PZ pointed out James Taranto before, way back last February.
Ew.
There is a political panic about sexual assault in the military, which is a genuine problem, but people are – you know – taking it out by trying to convict men whether or not they’re guilty.
…
This seems to be turning into an effort to criminalize male sexuality, much as we see with sexual conduct codes on campus.
There it is again! All the time. You could make a bingo card where all the squares are “criminalize male sexuality” and still win (or lose). I wish somebody could explain to me A) what exactly do they mean by “male sexuality”, B) why is it so much more important than harassment and rape, and C) why is it apparently so easily confused with rape in harassment that an attempt to fight one is an attack on the other?
Is it just shit men do to “get” women? So in fighting the really bad things, the really really really important “benign” things are somehow threatened! And of course, without those, the human race will cease to exist!
No, Taranto, I don’t know. How about some specifics to back up your taunt?
Seconding the questions about male sexuality. It’s that easy to confuse it with harassment? Really?
(Not in my world, but we’re not accepting immigrants from Tarantoland.)
The other thing I had to get into comments to say is that nobody is really equal. Short men aren’t as strong as tall men. Smart men are not as stupid as stupid men. Blond men sunburn more easily than black men. But somehow it’s only women who must be denied equal pay and human treatment to prevent civilization from tottering.
@Radioactive Elephant #1: In case you’re not just asking rhetorically, it’s because such people view ‘male sexuality’ (as though such a category is ever useful for anything other than gender normalization) as inherently predicated on rape, sexual assault, or at least harassment. When they accuse feminists of saying all sex is rape or criminalizing/pathologizing male sexuality, it is pure projection. They are also tacitly admitting – if they’re men (or “male”) – that they themselves have internalized rape/assault/harassment as a core part of their own sexualities: were this not the case, they would obviously object to their own characterization on the basis of #notallmen. Anyone who claims that is tacitly admitting that ze is at least potentially a rapist/sexual assaulter/sexual harasser.
I presume if you walked up to James Taranto on the street, punched him bloody and took his wallet, he wouldn’t utter a squeak about the totalitarianism of criminalizing male aggression and ambition.
Aie, sorry about the comparison of property theft to sexual assault. I know it’s not helpful, and it didn’t occur until I clicked ‘Post Comment’ that that was what I did.
No I don’t think that’s what you did. I mean, literally it is, but not in the sense of saying the two are equivalent. I think it’s a perfectly legit and useful analogy.
Radioactive Elephant @1:
And D), why is something that is innate automatically moral? Imagine if people spontaneously exploded when touched on the top of their heads: would it be moral to shrug our shoulders and say “too bad, so sad” when we’re capable of putting helmets on everyone? Likewise, if some or even all men are prone to non-consensual sex, the answer is not to blindly accept those situations, it’s to do everything within reason to prevent that from happening.
The people pushing that argument think men are sub-human and everyone else is incapable of doing anything about that. They are the true man-haters, not feminists, and the science backs up that claim.
Anthony K @6:
The punch to the nose was (forgive me) on point, though; sexual assault is assault, so the two can be compared within reason.
I think comparing and contrasting sexual assault and rape with other crimes is useful if only to demonstrate the vast difference in society’s response.
Imagine if bank robbery was shrugged off as just something that happens. People like money after all and banks are full of money. Oh, well. If there wasn’t a cop standing right there to stop it, what are you going to do?
Admittedly, there are jurisdictions that are (or in some cases were until recently) lax in dealing with crime of all kinds. But even when a government gets on a big “zero tolerance” of crime bandwagon, sexual violence, domestic violence and crimes by police are low on the list of priorities if there at all.
And like Hornbeck said above, even if some destructive urges are innate, It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to suppress or discipline them. If I didn’t know better or care about other people or my own future, I’d do all sorts of stupid things and so would everyone.
To relieve ourselves wherever we feel like, eat as much fat and sugar as possible and sleep half the day are probably more “natural” than building elaborate sewage systems, eating a balanced diet and fulfilling our duties even if we’re tired. The Naturalistic Fallacy is so common that people get into unnecessary arguments and dogma about human nature.
Claims that people are naturally aggressive, greedy, superstitious, etc. can be studied and decided on their empirical merit or lack thereof. They have little or nothing to do with what behaviors should be acceptable.