it is unpleasant.

I'll grant you that it's up for debate. But in a movie with a female protagonist, it shouldn't even be close. Especially if the director is such a swell non-sexist guy.

I dont need you to validate it or accept it, but I'm still going to do it, and you won't stop me. You can disagree, too.

you know... The venue is overtly racist, but this incident isn't. Is it? What's overt here? The insidiousness comes from the IMPLIED, not-overt, undertone of racism.
This kind of exaggeration is exactly what I meant about overreaction. The overreaction clouds valid arguments. It's easy to say "well the racism here is…

no? i can do this all day, jerk. you are not the boss of me.

from one asshole to another, thank you. so much. sweetie.

ah, if it was on FB they probably deleted it already. i believe this was handled poorly, i don't think anyone disputes that. here's hoping accountability wins out in the end.

that would make a big difference, where did that go down?

"racist troll" - wtf is wrong with you? i try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but man, seriously, what is the matter with your life that you think you can talk to people like that? i'm not trolling by any known definition of the word, and i've not said anything remotely racist... please show me where i've…

i agree. my guess is she'll regroup (and consult a PR person, sadly) and issue a better apology. i can only hope it's not too fakey-fakey and she actually does some introspection from all this, but how will we ever know.

i'm not white knighting... i dunno, sister, you seem to be angling for me personally here, and frankly - that's not cool. back off. i've not done anything to you. you're being completely irrational and inventing things i never said and calling me childish names. you're not cool.

you're being incredibly insulting for no reason. i haven't done anything to you. i am not absolving anyone, please if you wish to attack me at least bother to read and comprehend what i've actually said, not invent your own distortion to tear down.

i was referring not to your own personal overreaction, but the all-caps conclusion of the original posting... jeez, wherever did i get the idea folks were being insanely overreacty rabid in their responses... i can't imagine...

i'm not applauding her... nevermind, i guess.

it is an inherently good action. it is better than going through with it, isn't it?

i'm in no way freaking out.

well, i would urge you to listen with this in mind, and if you do, i honestly don't see how anyone could not notice the underlying sexism to every single thing he says about women. they all on that podcast absolutely see the world as full of people, and also women are there sometimes. if the women are there to show…

sure. a woman trying to talk down to a man about testicular pain, for example, could be womansplaining. this doesn't happen often, whereas mansplaining does happen constantly. a man explaining the link between menstruation and career advancement, for example. or any evolutionary psychology argument about women's…

you took out the next sentence: "not great things, not best things, but these are still all good things."

oh no. i said cancelling it was a good thing, and it is. the venue gets less/no money this way. that is a good thing. it is a better thing than giving those guys money, is it not?