--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > I just can't buy 100% into this victimhood stigma > > > you wrap these women in. > > > > I have to say it bothers me as well. It's one thing > > to sympathize with a person's pain from the results > > of a bad choice, and quite another to strip them of > > any agency in making that choice. > > I haven't seen anyone doing this.
I guess we've been reading different posts. <snip> > > I think we should give them implicit credit for > > having recognized they made a bad choice, do what > > we can to soothe their pain, and leave it at that. > > There was a continuum of how much "choice" as involved > for these women. In the case of a single mother > dependent living month to month on a paycheck when the > boss comes on to them, the choice is pretty small. > For a young woman in a foreign country being employed > and supported by their guru, I don't think the "choice" > aspect is the problem. It shouldn't be a "problem" in any of the cases. It's just a fact that there was some element of choice. The "problems" are in either assuming they had no choice, or blaming them for the choice that was made. > > Part of the motivation for portraying them as > > helpless victims lacking a will of their own > > seems to be that it facilitates demonizing MMY. > > The less agency the women are accorded, the more > > important his agency becomes, hence the harsher > > the blame that can be piled on him. > > This seems like a manufactured argument. We'll have to agree to disagree. It's been quite prominent in some of the posts, in my observation. <snip> > > Not that he doesn't deserve the lion's share of > > blame. > > Legally he gets all the blame if he is an employer. I wasn't aware we were speaking legally. None of the women sued him, as far as I'm aware. <snip> > And > > it dehumanizes MMY by suggesting that he himself > > never felt even a shred of remorse. Maybe he > > didn't, but we don't know that. > > I couldn't care less about his remorse, neither do the > ethical standards and laws. Nobody asked you to "care" about it. I'm simply suggesting you acknowledge the possibility. <snip> > The second post here is much more troubling because this > person refused. I hope she will post some of the > ramifications of that "choice" so we can more accurately > focus on the side of the relationship the ethical > standards and laws are meant to protect. Obviously my post had nothing to do with those who refused.
