Is it not the case that many women have decided, for their own reasons, that being married isn’t a benefit? This trend is larger taking place in the lower classes. Women do not want to support a man and their children if it is easier to just not have a man.

Reaction to Cameron’s comments is a perfect example of “if a man says it it’s sexist, if a woman says it we just ignore her”. Meaning his critiques are fairly feminist in nature. Also generational and not in a sexist way.

But men aren’t allowed to be feminists anymore, anyways. Allies till we rallize

Was she assaulted by a cop? False accusations are bad for everyone.

If everyone who disagrees has just internalized the patriarchy, you can never be wrong.

Maybe, just maybe, this is because until this generation, Asian Americans (many of whom were immigrants) were not raising children who felt they could be comedians. So they did not become comedians.

Women do realize, even if not all the time, that men like Whedon are OFTEN compensating for internal demons or external issues.

I don’t think people who want to take down statues of Robert E Lee necessarily overlap with people who want to remove statues of founding fathers, but that part of his statement is the least bat shit thing he’s said in maybe his whole life.

Maybe your cynicism feels earned, but I doubt it. The evolution of humanity involves some “altruistic” behavior. If you think about anything, it is all “self-serving”. So you are “right”.

Uh...would the whole article not be triggering? Would this whole website not be triggering?

That’s because the headline is manipulative. And he was the victim in his unique situation. Its not as if he compare being falsely accused of rape to having been raped. That would have been fucked up.

Jezebel peddles in snark. The headline is either bait for readers or one last dig before a neutral article.

Does no one else find the proliferation of describing literally “non-violent” and “non-violent” adjacent things completely ridiculous and desensitizing to what actually does constitute violence.

The right can demonize her for the wrong reasons, but we’re kidding ourselves on the left by defending her. The purity test some of you speak to is the test someone like her applies to less zealot-like liberals, not the other way around.

If he believed that he’d be happier. It’s what he wants to believe.

Schultz hasn’t profited and never will. We can argue whether that’s from the protest or not, but she said she never had any plan to sell the painting. I personally don’t see the difference. It means the protest had a positive effect.

Do we not learn more from controversy than from everyone being PC and awkwardly trying to figure out where the line is drawn?

People are indeed calling for a ban and asking for her work never to be shown.

Even if everything you say is true, does that justify a lifetime ban of her work?

I’m not sure what your angle is. That sounds patently about religion. Every time some religious group remembers culture, they resort to saying it should be banned. Larry David sprayed piss on a portrait of “Jesus” and was taken to task by religious idiots.