It’s strange how even feminists consider women to be adults only when they are 28+, but consider men to be adults then they are 15-16. This contrast can be seen often when discussion of age differences in relationships come into play in regards to women and how these male high school students — who were very much children — were treated by feminists.

I barely even know who these people are in the tweet, but the dude in question is being accused of “grooming” someone he met when she was 20. A twenty year old woman is a full-ass adult in every country in the world. If she can’t make her own decisions, who can?

Why are “feminists” so very eager to remove women’s agency and treat them like children? I have to say I do not get it. Of course, it’s mostly about dating market competition elimintation and assortative mating prerferences, but we can’t talk about that.

Fun fact we’ve known each other for 4 years and didn’t start dating until our last semester of nursing school :’) pic.twitter.com/juNufFCVvI

— sav (@savmlove) December 21, 2019

Grooming! She’s obviously a 24-year-old child woman and he was grooming her the whole time in his nefarious scheme.

I suspect feminists wouldn’t like the world they think they are creating as much as they believe they would now.

All our ideologies are dead, worthless, destructive. All of them. What will be next?

This is an Academy Award worthy performance. pic.twitter.com/AadtRcqoZX

— PCDN Podcast (@PCDNPodcast) January 16, 2020

Agreed. The same is true of Lupita Nyong’o in Us and Florence Pugh in Midsommar. Along with Samara Weaving in Ready or Not all were better than any of the actual nominees, but because all were in horror films, none were noticed.

I watched quite a few parts of Ready or Not 4-5 times because Weaving nailed it so well. Before the real trauma starts, she’s both charming and a bit overbearing — and then you get a feel for where this emerges from and what it means to be her (and what her being means to her) when the action truly begins. It’s hard for a character to let the viewer know why she is the way she is without narration, but Weaving does so and feels like a real person even within the conventions of a horror-comedy. That is no easy task.

A brief review of Nobody Is Ever Missing by Catherine Lacey.

While I did enjoy this very short novel, it is not the sort of work I usually read. It’s a stream of consciousness that consists of what is essentially a long extended contemplation/whinge on the oppressiveness of simply being, told through sometimes-poetic string of run-on sentences by the narrator, Elyria. Though as noted I did like the work, if it had been any longer than it’s brief 150 pages or so I wouldn’t have continued. The narrator is extremely self-focused (though observant), more than a bit annoying, and repetitive.

I understand that this is intentional and that it is for effect. The effect is admirably and fully achieved and if the work had been even 20 pages longer I would not have continued onward. The narrator, as in most of these sorts of novels, learns nothing and is little-changed by her experiences and her extended whinge-fest.

Perhaps all this is uncomfortably like real life, which is of course part of the point of the novel. I understood the character and identified with her, even. She made sense to me. She’s well-drawn and seems like one of those people you see all the time, just mooning through life, barely existing, so much so that you’re unsure what motivates them to continue. They look and sound like they will soon deflate like a cheap supermarket balloon.

With nods to Camus and even David Foster Wallace, the work is an achievement by a clearly-talented writer, yet the narrator is so unpleasant and her worldview so hopeless that it’s like occupying the being of a depressive immersively. You at times wish the narrator would just get it over with and drown herself in the ocean.

However (non-spoiler alert), she never does, never learns anything nor changes, but rather continues to creep along the floor of life listlessly like that partially-deflated supermarket balloon.

It's actually worst though. It's worse to believe in climate change and the science behind it and expect points for that even as you oppose the legislation necessary to combat it than it is to just flat out deny it exists

— Jennyanythots, the old G*mbie cat (@PrettyBadLefty) January 20, 2020

Perfectly agreed. This is why I call 95%+ of progressives climate change deniers, too. If you “believe” it exists but are committed to changing exactly nothing to deal with it, you are worse than someone who disbelieves it altogether.

There will be no real consolation in the world proving how wrong they are because at the best it will be a vast human disaster that kills hundreds of millions to billions and at the worst, it’ll lead to complete human extinction.