Up until this paragraph, I thoroughly enjoyed your book. As you'll probably guess from my feed (if you make it this far) I rarely use this platform, but it felt important to raise this with you on the off chance you'll read this & that some of this criticism will resonate (end)
One obvious alternative is she wasn't happy with either man's sexual advances. Saying it was because she was "sleepy" felt unnecessarily dismissive of her and her dissenting position. "Sleepy" people can be coerced into sex 7/8
Additionally, using the example of Ekaterina "merely tolerating" her husband as evidence that it wasn't significant that she also "merely tolerated" her Uncle ignores so many other interpretations of that attitude. You dismiss it as her character 6/8
Abuse victims don't have to write of their agony or hate their abusers or even recognise the actions as abuse to classify it this way. They can even live happy lives after abuse. Implying only miserable lives = abuse is dangerously simplistic. 5/8
Add to that, that his nieces were financially and socially dependent on him. You state that him sleeping with his younger, dependent nieces was merely "a peccadillo" because they were "willing partners" and that they can't have been damaged because 3/8
they had happy marriages and stayed close to him and wrote fondly of him. This feels dangerously blinkered about the effects of abuse and the definition of abuse. It ignores that the consequences of abuse aren't always simplistically obvious 4/8
Victims often don't want to see beloved authority figures in a negative light and will seek normalisation rather than vilification - even in our modern society where they would be better supported in speaking out than Potemkin's nieces would have been 2/8
@simonmontefiore after hearing your excellent interview on Battleground, I bought Catherine the Great & Potemkin. I was loving it until I came to the attached passage about Potemkin's incest. Thought it worthwhile to highlight that family abuse is complicated 1/8
@campbellclaret@RestIsPolitics@RoryStewartUK@USSupremeCourt FYI on the Supreme Court part - the NYT Daily podcast did a great analysis of the Lorie Smith's case and it looks like there wasn't a real customer that was refused - rather she & a conservative org created/brought the case as a way of getting a decision in a favourable setting.
Should Russia dictate global food security and Ukraineโs grain export? I think not. The West needs to stop assuming that Russia is indispensable and take the initiative. How? A report https://t.co/4saNArCfNY and a short thread:
Liz Truss "I have acted decisively"
-
decisively
adverb
1.
in a manner that settles an issue convincingly or produces a definite result.
2.
in a way that shows the ability to make decisions quickly and effectively.
#UKPolitics#LizTruss#Definitions#ThePrincessBride
The lack of empathy is astounding.
The only way to listen w/out a hernia is bingo w/ the phrases "decisive action" "facing difficult times" "economic growth" "reduce inflation by 5 pts" "not afraid of tough decisions" "Putin's war""70 yr high"
#LizTruss
https://t.co/ZkAXOPkGUP
@restispolitics@campbellclaret@RorystewartUK Question about cash and social change - is there a way to create a direct link between those who value something - say the rainforests in the Amazon, or orangutans in Borneo - and the people that live with them (cont) 1/2
So that essentially we donate and that becomes a payment for the continued existence of that thing & according the number of that thing? In other words create a passive income that increases as the valued thing increases. 2/2
So if this NY Times podcast is right, the #UN's @ISBAHQ has ensured almost the exact opposite of its mandate has been fulfilled - disadvantaging developing nations and imperilling the environment - and is unapologetic about it.
https://t.co/cJEEyOWig3