To Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and any other man who needs to hear this: if you have to contextualize sexual violence against women by imagining it happening to your wife, daughter, etc. in order to appropriately act, you are very much part of the problem.
There is something so darkly disgusting beyond the pale that sexual violence needs to be rationalized this way in order to be taken seriously. There is a not-so-subtle implication that it strikes at men themselves from some perverse "property" thinking. It's honestly horrific.
This is not a "men" problem. There are countless men who don't seem to need a detailed walkthrough of the ethical illustrations of sexual violence. I refuse to believe that men are incapable of naturally getting this. You get no excuses. Period.
Prime Minister Nancy Morrison said her husband Michael gave her context for why getting kicked in the fucking balls with steel-toed boots is bad by asking what if this had been her son.
"Michael has a way of clarifying these things; he always has", she said.
It's just the most jarring combination of condescension and horror. Christ almighty, wake the fuck up.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Whatever you may think of The Lincoln Project and their effectiveness, the simple fact remains that if the Democratic Party and progressive movement invested more in grassroots organizations already doing the work, no one would ever even perceive a need for TLP. Invest locally.
Maybe they work. Maybe they don't. I think that's even more moot than it was last week. You know what does work? The progressive grassroots organizations already doing the labor and moving the needle, even in spaces in our country that are conservative. Support them.
I think, too, that so many Democrats have this internal fear that Republicans are better at making ads. That's not true. They're better at pandering shamelessly in one of two directions: saturated patriotism or saturated racism (sometimes both). And there's no counterpoint.
This.... doesn't make sense. If they're not the fastest or best because of a young trans woman, then it would follow that the scholarship had been offered to the young trans woman. Do you have any examples of this?
Like... if your answer is that "well, they didn't recruit a young trans woman because she's trans, obviously", wouldn't that mean these experienced and obsessed recruiters would move on to the hypothetical second place cis woman?
Again: this is completely illogical.
I mean, really think this through for all of ten seconds. College recruiters know every competitor at the top level in high school. If the young woman is openly trans, they'd know that. If she beat a cis woman, they'd know that. Yet, somehow... no scholarships for anyone? C'mon.
Some personal news: I'll be joining @Catholic4Choice as their Director of Communications and Strategy on February 1st. As a Christian and someone deeply committed to pro-choice policies and reproductive health, it's a dream to join this team of brilliant advocates. (1/2)
Catholics for Choice is a pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ, pro-equality org that centers marginalized voices. Our new president @jamielmanson doesn't shy away from tough fights, and I feel grateful to be working for her. I'd like to ask folks for two favors in this next chapter...
1. I would love if you could all follow @Catholic4Choice to keep up with our work.
2. Please consider making a donation to the org through this announcement link. These next few years will be especially tough for repro rights, and we could use your help: catholicsforchoice.salsalabs.org/comms