While this is useful as a point of information, I want to point out the "geeky" guys who do not engage in public "macho excess" can, and do, still visit sexist abuses on women individually.— Erin Conroy #SaveOurState #CloseTheCamps (@chargrille) July 22, 2019
Monday, July 22, 2019
Remember Sen. Al Franken?
No, I haven't read it yet. I was never convinced he should have resigned, and the arguments raised about "believing the women" have always been a short-circuit, to me, to jump from accusation to conviction without even the bother of a kangaroo court. And this time, we have Twitter to decide the really important issues!
That's the one that directed me to this, and some of the responses are classic "men deserve it because accusations!" stuff. Which is nothing more than concluding that if someone, anyone, is accused of an infraction, either social or criminal, they are guilty, end of discussion. That's an old problem, but arguing that in some cases you are righting old wrongs, doesn't fix it. Two wrongs, as my mother insisted in my childhood, don't make a right.
Of course, the simple narrative is always preferable to the complicated reality, and punishment is always preferred over consideration of complexity. Or, as Lucy once said after she punched Linus in the middle of an attempt at mediation: "I had to hit him quick. He was beginning to make sense!"
Aside from Jane Mayer taking bows for her article (it's her Twitter feed, after all), this is a good point to contemplate:
So what does "guilty" mean? And how pure is our purity test for who is allowed in the sandbox? This, for example, is the kind of thing Twitter loves:
Which is true, but does that mean Al Franken is guilty? Of what? Being male? Being accused? Being a Senator? Being "geeky"?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Posted by Rmj at 2:24 PM