I guess you could say it's on me, but I don't think it is 100% or even like 90%.
Conversation
is “holding accountable” the flashpoint here?
like, “holding accountable” is a toxic framing?
when you say “not 100% on me”, do you see yourself as raising the question of who should be “held accountable” in this context?
or would you describe it differently?
1
3
I wouldn't usually put it in those terms, but sure it's partly something like that.
QC and I know each other personally, so for me it's a combination of: (a) negotiating our one-on-one relationship and --
1
3
-- (b) yes, holding him accountable to the standards that feel appropriate in our "community", such as it is
1
3
I get you, that makes sense. was wondering to what extent a disagreement between “hold accountable” vs e.g. “express a grievance” is about language (and connotation) and to what extent it’s about the underlying idea
1
4
because if “hold accountable” means “regard as a moral agent responsible for their own actions” (my read of what he’s saying) then the statement seems uncontroversial
but if you add to that “men are trained not to do this when it comes to women”... Well, that is spicy ig
1
4
Yeah, and to your second part I'd add "...and if you don't realize that and account for it ... okay I guess 🙄"
That's more how it landed for me. The flash point is complicated and QC and I have partly unwound it separately so I think I'll leave it alone for now, at least here
1
3
The framing here reminds me of TRP-style thinking, which I've found extremely toxic and unsettling.
I also just want to note FTR that I didn't label QC's frame here as "toxic"
1
3
yeah, when you put it together the phrase “hold women accountable” has extremely cursed vibes for exactly that reason
so, not toxic per se, but evocative of something toxic because of context
2
5
Oof, yeah it's a relief to hear that reflected back and validated by another person tbh
1
4
oof hmm yeah that makes sense