

I’ve never seen the waves described this way but I find it interesting. Can you post where you got this from?

Who the fuck are you even talking to? I know a shit ton of decent men. That’s why I demand that men are held to a high standard, because I know it’s possible and I won’t accept less. I don’t have any goddamn boys to raise and I sure as fuck don’t ask for saving. Take your empty bullshit elsewhere.

This article reminded me of Dave Chappelle’s recent comedy special where he went off on a MeToo tangent. He basically said that while he sided with the women and wished them success, he felt that if a woman’s dreams were threatened by this misogyny, they had a “brittle spirit.” I pondered that one and I wondered how…

Second wave are the women who were anti-porn and wanted to be “as tough as men” - which is shown in this attitude of “well if you can’t take it you are just a crybaby, toughen up!”.

From an academic POV:
The first wave was suffragettes, focused on obtaining basic civil rights such as the vote and right to own land. There were also the New Women/flappers, who loved to drink and smoke and wear provocative clothing and makeup and get abortions and birth control and honestly have quite a lot in…

More or less, yes—and this entire article is doing what we have been plagued with for generations, pitting younger and older women against each other. It is frankly wrong about what second-wave feminism represents, although it does qualify “liberal” second-wave feminism as problematic without giving context regarding…

People can define “waves” however they want. Certainly most of the definitions you’ll see here do not represent a common lingo — terms that one could just throw around and assume that the audience will “get it.” At its most basic, first-wave feminism focused on certain civil rights like the vote while not advocating…

Here’s a thought: It’s just “feminism”; forget the waves. Just understand that “feminism” like most movements evolves and grows and becomes more inclusive over time as society itself does. Kind of like how gay rights was once transphobic and is now supportive of the trans community.

I’m not an expert, but the way I always defined them was: First Wave was the suffragettes, who were demanding basic civil rights for women. Second wave was in the 60s and 70s, and they were demanding full legal equality with men, especially not being barred from male-dominated careers. Third Wave feminists are…

I’m not an expert, but I wonder if there’s much consensus after “Second Wave” white, privileged feminism. Though it had its heyday in history, it’s not as though it’s a historical blip that has gone away, as the linked articles above and many comments sections the Internet over demonstrate. I think we’re in the…

Briefly, first wave is suffragettes, second wave is Gloria Steinem et al during the 70s, and third-wave is Jezebel.

It's his attitude; not his list. Those are the words of someone who has never worked in a service industry, or at least didn't learn anything from it.

I think it might be the snobbish air the list gives off, thanks to wording such as "know what a fucking martini is" and "just because you are used to serving food fit for dogs doesn't mean I'm one". Reasonable requests, but they come off rather pompous when worded in such a way.

While I think your points are pretty reasonable (apart from that "just because you are used to serving food fit for dogs" part- not funny man) I think you're also overestimating the power of the average server. As I've said above, the kitchen isn't always a happy co-operative place; chefs can be dicks, and I've been…

Wow. I sure hope you're a good tipper at least. You know, for making wait staff put up with your insufferability. :-)

You're the kind of person who gets a lot of waiters' bodily fluids, methinks.