Slate vs. Mrs. Vance: Some Questions
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Nobody should be mystified by Usha Vance’s politics, writes Scaachi Koul : “What ultimately matters is who she’s married to, and that she remains married to him.”
A few questions about this: Does this apply to all wives? Does it apply to husbands? Is the suggestion that the Vances should have divorced over politics?
She continues, “We don’t need to know too much about Vance’s personal ideology to know where she lands. She’s married to the originator of the ideology in question, and so her stance is clear. We just don’t like it, and we want to give her more chances to escape.” Another question: Who’s this “we” Koul keeps talking about?
“Her allegiances are not to her race, her gender, the community she was born into. They’re to her husband, and that’s an agreement women have been making since the advent of the marriage license.” She’s . . . supposed to be loyal to her race? Some details on what that would entail, please? And marriage has always involved wives’ disloyalty to their race and community? That would be news to a lot of historians.
“The public hope around Vance seems to be that she could soften her husband, that her position in a minority group could sway him toward a more moderate stance when it comes to abortion or immigration.” Where does this weird definition of the public come from? How has it been constructed to exclude the tens of millions of Americans who favor deporting illegal immigrants or oppose abortion?
“What white voters, conservative and liberal alike, seem to forget is the long tail of the model-minority myth, one that many in the South Asian diaspora have aligned themselves with for decades. From Dinesh D’Souza to Nikki Haley to Vivek Ramaswamy to your loser cousin who’s convinced he got into Georgetown because he’s smarter than everyone and not because of affirmative action, there are endless examples in our public lexicon.” What possible basis is there for the author — or her editors — to believe that affirmative action in college admissions works to the advantage of people of South Asian descent?
And are you sure it’s your cousin who’s the loser in your family?
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
312 visitors
Her allegiances are not to her race, her gender, the community she was born into. They’re to her husband
This is how toxic progressivism has become. It's wrong to support your spouse. They expect women to be loyal to their RACE over their spouse.
"Sorry hon, the white race demands I oppose you." What insanity.
This is the same mindset of the people in communist states that teach kids their loyalty belongs to the state and not to their family. It's depraved.
Keeping racists like the Slate author far away from power is one of the strongest reasons to vote for Trump.
Her worldview is incompatible with a diverse democracy.