Maybe it's just that the story is still unfolding, but I'm reading the blog posts about Weiner's presser and I can't find answers to what I consider to be the only relevant questions. Which actually just, for me, highlights the distinction between a press that has some conception of a feminist viewpoint and ... what we have now.
Here's the liveblog. Summary: Weiner admits to inappropriate sexting that was "consensual," and says he sent the crucial tweet in question.
My reaction: If what we're talking about is Weiner engaging in a form of cyber cheating with women who are entirely consenting, and above legal age, my reaction is still - meh. I don't need news stories about every elected official who has had an affair, and I really don't need them about every elected official who has had a
cyber affair.
But the thing is, the college student who got the tweet in question - how did she consent, exactly? I mean, sure, it's possible she's been lying to the press, but it sure sounded sincere when she said she'd never had any personal contact with Weiner and wasn't expecting anything like that tweet.
Which means either (a) the tweet was misdirected (speculation the NY Post floated; her name is similar to someone else that Weiner had had private contact with), or (b) Weiner's definition of "consensual" is in no way my definition of consensual.
But the press's focus - and even the blog focus - seems to be "sex! cheating!" and not, you know, "harassment!" I don't even see these questions being asked.
Random pictures of your penis at unsuspecting women? Unacceptable. Characterizing that as "consensual"? Sort of horrifying.