As I've been following the news regarding DeShaun Watson and the growing number of suits filed against him for sexual assault, I can't help but wonder a few things.
1. When the media and the left are forced to choose between competing victim groups, which group will get thrown under the bus and why?
2. Why has there been so little coverage of this story outside of sports media?
3. If we find out that the accusers are filing suit as a way to get an easy payoff, and that their accusations are either false or exaggerated, will it reset the narrative going forward that we must always believe all women?
4. Will the teams that seemed interested in acquiring Watson from Houston catch flack from the media/left for being racist, when it's more about not wanting to sign a guy who's currently carrying some sexual assault baggage?
It's interesting to see the silence from the left when these sorts of intersections happen, especially on Twitter. I suspect that if Watson was white, that there would be a much greater outcry than there currently is. Obviously, it's still early and we don't know enough to make determinations yet, but I suspect if he was white there'd be all sorts of folks jumping to all sorts of conclusions. Maybe he's got some privilege.
7 comments:
Despite their celebrity, athletes of even Watson's caliber don't really carry the same level of interest with regard to bad behaviors as do political figures. And federal politicians will provoke more media interest than will local politicians. It's just a news thing.
Like all such stories, I hope objective investigation results in the truth being exposed.
While I think there might be some truth to your comment, it's interesting to think that Watson seems to have entered these encounters with precisely the same attitude displayed by Trump is his "grab 'em" comments. The attitude that his money, power, and status would make these women "want" to give in to his sexual advances.
I would also suggest that boys and young men's attitudes toward sexual relationships are more shaped by watching their athletic hero's actions, as well as by porn, which is leading to unrealistic sexual expectations from boys/young men when they become sexually active. Which raises questions about whether making dating choices focused primarily on the physical attractiveness of the potential partner and the (real or perceived) sexual availability/accommodation of the potential partner is beneficial to stable long term marriages.
Which goes back to feminism and it's influences. Most feminists don't seem to value a long term, monogamous, marriage and the raising of children as particularly important.
Craig... "Most feminists don't seem to value a long term, monogamous, marriage and the raising of children as particularly important."
Is it fair to say that this attack on women is just something you pulled out your ass? That you have no data whatsoever to support such a stupid claim?
Follow up question: do you ever stop to think about the words you say...? Does it not bother you that you come across as women haters and oppressors?
"Is it fair to say that this attack on women is just something you pulled out your ass?"
No. Had you read my words, you'd have noticed that I qualified my opinion multiple ways. But twisting people's words to suit yourself is par for the course for you, I simply expect it.
"That you have no data whatsoever to support such a stupid claim?"
If you'd prefer, then think of it as my subjective opinion based on what I've seen and read. But, when I have a minute, I'll pull up some "data".
"Follow up question: do you ever stop to think about the words you say...?"
Almost always.
"Does it not bother you that you come across as women haters and oppressors?"
No, what you think about me doesn't bother me in the least. Given your inability to accurately summarize things that I've said, your penchant for misrepresenting my positions, your frequent lies and ad hom attacks, I've learned that your opinions have literally zero value to me.
Jesus said that we'd be attacked for our faith, so I simply expect these sorts of attacks.
You're not being attacked for your faith, moron. You're being called on to the carpet for your attacks on women and your defense of attacks on women.
When oppressors try to feign being oppressed, it's just pathetic and obvious to all but the ignorant.
I guess sarcasm doesn't always translate well, my bad.
But excellent job on keeping up with the attacks, for whatever reason. Of course, there have been no attacks on women from me, but that's a different matter.
"Given your inability to accurately summarize things that I've said, your penchant for misrepresenting my positions, your frequent lies and ad hom attacks, I've learned that your opinions have literally zero value to me."
You forgot his willingness and eagerness to find fault where it doesn't exist. He does this to better contrast others versus him so his moral bankruptcy isn't as apparent. Doesn't work, but that's what he's doing. It's pretty obvious. To put it in his own terms, it's how he always comes across.
Getting back to the point, I just read a headline stating Watson's latest accuser is supposed to be most credible. I didn't read as to why. I haven't been closely following the story.
With regard to whether or not he's parroting Trump's story about gold diggers or groupies or whatever, it's not at all uncommon. Indeed, many teenage boys have access to hot babes as incentive for entering sports or entertainment. Those for whom that's the main incentive don't necessarily succeed in the career.
The question here...and it's certainly true for Trump, for that matter...is whether or not it applies in all cases involving the celeb and a woman. Obviously not all women are swayed by wealth and celebrity...or even the best looks of a guy (eye of the beholder notwithstanding). And I can easily envision someone who's used to having women fawn him because of wealth and celebrity presuming that those who don't are merely being coy, and then getting aggressive. This is what bringing these cases, not only to light, but to trial should reveal. As hard as it surely is for some women, if you're not prepared to take it the distance, why bother mentioning it at all? If the cad isn't found guilty and made to suffer some form of punishment, what's the point? If I knew such a woman, I would encourage her in that regard, lending whatever support I can offer that she'd accept. If she chose not to accuse him publicly, the support is still on the table.
Moreover, I'm really tired of the press publicizing this sort of thing without a true chance of the case being resolved. Exploiting these things is abominable, and if the dude is truly innocent, it's hard to erase that stain the false accusation has left.
As for Watson, if he's innocent, he should get his ass in the courtroom and argue his case or at least make it known he's ready and willing to defend himself.
Post a Comment