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.
Moar kitteh vids. Cuddle time:
and nap time:
@Shiraz “Women didn’t invent marriage.”
well, as fractally wrong as Taranto is, I’m pretty sure marriage wasn’t invented by either gender on their ownsome. Humans are highly monogamous *for a primate*, from the evidence.
@David,
I know that the WSJ has decent reporting, but I really think reading them reinforces the editorial content, even if you skip that part. That’s why I strongly believe everyone should stick to the Economist or whatever else is out there. Why validate Rupert Murdoch’s disgusting Randian worldview?
Wow. “Let’s figure out a way we can excuse all men of committing rape.” Okay, say MRAs.
Uh, takshak, may I introduce you to the Married Woman’s Property Act of 1870? before that, anything a woman owned became the property of her husband. Marriage was made beneficial to men for a lot of material reasons.
You posted this:
“Humans are highly monogamous *for a primate*, from the evidence.”
What are you referring to? And I never said people do not enjoy monogamy. I was responding to Taranto’s assertion that marriage was arranged to entrap men.
Next up: James Taranto mansplains his comments away, Warren Farrell-style: “I’m just trying to be the man of their romantic fantasies!” Millions of women back away from their screens, retching…
Nice choice of screen cap.
@Shiraz: Like I said, Taranto is fractally wrong (just as wrong no matter what scale you look at it). I was looking at the entire history of the thing, which doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been used in lots of vile ways. Marriage is a product of that “natural” monogamy, IMHO, which is why I hazard that its invention was much more mutual, no matter what happened later.
& I’m a bit of a history wonk…. 19th c to me is almost current events 😉
Hmmm.. I think what the issue here is the word “invented”. I don’t think of “legally defined” (or re-defined), I tend to think more of the cultural continuum that leads to that
It doesn’t really matter who invented marriage: what matters is that it has equalled men owning women to a greater or lesser degree in so many cultures and across so much time. I’m struggling to think of any reversal of that situation, whatever filth like Taranto claim.
Takshak:
” Marriage is a product of that “natural” monogamy, IMHO, which is why I hazard that its invention was much more mutual, no matter what happened later.”
Tell that to Taranto, not me.
I know I can’t, kittehserf, it’s assfax.
Every time I hear about this James Taranto dude it’s because he’s been an unacceptable jerk beyond the paper. Like this: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/04/22/wsj-columnist-taranto-uses-gabby-giffords-injur/193712
I don’t think any self-respecting publication should have someone like this on their payroll at all. Ick infinity.
Er, beyond the pale. Don’t know why I substituted paper for pale in the phrase except my tired brain does odd things sometimes.
“You must have wondered at some point ‘Why Taranto isn’t married.”
Yeah, real stumper, that one.
Ayup!
Turns out David’s not the only who’s inspired to mockery by this clown. (And some of the comments aren’t too bad even though more concentrate on the dodgy climate “science”.)
http://climatecrocks.com/2014/02/11/meet-the-skeptics-james-taranto-of-the-wsj-in-a-charm-offensive/comment-page-1/#comments
What’s dodgy about the climate science? I’m not familiar with that particular blog, but I didn’t see anything bad there.
Tarantula’s grasp of climate science is on a par with his grasp of human sexuality.
(Breathes sigh of relief)
I was sitting there going “please don’t let someone I like turn out to be one of those people who doesn’t believe in climate change”.
Nice hetero-normalising there.
And, of course, many times when I’ve been drunk and just physically bumped into a penis owner, their pene has accidentally slipped into my vag. It can happen so easyily, as a vagina owner you have to be so careful, just walking down crowded streets sober to make sure you don’t collide with a penis owner. ‘cos these little accidents happen all the time. /Taranto bizarro world
And from Taranto’s column:
Oops, posted too quickly. In this charming little tail of Matt intervening to prevent a rape, note that
and yet, according to Taranto
This story doesn’t reveal what you think it does, Mr Taranto. Through your bias prism, you see a male student being protected from accidentally incurring a false rape charge. We see a male student who knew exactly what he was doing being furious at being prevented from raping a vulnerable woman.
Not in any court case or media report I’ve ever seen, Taranto. Usually, in the real world:
FTFY
And it figures that Murdoch owns the WSJ. I despise that man with the deepest despision. *spits*