Personal reading preferences aside, I think that a good, practiced writer should be able to see that writing "rules" are more like guidelines meant to be broken or bent in creative ways. If your writing is compelling, readers won't care that you didn't follow "the rules."

I feel like this is especially hard because it seems like in recent times media literacy is particularly low and lots of people are very obtuse about depiction not being the same as endorsement. So I get why writers hesitate to write unlikable, morally gray, or villainous protagonists.

None of this is “good faith political debate,” and it’s not a coincidence that all these outlets are suddenly interested in the same “discussion” at the same time.

Treating women’s humanity like a thought exercise makes it that much easier to legislate away

That’s why conservatives are pouring millions intro trad-wife bullshit and birth control disinformation. They need young women to believe the erosion of their rights is a good thing, actually!

It’s not enough to oppress women—they want us ^grateful* for it. (We’re so much prettier when we smile.)

Why decline all these chances to defend feminism? Because to participate would be accepting the premise that our rights and humanity are up for debate in the first place.

Once you’ve conceded that it’s reasonable to ask whether women’s equality was a mistake, you’ve already lost.