So then doesn't that render what you've said moot?
No. I still think his original "letter" post was condescending to both Rebecca and to a certain number of Muslim women (because not all of them endure what many of the ones in the Middle East and Africa endure). I think he was telling Rebecca that she was being petty, in light of what other women have to endure.
Since you are choosing to ignore what Richard specifically says his position is not, what advantage could there be to asking him to clarify or explain his position further (third times a charm?).
I'm not ignoring it. I read it. I considered it. I don't think his explanation did him any favors, nor did it change my opinion. He makes it quite clear that he indeed thinks what happened to Rebecca is petty, when compared to the actual suffering of Muslim women, and that her mild complaint about it was equally petty.
He clearly compares a man being in an elevator with another man chewing gum as the same thing as a woman in an elevator being propositioned by a stranger at 4 am (when, by the way, the "crowded hotel" isn't all that crowded, most everyone being in bed).
Standing next to a man chewing gum, and standing next to a man who is asking you to come to his hotel room are two quite different things.
And when it comes to whether or not he can be brought to redeem himself for a position he does not hold...
For perhaps the third or fourth time now,
I never asked him to redeem himself. I didn't start the thread so titled. I missed his follow-up explanations, but now that I've read them, they haven't changed my mind about the condescending tone of his "letter," nor his disrespect to both Rebecca and to those Muslim women whose suffering so moves him.
Let's say there were a similar situation, in which a woman made a complaint of mild abuse, and someone held me up as an object of suffering. In so doing, they tried to make the complainant feel guilty she hadn't suffered as much as I, and how dare she be so petty. I'd be not only furious with that person, but ashamed of his or her tactics. How dare they use me and my having been abused to denigrate someone else with a legitimate complaint. How dare they use me as a cudgel to beat another woman?
If you are unable to see how wrong that is, then we have nothing more to talk about, you're right.
Of course. Don't worry. I won't offer you any more words which you will be obliged to ignore or to take as meaning the opposite of what they say.
(ETA: I just realized that that looks like "I'm not talking to you any more." I just mean that I'm not going to impose on you and clarify my point to you.)
Linda
That's quite all right; you needn't. I understand it well. You do know, I hope, that the fact that I don't agree with you doesn't mean I've ignored you, or taken words at their opposite meaning.
It means your argument wasn't convincing, and I don't agree. That sometimes happens.
