Vox offers a wealth of ridiculous and utterly bizarre takes. Since opening for business in 2014, it’s published innumerable absurd articles explaining things that need no primer. It’s explained so many, that a new verb was invented – “Voxsplaining.”
There are quite literally dozens of absurd “Vox explains what [ X] “really meant” — so much so that it would fill a book. Let’s take a look at a few.
In 2015, Vox Voxsplained that the Charlie Hebdo murders couldn’t be explained via the Hebdo cartoons mocking Islam’s Muhammad. Sure Charlie Hebdo constantly mocked French Muslims and their “prophet,” but who really knows what all those Muslims were there to do? It’s not just that the murderers claimed they were out to kill cartoonists.
And who can forget Gillette’s Super Bowl Ad in 2019? Gillette detested every man alive, calling men a bunch of misogynist creeps. Vox joined the fray to Voxsplain America. Vox explained what the Ad actually meant. It wasn’t just casting a net that “men are awful”; no, it was really an Ad:
“representing centuries of societal glorification of male violence or to make a compelling argument that proves women are people.”
It was, however, a vain effort. Voxsplaining is not required. The ad was simply a trash advert that sold razors to men and directly insulted every man living. Gillette was able to squander its stock by $350,000,000 within 6 months.
On Tuesday, Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson, completed her second day of testimony, and was questioned about basics, like the basis for Dred Scott (she couldn’t recall) and about her sentencing record of sexual predators. Her sentencing was well below the federal guidelines, she resisted. She “objected – she vigorously objected” to her sentences, and pointed out that she scolds each offender with the same story, before (in one case) sentencing the offender to three months.
Not surprisingly, she was also asked about past advocacy regarding sexual predator registries potentially being unconstitutional. My testimony was reminiscent of a Vox article that focused on Sex Offender Registries. Vox’s take on sex offender regiStries seems to align with the SCOTUS nominee’s past comments. In short, the length and breadth of sexual predator registries “are mean.” The Vox author crunched well over 3,500 words to explain that although a sexual offender registry was well-intentioned in the 1990s, it is “out of date” in the 21st Century.
In the first example of Voxsplaining, the author cites the case of a Texas man — Frank Rodriguez. A 19-year old man had sex in high school with his girlfriend, a 15-year-old girl. Her mother became fed up of her daughter’s 15-year-old son having sex and with an adult. He was sentenced for sexual assault, and he served seven years probation. He was married to his wife and has four children. However, he was put on the sexual offenders registry.
Some examples might not be as sympathetic, and that explains why it is called: “Why the sex offender registry isn’t the right way to punish rapists”
Vox asserts that there’s little evidence that registry systems work, because of the low recidivism rate. I’m not a criminologist or statistician but, a low rate of repeat offenders maybe indicates that — it does work?
In the 3,500 words of Voxsplaining, the author doesn’t offer any concrete solutions, only to complain that a life on a sexual registry is awful and that registries, are public, and people can look up registrants in the area, that’s just mean. In many states, there are some allowances for a registrant to petition to drop off the registry for “minor sexual offenses,” but the author never mentions that.
Vox’s posits:
“Something designed for one purpose ends up getting used for something else. As usual, it happened because people can’t agree on what society wants to do with criminals to begin with. Is the point of the sex offender registry to punish people for what they’ve done? Or is it to ensure that they don’t do it again?”
Likely both, and I’m fine with that.
What seems worrisome is that Biden’s SCOTUS nominee seems to agree (and did in the past) that sex offender registries are “mean” and might be unconstitutional. If she’s seated and this issue is raised, maybe John Roberts will agree that registries are mean, and therefore unconstitutional. This would create a problem.
About Post Author
