Here’s Lionel Shriver’s nasty essay about Christine Blasey Ford. Whether or not Kavanaugh assaulted her, how does it help to call her “mousey” & suggest that she should have gotten over it sooner? Somehow @JonHaidt & @glukianoff make a less rancorous argument about fragility....https://twitter.com/HeatherEHeying/status/1052057322543955969 …
-
-
No idea of Lionel’s sex, & it matters not one bit to me. I’m broadly in support of her argument, but not her tone
-
I think if you actually agree with her argument, you might find your way to understanding why she'd be a little miffed in this climate. It matters that a certain movement is portraying women as weak and in need of protection. THAT'S the argument.
-
I still don’t understand why she needs to come down so hard on Ford. Look at it this way: wouldn’t her broad argument find a more receptive audience with a more modulated tone?
-
Perhaps, but that's "tone policing" (and I hate you for making use that language
) and I think the underlying message in the "tone" is that women aren't so fragile. Ford, after all, has a PhD (as does my wife) and a couple of masters. -
What’s wrong with tone policing? It’s handmaid to civility.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Whatever her demeanor, irrespective of Kavenaugh’s guilt—& I make no presumptions here—coming forward to testify was not the act of a craven woman.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.