The only "insult" here is Polly Pocket herself — by being a stereotypical waste of space that only furthers oppressive gender roles and teaches little girls that their appearance is the most important part of them, and all girls do is choose between sexy outfits. That's not only sexist, it's also just the worst thing…

No, you're missing the point. Polly Pocket is not a positive toy for children. Defending positive images against bigotry is NOT THE SAME as condemning toys for children as being overly sexualized.

Also, Princess Tiana isn't really a fair comparison here, since she's an obviously positive role model for children. Polly Pocket doesn't even have a story. She's just a manikin with a bunch of sexy rubber clothes.

Except if you reflexively defend all images of women that are sexual or suggestive of sex, you're not helping anyone. Because those images are frequently objectifying, stereotypical, reinforcing oppressive gender roles, sexually violent, and/or created for the male gaze. I disagree with calling the doll a prostitute,…

Well, you and I disagree, because I think constant sexual images of women is sexual commodification and objectification. I don't think those images are worthy of the protection we give to people against slut shaming. The point of slut shaming is that you're discussing human beings, not dead eyed sex dolls. Sex…

The criticism seemed to me to be that that toy is placing undue importance on appearance, and particularly sexualized appearance, for little girls. It's literally "choosing outfits" the toy. And yeah, tiny skirts and midriff showing shirts and stripper boots is sending a message to those little girls about what you're…

Do you ever stop to think why the most "iconic" image of Leia is also the most sexualized? She's a powerful character, but the "iconic" image of her, the "nerd legend" and the one every dresses up as is one where she's chained up as a sex slave.

Right. And sometimes those reflections are toxic and bad for us, and they can absolutely be criticized.

It shouldn't be an option at all. It's not an empowering image. It's literally an image of a slug alien's sex slave.

ATTENTION JEZEBEL: You do not have to defend Polly Pocket's right to wear what she wants and not to be called a slut. Polly Pocket is a doll. She has no feelings. She is an image of women you're giving to your child, not a human woman. Slut shaming does not extend to the images you are sold — it begins and ends with…

It is not slut shaming to complain about toxic images of sex or women. Images are not human beings. The reason slut-shaming is bad is because you're talking about human beings, not empty images.

Feminism defends the human beings behind sexual commodification and objectification. That's the point of fighting slut-shaming — that these are people you're talking about, not dead eyed sex dolls. Please don't confuse that with defending actually dead eyed sex dolls.

Just because she happens to be a good character doesn't mean it's okay that the only image you can get of her for your child is the most sexualized possible image of her that exists within any of the films. Seriously, defend Leia, Leia is amazing. But don't defend selling the sex slave image of her to little girls.

And honestly, the wage gap is not the only thing millenial women care about and it is not the litmus test for a culture's sexism, and I would argue it's probably pretty low on the list of concerns for a generation that has never been promised much economically anyway, considering the economy is a shambles. I notice…

I'm pretty sure this might be because millenials of all genders are basically fucked, not because we're all so much better off now and we just haven't noticed it.

Speaking for myself as a survivor, when I hear campaign after campaign about rape centered around women drinking, I feel as if my reality is being erased. I was raped while extremely intoxicated. It took years to even admit to myself that what happened to me was rape, because I had it drilled into me that that is just…

You're also saying "it's painfully obvious there's nothing you could have done" and also telling women what they should do to prevent rape in the same breath. Do you understand how these are conflicting messages? "There's nothing you could have done" but here's a list of things you could have done.

Particularly when you're also arguing in favor of women modifying their behavior to prevent assault. It's totally obtuse to not understand why this suggestion upsets people. I feel a wave of shame and helplessness when I see people arguing that women modifying their behavior will help keep them from being raped,…

I'm speaking for myself, as a survivor of assault, who was offended by everything you're saying to other survivors. You've openly said you can't understand how survivors blame themselves because it is evident to you that they are not at fault. That demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about this subject.

"I think you knew I'd say that" No one was looking for your confirmation that what happened to them is not their fault. They were trying to convey to you that what you are saying is one of the primary reasons that women consider what happened to them to be their fault. You can't say "none of this is your fault BUT if…