it’s similar to how we treated russia after the war: as bitter enemies and not an incredibly wounded former ally.

hasn’t her shtick always been “women be crazy”?

Seems pretty obvious to me that he gave them pills in order to make it easier for him to have sex with them. I mean, I saw somewhere that he was asked why he gave them the pills and his response was, “Do I really have to answer that? We all know why I gave them the pills.” or something to that effect. Seems like…

I think it’s a lot of what you said and a sprinkle of “but he’s Cosby. What woman isn’t gonna sleep with him for the story? Like come on, men, amirite? Amirite??” And he just keeps saying amirite louder and louder as people get more visibly uncomfortable. Not understanding that in this nonsensical theory not…

Given the number of men on the trail, I’m betting one of them has a “flexible” definition of consent.

He (and yes, I am using he) probably keeps admonishing them to “be rational”.

My thoughts exactly.

Real talk: no one deserves to be objectified and body shamed, regardless of their banshee status.

It’s optimistic to think he’s the only Hollywood director pervy and misogynistic enough to pull that crap.

He actually is. He divorced his wife the jewelry designer.

Wow, that exchange between Powers and Miller was just so telling. I bet all women have had more than one conversation like that.

It wasn’t an established routine. The owners had basically stopped using the office regularly and the employees were often working offsite prior to the vacation. It made Emily “feel” better that they use the office when she was out of town.

I guess what I’m saying is that I’m not sure if June’s evolution into a soldier of the rebellion makes for a better story than the one originally told by Atwood, but I am sure that it makes me feel better

Exactly. There’s also the part where Emily insisted she wasn’t going to comment on Alina’s departure, but turns around and posts on social media they simply HAD to let her go, all while Alina has gone radio silent. Then she starts copying her content for weeks.

But if she’s saying she’s micro-managed and told to “tone it down” then it’s hard to tell if she was not permitted to submit her own ideas. I’ve worked in situations where initiative is not wanted, and it’s probably the most frustrating experience I’ve had. They literally would prefer me to not do anything than do…

I also think it’s important to emphasize Alina was recruited and hired under the premise that her work hours would be more “flexible” and that the office wasn’t being utilized by the owners regularly either. According to Alina, the push to use the office 9 to 5 was fairly recent and was not an outlined expectation.

“There was an understanding that it was a retarded expectation,” Alina wrote, adding “sorry for the hard R—I’ve never claimed to be politically correct, I’m sorry, I love all people.”

As someone who once worked for an employer who ran a business out of their home, I would never do that again and would never recommend it to anyone else. It breeds a kind of familiarity that won’t work for anyone in the long run, and there’s no HR dept to keep things legal and professional. And although this may not…

Can someone please explain to me how this is racist? Skittles never include any flesh tones to begin with.

As a thirteen-percenter from another island in the Bay - thank you!