From the article:
Girls have such strong opinions on it — it’s cute when they get all riled up.
Hmm. This sounds like he doesn’t take women seriously. If they get all riled up its just something cute. Why would it be cute? I think it’s because he doesn’t see the thing they’re getting angry about as serious. I think there’s a similar sentiment towards kids/younger people. Not necessarily anger, but when there’s drama in teen (or even younger) relationships, it’s just seen as dumb kid stuff too many. Nothing serious.
I ripped myself open for Myles, detailing my rape and the aftermath… but he kept interrupting me to say ‘allegedly’ and, ‘Um actually, innocent until proven guilty.’”
I think there’s some confusion here? Courts aren’t some ultimate arbiter of truth. They also get things wrong (though I am assuming that’s why he’s using words like “allegedly” and “innocent until proven guilty").
Hmm. Also, something I’ve noticed when it comes to rape is that theres a lot of stuff about being careful about calling someone a rapist. Which is fair I think. I do think its odd though that generally people aren’t as lenient with this stuff for other things. People are quick to assume on a lot of things. It also doesn’t feel genuine when they’re trying to be careful. Idk why but that guy sounds more like he doesn’t believe her, rather than “Oh we need to be careful about who we call rapists.”
Also, while there are troubles identifying rapists (and other criminals generally). If a girl got raped, she knows she got raped (though I think there’s some argument about this in certain cases? im just assuming a blatant really bad case). If so, I don’t think it makes sense to delegitimize the experience (I guess where I see it as delegitimizing is because I read “allegedly” as “you allegedly got raped”, he could’ve said that about numerous other things).
“I thought maybe an emotional plea would help him see us sexual assault victims as humans,” Frye added. “Instead he kept comparing my failed attempts to report my rape to police to his pain of not being ‘allowed’ to watch Louis C.K.’s new special.”
She failed to report the rape attempt. He was not allowed to watch a comedy special. What even is the comparison here? I’m confused.
“I’d go out again,” said Frye. “He was at least paying attention to what I was saying; maybe opened his mind a little.
I’ve heard this sentiment about listening from a few coworkers. I think a lot of them complain about their partners being poor listeners. I also remember hearing a different story, I think from LastWeekTonight(?), where John Oliver talked about scams. He made a joke that women get easily scammed by a dude who just pretended to listen to the women. That was the low bar that needed to be cleared.
“Nah, I’m not interested,” Soto countered privately. “I mean, we had a fun little debate about her basic human rights, but she started openly weeping. Too emotional. Plus she said she’d be down to split the chips and queso, but was in the bathroom when we settled the tab. Lame.”
Uhh. Idk what to even make of the stuff here. He was debating her basic human rights? Going off of how he’s been portrayed, I doubt he was arguing for them.
The bathroom comment doesn’t seem meaningful. Uhh was the bill payed at the table. Wait for her. Idk.
At press time, Soto was talking to a Jewish woman on Tinder and mentally preparing reasons why the Holocaust actually prevented an even worse global tradegy.
Yikes.
One thing comes to mind though: I don’t know how much of this is just messing with women versus just being a contrarian/rage-baiter/whatever.
I know one person in my life who just likes to argue with people for the sake of arguing. He’ll openly admit he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but he’ll argue on any topic. The other day he argued with somebody about Mamdani vs Cuomo. He talked about how great Cuomo is and later admitted that he: knew nothing about politics, knew nothing about these two candidates, and just thought it’d be funny to piss the other person off.