Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
What about them? Ron MacLean is a harmless sycophant, Don Cherry is an unapologetic bigot, and Michaels and Dredger are hardly talked about because they have no relevance, especially to this discussion. I don't see these examples as undermining my original point.
|
In other words, you confirm the opposing point. Criticism of males is obviously fair game, but criticism of females is something you need to attack.
Quote:
This is a ridiculous take, but I'll address it anyway.
It's not that you can't be critical of a person, it's the volume and quality of rhetoric.
|
In the industry I've spent most of my career in, ALL criticism of any woman is dismissed as sexism, and ALL criticism of any POC is dismissed as racism. The same thing occurs in large swathes of academe, and in other places. The rhetoric, of course, is identical to what I see here when posters attack people for not liking a particular commentator.
So… what ‘volume and quality of rhetoric’ do YOU consider permissible when criticizing a woman, and who appointed you to judge that?