I don't think he's pissed off because she's a woman, he's pissed about because she's critical. Still, when he says someone will be "personally" responsible for someone's sexual assault, he's essentially trivializing sexual assault. It's like saying that a rape victim is "partially at fault", it's wrong, indefensible and misogynistic.
It's a world apart from blaming victims, obviously. But the Uber exec is clearly suggesting we should blame the journalist for other people's sexual assault.
sorry I respectfully disagree -- here a SVP of a company is essentially saying, "by recommending people to not use my product, you are responsible if they get assaulted" -- it's essentially shifting the blame around a sex crime in a way that to my eyes really minimizes who is responsible for such crimes, the perpetrators. It's also such a flippant remark that it seems to me to show a callous indifference to what it means to be a victim of such a crime.
ps, agree with scarmig's point -- he's not "blaming the victim" but it does feel like shifting the blame, which minimizes what these crimes mean.
Lacy says Uber make her feel unsafe. Using the same deeply flawed logic, doesn't that feel like shifting the blame around a sex crime in a way that really minimizes who is responsible for such crimes, the perpetrators?
No, it isn't. This culture of "words mean whatever I want them to mean" is ridiculous. His statement does not express hatred of women. So it is not misogynistic. Turning misogyny into a buzzword that everyone ignores because it is never used appropriately is not beneficial.
