Someone who wants to be a plaintiff.

She obviously was looking to file this lawsuit when she applied for the job. This is someone (more likely an organization funding her) looking for a lawsuit to push their agenda.

I use scrunchies to put my hair up at night after I shower, because they don't give you that weird bump the way regular hair ties do.

Maybe so but the intent of the article is made clear by the title: "Ensure you align with the hive mind"

Jezebel puts these exact lists out all the time. Except they're more creatively titled "Here's How Not to Talk About [issue]"

I'm pretty sure it became about him when she advocated a mass boycott of his biggest creative success.

Though the school was close to 70% female when I was there, our student government leaders were almost always men, as were the majority of leaders of the main news publications and political activist groups on campus

I think this is part of the issue I was having with Sakish's argument but I couldn't put my finger on it. By saying the MAN has to seek consent every step of the way you are framing the act like only men have sexual desire and the woman is just saying yes or no. Women should be able to says what is okay and not…

I'm obviously speaking from the perspective of a clueless outsider here, so bear with me. Per Temkin's blog post, here's the accusation:

My main issue with Max's response is that he's making this all about him. This is NOT about Max Temkin; if it were, Magz would have named him in her statement and would probably be pursuing legal action of some kind.

I don't see how that's disturbing - I think the alternative would be calling her a liar.

Its only disturbing if this person is telling the truth. Otherwise, this is a perfect response to a liar/crazy person. I don't know what the situation is, but that is a response both a rapist and a falsely accused person would/could use.

Wait, I'm supposed to turn on this guy over an accusation made on the internet by a nameless, faceless person?

Exactly. Randomly assign people to have internet access for a year, and then get back to me. Otherwise, this is a perfect example of correlation does not mean causation — you're never going to be able to account for all of the important variables related to having, or not having, internet access.

Too bad for Terry that photoshop doesn't have a "remove rape" tool.

MRAs have girlfriends and sex?!?!?!?!?!?!

she didn't get the job and wound up marrying a guy 25 yrs her senior and living as a housewife in Connecticut.

So SCOTUS has ruled that a "closely-held business" can enjoy the economic advantage of not having to cover 'objectionable' birth-control benefits for their employees because they assert that having to do so conflicts with their religious belief. How can an economic preferment for businesses based on the owners…

And then promptly moved the goalposts by issuing a preliminary injunction against the application of the waiver system offered to non-profits.

They did side with HL because there was a "less-restrictive option", i.e. the non-profit option, but they didn't require them to extend that option to for-profits. Except not even a week later they then ruled that filing for the non-profit opt out was ALSO a violation of religious belief. I'm extremely curious to see…