Woozle Hypertwin
 Durham, NC,  last edited: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 08:35:19 -0500  
(It's about time I tried some serious posting here...)

It's important to always follow due process.
Image/photo
2017: Liberals politely invite neo-fascists to debate their opinions in TV, then prove them wrong with their witty arguments. White supremacy, *phobia and neo-fascism promptly disappear from the public discourse.
(via Antanicus @ social.coop on the Mastodon network)

Well... okay, it's important for the oppressed to follow it. The oppressors have more important things to do. The spice must flow.

It's also important that the oppressed not appear to be reasonable about things like due process, so that it's fair if the oppressors won't follow it [either].

This is how actual Fake News is created: not by lying about the facts (usually), but by distorting popular perception (in this case, popular perception of The Feminist Position(tm)).
by Ijeoma Oluo‏
Verified account @IjeomaOluo

"Yeah so check this shit out:

today I got a call from a major national paper I'd never worked with before, offering work...

Saying they were writing an editorial about these recent sexual harassment and abuse cases. They were going to write about how it's great that women are coming forward, but that we need to treat each case individually and remember due process.

They wanted to know if I would write a rebuttal to their editorial.

I was like, um... call me... I need more info.

This woman calls me, says basically the same thing... they're glad women are coming forward but they support due process etc. Would I write a counter to that?

I'm like, "no, because of course I believe in due process, but I'll write a response. "

I say I'll happily write about how their priorities are skewed and that the due process that's missing is the due process for the women coming forward. & if anything, these stories of years of abuse are testament to men getting more than due process.

And maybe instead of immediately trying to recenter the concerns of men because, like, 5 white dudes got fired, we should wonder about the countless women whose careers never even got off the ground because when they were harassed, there was NO process, let alone due process.

She says she'll ask the editors and get back to me.

She calls back a few minutes later and says, "what they want is to write that they believe in due process...& they want you to write that you don't. &if a few innocent men get fired it's worth it to protect women...

"Will you write that? "

I'm like, "NO."

So now I'm sitting here like [pictured]

Because to me, this is how this shit looks: they wanted to write a "reasonable" editorial that makes them look compassionate yet responsible while slyly shifting this debate back to the needs of men...

While I play the role of feminazi yelling, "FUCK DUE PROCESS FIRE ALL DUDES."

And an actual response to their shit, pointing out how their debate is contrived misogynistic bullshit is not at all what they want.

So dudes can shit their pants in fear &label us as unhinged vigilantes and they can go back to ignoring abuse while looking like the good guys.

And they wanted to use me to do that.

This is an insult to my work, an insult to my intellect, and an insult to every person who has been brave enough to come forward with abuse.

And so much of this discussion is deliberately orchestrated like this.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around what just went down. But for now I'll say this: don't be manipulated into prioritizing abusers over the abused. Look at the debates happening & always ask: who benefits from this dialogue the way that it is?

Note: I misspoke on first tweet. My first contact with them was via email, not call. They emailed me & then I told them to call me.
(via Nila Jones on G+)

There's a follow up here (Tweet, comment) which almost makes me madder than the above, and is redeemed only somewhat by the fact that USA Today was apparently unable to find someone else they could present as an Angry Feminist(tm) to write their rebuttal.

(Incidentally, this kind of exposes the whole sham of their "unique feature" of presenting a rebuttal to every editorial position: they get to choose the position the rebuttal takes. That's not how it works, guys; you're presenting this as an open forum where all ideas are free to be challenged, but what you're creating is an instrument for manipulation... and don't try to tell me that isn't exactly what you intended.)

The author here seriously deserves a medal for her integrity in refusing to take money in exchange for playing the part they tried to assign her (and probably losing any possibility of writing for them ever again), and USA Today deserves a workplace revolt to prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again.

(adapted from posts on Google+ here and here)