So I will say “individuals.”” Maybe she gets points for insight?ģ. But if I just say “men,” she will react to that word and drive the conversation in a different direction. Now you might be upset that she insisted I said “men” (when I didn’t), but in fact my interior monologue at the time was something like this: “We all know this is mostly about men. “disabled men.” I’ve committed numerous tongue and memory slips in my time, and they are hardly ever pointed out. Some listeners are teed off about “disabled individuals” vs. In this regard, even if you largely disagree with Amia Srinivasan, you should take the strength of the reaction to the episode as a sign she might have a valid point after all.Īnd to put it bluntly, if said female guest plausibly can be perceived as attractive, the reaction will be all the more disproportionate.Ģ. I realize that is a kind of cliche, but it is largely true. But people don’t like women who argue back. Had the episode been with a man, and had been comprised of the exact same words, it would not have received nearly the same attention or criticism. There is a much smaller intellectual and emotional space they are allowed to inhabit comfortably and without condemnation or excess judgment. The number, frequency, and extremity of reactions to the episode, both on Twitter and in the MR comments section, I think shows that women simply have a much, much tougher time in the public sphere. It seems unfair to the guest (who may or may not have comparable platforms), and perhaps it is the guest who deserves the last word? Still, I think I can at least try to clear up a few misunderstandings about the episode, as I see a number of important points at stake here. I am reluctant to do this, as I have never offered ex post commentary on a Conversations with Tyler before. Of course there is no single way to get it right with a few rules, so how about injecting a greater dose of individual choice? Or do they need to make a special rule letting people in vaccine-shy Kentucky get boosters too? At least the CDC head has had the guts to override the vaccine panel. Some experts seemed to suggest on Wednesday that it might be better to hold off on recommending any booster shots until recipients of all three vaccines could qualify for them. And for a further multi-cocktail blitz of what I can only call immoral insanity:Ĭommittee members also expressed concern on Thursday that some recommendations - particularly that certain younger Americans be allowed booster shots after an assessment of individual risks - would mean that only the wealthy and educated would gain access to additional shots.īetter that no one get such doses? Maybe so, just read further: I feel I do understand how, though of course I do not approve.
Sarah Long, a pediatrician and infectious diseases expert at Drexel University College of Medicine in Pennsylvania. “I just don’t understand how, later this afternoon, we can say to people 65 and older, ‘You’re at risk for severe disease and death, but only half of you can protect yourselves right now,’” said Dr. The advisers also wrestled with the practicalities of endorsing a booster shot for only Pfizer-BioNTech recipients, when close to half of vaccinated Americans have received Moderna or J.
0 kommentar(er)
