Quote:
Originally Posted by Gozer
Following up on a previous post:
It's always a bad idea to argue on behalf a stranger, but the relevant text is
The gripe is that he, a patriotic red-blooded American, is that he is faulted for health critiques of a woman because she is a woman. The next two clauses (time of month, sick) are independent clauses that would limit his free-speech, not an argument of causality.
He's arguing that her period is not relevant to her mental health, not the other way around.
Maybe that's what he maent, I'm not sure. Quibbling about an inarticulate complaint isn't a great idea.
The reason I chose to pick this fight is because I am worried that we are all lacking in charity.
There are real problems with sexism.
There is a fear of the Bradley effect where women are just generally perceived of being too hysterical to be trusted with power.
I think it's shameful that the most respected witness against the sexual assaults of Donald Trump is Donald Trump. The most respected witness against Bill Cosby was Hannibal Burress. Even Bill Clinton's crime was lying to men, not anything those hysterical bimbos said.
Misogyny is real, but jumping on a guy for using a buzzword is holding back the better conversations. |
You can feel free to give him that much credit for nuance and depth, if you see fit, but given the rest of his argument (that Trump--claimed multi-billionaire, who inherited more money than this man and his entire family will ever see in their entire lifetimes combined--is just a "regular guy," leads me to believe that he hasn't looked at it nearly that carefully. Also given that he doesn't even realize that a woman of Clinton's age no longer has a "time of the month," yeah, forgive me for assuming he's not really grabbing for the deeper issues here.
He could have mentioned Clinton's health issues without bringing up a specifically female "problem." He brought up the period thing, clearly he views it as an issue. I think you're giving him way more credit than he deserves, but you're welcome to give him the benefit of the doubt, and we'll agree to disagree.