You presumed that because it did not put an emphasis on worrying about racism and sexism that it fails to grasp the point of worrying about racism and sexism, and perhaps even what the concepts mean; absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence; just because it didn't make mention of the point of worrying about racism and sexism, doesn't mean it fails to grasp the point of worrying about racism and sexism; it had a point it was making, and a legitimate one, and that is what it chose to focus on; I was likewise a bit struck by the same quality you have pointed to, but have not made the error of assuming absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Considering, in your post, there is an absence of evidence that you grasp the point the piece was making, by the same measure you have used to judge it -- that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence -- you could be said to fail to understand it.
That's not what I did, so your claim is still wrong. And since this seems to be your entire argument, there is no way you can ever make it right.
I'll watch the next episode of 'Six Feet Under' now.
"I trust what you are doing though…I just see it a little differently.
I don’t see it as you stepping away from the fire. I see it as the fire directing your course.
No matter how airy or earthy or watery you become... to many of us you will always be...a super nova."
"Behind these gates of seeming warmth sits, loosely chained, a fierce attack dog. Perhaps not crazy, but dangerous"