Except my mother apparently, who is actually the one who smokes. I don’t.

I have dealt with many a-hole little bullies, and their parents are always a-holes too.

Victor Salva.

Yeah, I have the same issue with Chapman. That being said, in this case it isn’t even Milano supporting Weinstein; she’s supporting Chapman.

Yeah, this is a shit assignment...first, of all that’s a long-ass time to be memorizing a speech. Second, why not say that anyone who listens to the speech can sign it? Even other kids. I mean, shit, if you’re going to make the kid memorize something then at least teach him how to deliver it to different audiences and…

I suspect that he thinks it’s some sort of biting criticism of Swift as a feminist icon...like he’s saying “Sacajawea did it better” or something.

I’m not going to go ‘round and ‘round about this. I don’t think she was the right choice for the cover and I think whoever wants to has every right to critique that. The OP literally said that people should stop complaining and I’m not okay with that...especially since I think there are legitimate complaints that need…

I mean, I get that. I think that’s still an answer with criticizing to some degree, so that doesn’t change my original point, but I get it. Please let the people who are twisting themselves into knots to find a justification other than “sales” for it.

Not to wade into deep, dangers waters here, but we do know why she wasn’t included. It’s literally in the article:

That she made donations (which people have done too) or that RAINN saw anincrease in the use of it’s national hotline which cannot possibility be attributed to her unless they polled those who called?

I think those are all good reasons for her to be included in the article. I don’t necessarily think they’re good reasons for her to be part of the cover, and here’s why:

Why? Give me one good, solid reason, taking into account the arguments that people have made for others to be on the cover, why we shouldn’t complain that Taylor is there? If there are many pictures in the article and a video then what purpose did putting Taylor on the cover serve? Why not just have her in the article…

I wondered about that too...I don’t remember Kesha being mentioned in the article at all, which was very surprising to me. I wonder if she couldn’t participate for legal reasons, maybe. I can’t imagine they just didn’t think to ask her. Though, they did put Swift on the cover so who knows.

Does fishing for a valid explanation count, or no...?

There is a part of me - a very large part - that thinks they went with Silence Breakers instead of #MeToo Movement because they knew from the jump that they were not going to be giving Burke her due.

That actually would have been much better and is a fairly easy solution to a problem that didn’t need to be one.

Yeah. Putting Swift on the cover was a stupid choice. I know I’m about to get into an epic argument over on Jez because I called it a stupid choice, but she shouldn’t have been on the cover. Her inclusion in the article make sense; her inclusion in the cover is because she’s promoting an album and it’s bullshit.

I understand all of that and I think you probably have a point about why they chose her face. I also think, though, that there is going to be some legitimate and well-deserved criticism of the choice that might overshadow the point of the article. JMO.

Good for her. I think she absolutely deserved to be discussed in the article; I’m not disagreeing with her inclusion in the article. I don’t think she should have been on the cover. My opinion on that isn’t going to be changed. Sorry.

I just saw that...I’m waiting with baited breath for someone to explain that to me. I mean, I will say that she did just have the trial with the nasty-ass DJ who felt her up, right? But I’m not sure that necessarily makes her TIME cover material considering the work some others have done.