Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
We're entering #BlackLivesMatter v. #AllLivesMatter territory, here. The former implicitly excludes, while the latter is explicitly inclusive.
I think you're getting a little off track with this. #BlackLivesMatter isn't meant to be exclusive. The point is that the police are often failing treating black people with dignity and sometimes they are shooting them down in cold blood. That's something not all of us are dealing with. (Agreeing with what the Black Lives Matter "organization" has become is another matter.)
I'm sure it is very difficult for women to break into the male-dominated field of sports media. If DiCaro and Spain were approaching things from that perspective, they'd have a good argument. Instead they're choosing to focus on these silly Twitter beefs, which anyone who expresses a strong opinion on social media is subject to. Whitlock explained that pretty very well and got bashed by people who don't want to hear it for his trouble.
And yeah, our society judges women on their looks. That may not be fair but it's pretty disingenuous for a woman who used her awesome boobs to get to the Super Bowl to take a stand such a vocal stand against it.
My point is more the initial reception of a group or its message based on the presentation of said group or message. Sure, BLM isn't about exclusion, but can the layperson really be blamed for being skeptical of the movement at first blush? And, if they jump there--which I don't think is unreasonable--the support for police reform and oversight may be lacking from a certain contingent of voters, simply because the way the message (police officers kill too freely, especially black people) is presented to others (police officers kill too many black people; BLM seems to be a succinct value judgement over other lives rather than a call to action).
Similarly, while Julie seems to want to rally the troops around the "women in sports media are abused online" cause in an effort to tackle the larger issue of "people are super-shitty to others online for seemingly no particular reason", she and her cohorts may simultaneously turn off an entire section of possible supporters simply because she (JDC) wants to paint this (sometimes) as a strictly female issue, perhaps marginalizing--and enraging?--people that would otherwise be on board with her rhetoric.
If #MoreThanMean is about "harassment" and "abuse" online as media personalities, then male media figures certainly deserve a seat at the table. However, when Julie condescends to ostensible males asking for a male perspective on abuse with "you don't understand" and "stop mansplaining to me", how are men, in general, supposed to feel about Julie's cause?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
