Sorry, I’m really not understanding here. Isn’t his point that the concept is dumb because if commoditizes sex? Aren’t we in agreement here? What am I missing? (honest confusion please @ me)
-
-
Replying to @MasterJeb @DawnHFoster
I think the first big problem is where he takes the "incel" rhetoric at face value - when the problem of violence against women is well-understood and does not get alleviated by sex: the underlying logic of their brand of violent misogyny is not different from other brands.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @gztstatistics @DawnHFoster
Is he, or is the paper he’s talking about? Or is he because he takes he paper seriously? Isn’t his point that the sexual revolution traded one more of violence for another? I may be reading into him, idk. Cuz you’re def right it’s a cover, but one enabled by culture maybe?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MasterJeb
The paper he is talking about does so, and he takes that paper as a serious starting point. But you can't take the "incel" rhetoric at face value for the reason I stated.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gztstatistics
That’s fair. Let me rephrase to make sure I’m understanding: it doesn’t matter if he says anything right, because it’s not worth the legitimacy that gives to a symptom-not-cause of what underlies violence against women, and is therefore a distraction at best?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MasterJeb
He can find a way to talk about this thing that is right without giving legitimacy to this awful line of argument.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Right. That makes sense. It’s the question of when and where to fight a battle, this one says that “incel” is a real thing worth addressing, so does more harm than good. Thanks!
-
-
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.