Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto is probably the closest thing to an authentic Men’s Rights Activist there is operating in the mainstream media today, by which I mean he regularly puts forth “arguments” on gender issues that are breathtaking in their backwardness.
His latest, er, contribution to the gender debate? A column in which he suggested that drunk women who are raped on college campuses by drunk men are as guilty as their rapists. No, really. Here’s his argument, such as it is:
If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn’t determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver’s sex. But when two drunken college students “collide,” the male one is almost always presumed to be at fault. His diminished capacity owing to alcohol is not a mitigating factor, but her diminished capacity is an aggravating factor for him.
Huh. I’m pretty sure we determine the victim of a rape not on demographics but based on WHICH PERSON RAPED THE OTHER PERSON. Much in the way we would charge a drunken person who shot another drunken person with shooting that person, rather than simply throwing up our hands and saying, well, they were both drunk, so no harm no foul, right?
For a longer take on the issue, check out this piece over on Media Matters.
Media Matters has also assembled a nice, and mercifully rather brief, media montage of some of Taranto’s other pronouncements on gender issues. See if you can make it to the end without pulling out all of your hair.
Wall Street Journal really is a piece of shit. It employs complete sociopaths. It also must be noted that Rupert Murdoch owns it.
Read the Economist if you want economics and business news. Don’t give any money to WSJ!
“You must have wondered at some point ‘Why Taranto isn’t married.”
Interviewer’s face: No.
Also, I loved that he made an assertion that women’s equality was bad, and then said it would take too much work to back up his claim. You say that shit, you at least try to back it up–you can’t just assume it is true and go from there.
What a piece of $!^*. Get out.
The last thing I read on the WSJ was a screed explaining that poverty is the wages of sin and wealthy people are wealthy because they are morally superior. The last thing I read on the WSJ before that screed was a screed moaning about how all this “diversity” at the “top” has led to a lack of elitist, white protestant males to lead America, and that’s why everything has gone to hell. So this particular idiot fits in pretty nicely over there.
This article shows what a creepy person he his: http://www.salon.com/2013/06/18/five_easy_steps_for_becoming_a_rape_apologist/
I hadn’t heard of him before this. Too bad I had to find out.
Yes, because the woman who is unable to resist sexual activity due to being too drunk is just as much as of a rapist as the man who consciously chooses to rape her.
Yuck,
“In a Tuesday column, Taranto says that the effort to change how sexual assault is prosecuted in the military is tantamount to “a war on men” and “shows signs of becoming an effort to criminalize male sexuality.”
Yes, because all men everywhere rape people, it’s just part of their nature. (sarcasm!)
I call it the Wall St. Urinal. Guess why.
Wow, what a piece of shit. That women interviewing him in that clip looked supremely uncomfortable that entire time. I mean, he (very) briefly touches on a potentially interesting discussion in that essay (what happens when a man and a woman who are equally drunk consent and have sex with each other? Are they both sexually assaulting each other?), but he goes on to use that to justify all sorts of horrid shit.
Wow. And here I thought it was because I’d like to spend the rest of my life with a person. And this is only thinking of us straight, cys folks! Why would anyone want in on that if they weren’t looking for a man to
enjoy life withcontrol?I love how the interviewer was fighting back laughter at some of his statements, and at other points giving him the “No. That’s bass-ackward,” face.
yeah, that whole “male sexuality = rape” squicks me the fuck out. But we’re the ones that hate men…
Lol, that marriage comment has me confused. I always thought MRAs wanted to control their wives, make sure they have a billion kids and give up their entire life for their husband and children. Wut?
Also, he’s making the assumption that every guy out there doesn’t want to get married and spend their life with the person they love. Nope, men are just raging sexual beasts in his mind. It’s disgusting. Either he doesn’t have that much faith in his own sex, or he believes bad behavior is completely fine and natural.
Yeah, there’s an online petiton you can sign asking the WSJ to stop promoting rape culture at change.org.
The petiton starts out like this:
“To:
Wall Street Journal, Wall Street Journal
Paula Keve, Wall Street Journal
Victoria Chin, Wall Street Journal
It is not journalism to demean the experiences of rape victims. Your editor, James Taranto, is contributing to rape culture by demeaning victims of a violent and horrific crime. Our society is done being rape apologists and action is being taken at the highest level to start taking sexual violence seriously. Stop supporting rape and start supporting rape victims. Fire James Taranto and stop… “
Xen:
I can’t even with him. It’s comments and attitudes like that which make me sick. When he follows up “I’m quite fond of women” with a sexual innuendo, all I can read from his first comment is “I view women as a sex object”. BAH.
(AIT TALKING HERE, NOT USAF)
Also, using the actions of the military to say that there’s a war on male sexuality?? If by “male sexuality” you mean “getting away with rape”, then yes, you are exactly right, there damn well is a war on that.
And yes, I agree…Taranto’s take on mens’ sexual tendencies is disgusting.
I don’t read it regularly any more, as I used to when writing about money stuff, but the WSJ’s reporting is really solid. It’s the editorial section (and its online offshoot, headed up by Taranto) that’s off in its own right-wing universe.
Or he assumes that all men are just like him. Or at least that he is just such a supreme example of masculinity that all men should *want* to be like him.
Why does it seem beyond some of these guys that not everyone will agree with them? He has a very immature outlook on life if he things all men are like him.
*thinks, dangit.
“Male sexuality” = rape? The mind, it boggleth. All the guys I’ve ever done it with were kind of big on mutual desire and consent.
The WSJ pays him to be a sexist asshole…which blows my mind. And the editors and copyeditors who read the first draft of his “article,” nobody suggested to kill it? For serious? Is controversy for the soul sake of drumming up numbers that precious?
Hopefully this creep is fired. Ick
Money speaks as they say (bleh).
Click-baiting makes for some vile shit. And nowhere more so than in the right-wing bizmedia.
And this:
“The basic social purpose of marriage is to control men, to domesticate men, to tie them to women and children.”
Women didn’t invent marriage. Where does he get his history from, Rom Coms? Marriage was invented — among other reasons, to ensure that men owned their offspring.