1. I feel like the term of equivocation can be exemplified in this line:
"First comes the fairytale. Victims fall in love with the charming side of the abuser, a public persona." (Steiner, Why men like John Kelly do nothing when abuse allegations surface, CNN).
It feels romanticized. While it is accurate, it feels fluffy and so typical. It loses a lot of relaisticand rhetorical weight. What fairytale? Do they all look the same? What is it supposed to look like? Etc.
2. The title seems a little weird to me too.
"Why men like John Kelly do nothing when abuse allegations surface"
Like...of course they do nothing? They don't have to. They live in a world where abuse is brushed under the rug and it is only when "snowflakes" find the information is it a big deal. I don't like that this makes the article seem like it is being made about him. I understand the angle that the author is trying to take, which is to explain the hows and whys of abuse cycles, but I feel like the title is a fallacy somehow.
3. Then we maybe have a quote out of context:
"Relationship abuse thrives when otherwise intelligent, powerful people ignore its warning signs." (Steiner, Why men like John Kelly do nothing when abuse allegations surface, CNN).
The author is not really making it clear as to whether or not she is outlining just this case or if she is outlining every abuse case ever. For if she is outlining every abuse case ever, then she is glossing over so many individual instances where this sparkling term of "intelligent, powerful people" is weird and doesn't exactly fit for different reasons. She is cutting off a lot of her audience.
No comments:
Post a Comment