Update below Guise, I made a point in a discussion that I'm proud of! And it's a counter point to what the other commenter said to me. This may not seem like much, but I like to keep peace and be as understanding as possible or just not engage further. A strategy learned from growing up in high-stress, mentally-ill family.

But- on the f/m/k on Crosstalk the other day I made a comment questioning how people could not love Harrison Ford. Lots of agreements, one comment that pointed out his defense of Polanski. So, I amended my thought process and was like, "yep- that's disgusting." That was no big deal because I understood it and truly thought it was incredibly disgusting.

Then...someone commented about their own reasons for dislike which we're valid- you can dislike anyone you want- it's not my prerogative to sway your opinion. However, they threw in an additional reason... That he is a "cradle-rober" for marrying Colista Flockhart. My feelings on this are: with the term "cradle-robber" you take away all her agency in the situation. It's as though you're bestowing all the power on Harrison Ford and not allowing for the fact that a 45 (when they were married) woman can make her own choices.

Update: we had another exchange where they apologized if the offended me (I have no investment in Harrison Ford's popularity so I wasn't really offended) and they said they just really don't like him (totally valid option). I pointed out that I'm learning feminism and saw an opportunity to whip out my knowledge. All is well :-)

Was this good? You guise are my education source for all things feminism...I knew nothing before I found my way here. Was my point valid? If not- can you tell me where I went wrong?

Sorry for the bout of self-doubt. I want to learn if I'm on the right track!

(Sorry I gave you a running commentary v directing you to the post. My thoughts are OBSVS more important :-)