7 comments

[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 22.5 ms ] thread
(comment deleted)
Let's make this about the gender war, even though there's absolutely no indication that this was an attack on women, says nytimes.
Sigh. Mentioning the existence of women is not "gender war."

Have we really come to the point where it's impossible to mention women in any context without everyone being triggered by it?

Edit: apparently, yes we have. Congratulations, HN, for reaching peak misogyny.

…"at a Studio Known for Hiring Them", as if that was the reason this particular studio was chosen.
>…"at a Studio Known for Hiring Them", as if that was the reason this particular studio was chosen.

That's not an implication made by the article, nor is it a conclusion any reasonable person would reach, reading the title or the article itself.

You're the one injecting "gender war" into the narrative because you have an agenda. You saw an article with "women" in the title, rolled up a green account and had to concern troll about it.

It killed 59% (20/34) women in an industry of with more women, I wouldn't call it "mostly women".
At the end of the day these poor people died for no reason at the hands of a mentally ill person. Why can't we just take it at what it is instead of trying to put a spin on it? I know woman in Japan are not treated fairly in many industries, but to try and connect this incident to that narrative is wrong.

NYT's should be ashamed of themselves trying to politicize such an abhorrent event.

Junk away....