Link: time.com/5160427/forgiving-sexual-assault-perpetrators-metoo/?xid=homepage
2. Author Jill Filipovic is clearly attached to the topic of harassment scandals, not only because this is her 6th article on social justice since October, but also because of how in depth she is when she writes. Few of the paragraphs are less than 4 sentences, and those which are generally serve to lead into another idea or sub-topic. The diction, as mentioned above, plays a role. Going back to the in-depth nature of the piece, Filipovic gives many examples of different sub-topics; for example, she gives 8 examples of harassers in the first paragraph alone. 3. Despite all the talk of forgiveness and coming to terms with the past, the actual tone of this piece, when combined with the diction, comes off as somewhat self-righteous and hypocritical. For example, she claims that "redemption and forgiveness are not synonymous with a return to fame, and...being forgiven of one’s sins does not mean...restoration to one’s previous...power" but previously brings up criticism of Harvard for rejecting a woman's admission because she committed murder. Regardless of personal opinion on the matter, it was Harvard's and Harvard's choice alone to reject her. Why should she be accepted for a crime equally or arguably worse than rape?
2. A fair amount of appositives are used, mostly to give more context to the harasses and their current situations. 3. One could argue that Diane Moore, the original lawyer for Michelle Jones, the woman who murdered her disabled son, calling Harvard's rejection of the latter inappropriate was hyperbole.
2. The general purpose of this story is in the title: forgiving the men accused in the #MeToo movement, while acknowledging the fact that they aren't likely to return to their previous positions of power. The piece also subtly hints at a desire for prison reform, though this paragraph is actually irrelevant in the context of this story. 3. In the wake of the Weinstein scandal, more and more men of influence have been accused of sexual misconduct, and this all came to a head at the turn of the new year, when the #MeToo movement was formed to combat it. However, while there's no denying the fact that the actions of the former were unacceptable, it seems as if no one is remembers that these men, for all their faults, are just people: they make mistakes, screw up. It also seems as if members of the movement have become increasingly more extreme in their attempts to curb these events from happening. So a desire for forgiveness of these men is a position of value, mostly because it both lets the accused know redemption is possible, while also quelling the more intense movement members.
2. A large majority of the evidence used is allusions, most of which are to the perpetrators of these acts; aside from those, the author either references enablers of these men or those with plights similar to that of them. Beyond that, little other evidence is used. There is a statistic used regarding incarceration rates, but it holds little to no influence on the paper. Likewise, 3. While the argument is solid for the most part, there are parts where it fails. As mentioned above, paragraphs 6-8 are filler in terms of contributions to the overall argument, and the logic of Michelle Jones' plight compared to that of Spacey and Franken is flawed. However, one major issue I want to draw attention to is the fact that Filipovic never looks at the issue from a non-liberal view, as the article never even attempts to see this issue from a conservative view. In addition to sidetracking from her argument to talk about the need for more women in film, which holds no merit to anything mentioned prior, she even held the left as morally superior and mocked conservatives by saying, "On the left, our politics and our ideals simply don’t hold up if we don’t believe people can change. On the right, forgiveness is baked in Christianity, in which all sin can be forgiven with repentance".
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |