Maybe add some discounting statements? The whole article is sort of a discounting statement about what is about to be said, if she does say it. Something like, "I know you might think X, but X is not the case because Y". Head the objection off at the pass.
Or it's better for the cadence and call to action of the article for her to join in and act as if she is also mediocre and okay about it, so you should too. So she makes the claim, regardless of her actual belief (she might sort of believe it, too).
I guess this is not getting through, but she's not submitting the article to you for you to evaluate. She's not obliged to tell you about any of this in the first place, and she can give as much or as little detail as she feels is appropriate. If you just don't trust her, then quotes would make no difference. If you are willing to believe her, then believe also that a woman is perfectly capable of figuring out when she's being harassed and doesn't need you to check her reasoning for her. The idea that you are going to find some flaw in her reasoning on the basis of a few quotes, with no knowledge of the individuals or situations involved, is really quite absurd.
"As a member of the board I am completely aligned with that view."
If she were asked to stop at "the board believe X are a tremendous partner", then as a member of the board, she'd be implying the last sentence, but not actually saying it. (I couldn't comment on whether or not she'd be fine with the implication either.)
> I think I've got two main issues with these comments.
> The first is: Why do you think you can speak for her? Why do you think you get it?
> The second is: Why do you think she can speak for you? Why do you assume she knows how she is affecting people by her dress?
To criticize an interpretation, you would point out a specific statement that someone has said about the meaning of something, and why you think that isn't true. You're literally just repeating that no one knows anything and shouldn't assert things because things may or may not be true, just verbosely.
Really, if there were a point to the essay, she might have included "I'm not prejudiced, but..." after which some feel free to let go with remarks to give Ben Tillman pause.
You've fallen into the trap the article talks about, in expecting the woman in the story to be talking logically and therefore held to a high standard of discourse.
People say over-the-top, outrageous things out of emotionality, when they may mean something far less or completely different.
Instead of seeing the woman's statements as a logical argument, one should see them as the expressions of emotion that they are, and try to engage in talk that connects to the emotions and experiences underneath.
I agree. Maybe not the best choice of words, but it's useful information.
I'm actually impressed by her response. It wasn't to go out and complain about his comment, it was to analyze it and see if it was something useful she could use.
> I'd hope she come talk to me about it if she sees it.
What should that conversation look like? If you've educated her already, wouldn't it be fine for her simply to dismiss it and move on when she encounters it?
I think her tone is quite antagonising and I am not sure if it is intentional:
" No one wants to live in a world where the little German lady with her oh-so rational arguments ends up being right. Not even the German lady wants that. Wait, what did I say? I must be crazy."
This is meant to sound self-deprecating (I think) but in the context of the articles comes across as arrogant to me because clearly she thinks she is not the little lady, and others are irrationally ignoring her superior insights. Could be a cultural artefact but it makes her articles uncomfortable to read for me.
> Why should she self-examine? To adhere to your standards for behavior?
I believe "lack of self-examination" is code for "she expresses views I find distasteful, that I believe she would change if she self-examined. I also want to imply she has not done so and kept her views".
> Instead of seeing the woman's statements as a logical argument, one should see them as the expressions of emotion that they are, and try to engage in talk that connects to the emotions and experiences underneath.
Why not afford to the men and women who respond to her that same privilege?
It's clear to the reader that it's her point of view. It's assumed the reader is a mature social creature who naturally considers context, the speaker, their knowledge, etc., not a credulous empty vessel that just accepts whatever is poured in.
Please share the truth, it's good medicine.
Maybe you benefitted from this discussion ;)
reply