Posted by Boogie Stimuli, Mon Jan-15-18 04:42 AM
>>>that last paragraph is fucked up imo, and everything before
>>>it is full of equivocations.
>>What is fucked up about the last paragraph in your
>>judgment and WHY is it fucked up?
>well, it's victim blaming.
This accusation is coming to mean "you said a person has a responsibility to make provisions for their own safety" which isn't a bad thing to say at all. If that isn't what you mean, then what DO you mean, and how does the article fall in line with what you mean?
>it's throwing a whole generation of
>women under the bus based on one story.
What does she say about the generation that you disagree with?
>doesn't mean we pit women and men of color against each other
>in misery poker.
Intersectionality is just a framework. It's the proclaimed practitioners who play "misery poker" constantly. But did the author say intersectionality is misery poker between men and women of color? Where are you getting this idea?
>we don't even know what really happened or
>the fall out for aziz yet,
Yeah I'm with you there. But there's a reason this very post's title is "and down goes aziz." All it takes is the accusation to ruin someone. We've seen this over and over.
>but there are solutions here that
>don't involve winners and losers.
That's an interesting thing to say when he apologized directly to her cell and this is still a national story. The only thing he should lose is his aggressive attitude toward his dates, in the case that this story is all true.
>this fucking story isn't going to be the straw that broke the
>back. she wouldn't have pulled this shit in a think piece on
What? Bill Cosby was also accused of raping an amount of women in double digits. "Accused" being the operative word, but still. I think the point here is that such a situation is very different from this one.
>>What are the equivocations she's making in the whole
>>piece and HOW are they equivocations?
>First paragraph, she can't relate...second paragraph...but
>wait it's important and valid, then the shift to "in it's way"
>which is textbook equivocation....third paragraph, a run down
>of an assault that ends with the author moralizing about why
>the woman is stupid for thinking this time would be
This sounds like you're reading stuff into the piece that isn't there. She didn't say it was valid. She said it was "worth reading" and "an important contribution to the present conversation." You took that as her validating the story, when it's not. It appears to me that she's saying it's important because it reveals the state of things. This is the point of the term "in its way" here... and I think the rest of the piece fully backs that up. That's not equivocation at all. It should actually be very clear to anyone who understood her piece. She also didn't say the woman was stupid. She just asked why the woman thought this time would be different if this had happened to her many times before. Why is that not a valid question?
>The fourth paragraph is total bullshit and fiction..."But as
>far as getting away from a man who was trying to pressure us
>into for sex we didn’t want; we were strong." There's no
>data that suggests date rape, let alone marital rape and
>sexual assault from strangers, is something that millenials
>are more susceptible to than previous generations.
You're not sure about those stats, are you? This article would disagree with you http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35513052 Furthermore, there isn't a lot of research on marital rape, as it was even considered a crime in all 50 states until 1994 or so.
>The rest follows from that false premise, with a misreading of
>intersectionality and some false sanctimony about the right
>way to be empowered and a journalist. I don't like the tone
>and narrative in the original story either, but...fuck, not
As I stated above, intersectionality is a framework. The majority of those who claim to practice it are the problem, because they throw data around gendered racism out the window. That's probably a discussion for another day. At any rate, if you don't like the tone and narrative of the original story, what is she doing wrong in her criticism of it?