I think he means "tolerated by the public/any reasonable readership." Several articles come to mind (particularly an op ed about gender roles from Fox News some two years ago) in which readers become outraged by something they've read. This is usually followed by a flurry of other articles in which the offensive piece in question is condemned. I think he means "how are people not more disturbed by this piece." Though perhaps OP can weigh in and explain it better.
Yes. I didn't mean "allowed" as in some governing body handed down a decision to allow it. I've seen huge uproar over (what I see as) pretty minor things compared to this. Yet this seems to have rolled on happy without that. I don't like to use the F-word (feminist) but how are they managing to not explode in anger over this. I truly don't get it.
What specifically do you find offensive about this? All the participants (male & female, consumers and company) are willing and eager.
I don't necessarily agree with firing people over politically incorrect jokes either, but in this case there is no party that is potentially suffering damages. I.e. in the case of misogynist jokes by an employee, the company may believe it's reputation would suffer unless mitigating action was taken.
