RE straw men, look at your list of things the article is supposed to have said and see if they are…
ELSEVAR
1

Well, the victimhood narrative to which I initially responded with my diatribe was not really the main issue. Let’s go back to the article:

Women are mistreated at work every day. It’s horrible, disgusting, and it needs to stop.
But guess what? There’s an even bigger problem.

Throughout the entire piece, the author chose to not bring any evidence, statistics, or even an overview of a case and instead settled with just making that assertion.

She did, however, cited the accusation itself that don’t hold too much merit. People are expected to trust the word of the accuser and as the author later emphasize, not question her assertion. This does not hold true to the accused, who she demonize and made an effort to bring attention to the fact that the company’s founders are both males.

She later cites messages from social media (as though they are in any way relevant), of unknown individuals supporting the founders (not necessarily the company). Those individuals might be female and not necessarily male, but the author doesn’t bother pointing to the gender of the individuals and portrays the support as some “dude-bro” behavior.

Toward the end of the article, the author writes:

Imagine if the claims are in fact legitimate, imagine how the plaintiff would feel knowing that the world isn’t going to help her.

She’s not pointing to factual evidence or at least, circumstantial evidence that can indicate that that accusation might be true, but instead rely on the perception of the accuser and her mental state, putting it beyond the importance of truth. She is promoting double standards based on the assertion that women are perceived to be less than men and therefore require special privilege.

Later on, she writes:

By dismissing women who speak up when they feel mistreated, we are ensuring that misconduct will continue to happen.
When someone is telling you they are being hurt, take a moment to listen to them.

She is conflating listening with believing. Again, the focus is on feelings and assumptions that this misconduct actually happens on a larger scale.

How does this relate to intersectionality? The assertion that women are always beneath men in society and that a woman making a claim should be believed and doubt should not be cast about her assertion, even if she is not part of the conversation.

The author is putting more emphasis on the gender of the accuser, than the relevant parts of the case.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.