Violence against Language

I tend to hobnob with other editors on Facebook, and this meme has come around more than once.

This Orwellian attempt to politicize language always alarms me. Especially among editors, who are in a position to impose censorship on what we get to read, just like Winston Smith in the Ministry of Truth.

The use of the passive in this case looks perfectly legitimate. It is entirely likely that the reporter has been given a number for how many women were raped, or how many girls were harassed, and no number for how many men raped or how many boys harassed. It is obviously not the same number. More obviously, it is easy to have a number for how many women are pregnant. It is essentially impossible to know how many fathers are involved.

And there is essentially the same problem for rape or harassment. How do you arrive at a number for how many men rape? You could, if you simply went with the number of convictions for rape, and the number of charges cited in each. Very few men rape. But I wager that is not where the original number came from. It probably came from some feminist source, who wanted to float far higher numbers than this would produce. It probably came from women self-reporting. The figures for boys harassing girls almost certainly did.

So, to get the figures for perpetrators, you could do the same, right? Do a thorough survey, and ask men how many have raped some woman, and boys how many have harassed girls, in the past year?

Does anyone think that number would be accurate? Does anyone thing the two sets of figures would be comparable?

But then, logically, going by self-reporting for women and girls is no more likely to be accurate. We cannot assume that women always tell the truth, and men do not. That’s a deeply sexist view. We are dealing in all these cases with a “he said/she said” situation, with no ability to know the truth.

But here’s the bigger gaping maw of sexism: what about numbers for women raping men, or girls harassing boys? We apparently just start with the initial premise that either that never happens, or if it does, it does not matter. Why do we hear so much about “violence against women,” yet never about “violence against men”? Noting that, in the real world, men are far more likely to be the victims of violence than women. Some surveys suggest this is even true of domestic violence specifically. We are saying only violence against women matters.

What could be more sexist than that?

Female Privilege

Travelling with my young daughter, more than once, some shopkeeper or museum guide has made a fuss over her, spontaneously given her some special treat.

This has never happened to my son.

Our culture is based on female privilege. Girls are always treated far better than boys. Women are always treated far better than men.

This is not some new thing, with feminism. It has always been true. Feminism has only made it more extreme.

So why is it women who have been complaining of being oppressed?

That’s the result of spoiling anyone. They come to expect the treatment. Reread Andersen’s “The Princess and the Pea.”

The truly abused generally do not dare complain.

Female Physician

Went to my doctor today. She works out of a local clinic. Outside the clinic is, as always, a big sandwich board announcing “FEMALE PHYSICIAN WITHIN.” It was there before she joined the clinic. It is even visible in Google Maps. When the previous doctor left, they apparently made a point of finding another woman. It seems to be a part of their business model.

This brings up several issues. To begin with, this signboard should be illegal under anti-discrimination legislation. How would it be if the sign read, instead, “MALE PHYSICIAN,” or “WHITE PHYSICIAN”?

Secondly, the clinic and the doctor obviously put out the sign because they think “female” is a selling point. This pretty much proves that there is no systemic discrimination against women in our society; the discrimination is against men.

Putting these two together illustrates that anti-discrimination laws never help those who are really discriminated against. Should they protect any genuinely systemically oppressed group, they are not enforced. They are only enforced when they work in favour of some already favoured group. Accordingly, they only serve to increase the general level of discrimination.

You cannot fight discrimination through the law.

Believe the Woman?

My sense of things is that the current rash of claims of sexual misconduct against Brett Kavanaugh is having, and will have, the net effect of discrediting the whole “#metoo” movement.

Logically, we cannot let these current accusations influence matters. If we do, without requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, what we do, given that there is no penalty for making a false accusation, is leave any man vulnerable to having his life or career wrecked at any moment by a mere accusation which any woman can lodge at any time for any reason.

It would over time take all males out of the running for any prominent job that any woman wants.

The proper and fair thing would be to bring it all into a court of law. But there is no time for that, and these charges are so old that even then, it is unlikely to be possible to assemble evidence one way or the other. In the ordinary course of events, there is probably nothing here that would warrant going to court: just accusations with no corroboration or supporting evidence. We can pretty well assume, if they went to court, that the cases would be dismissed.

Accordingly, the only fair thing is to ignore them and appoint Kavanaugh. To do otherwise would have disastrous effects in future.

And for the #metoo advocates of “believe the woman,” as somebody observed, this looks like Pickett's Charge. It has been a fatal if inevitable overreach. Inevitable, because it was always madness to assume all women were incapable of lying or even being mistaken. Even if they pull it off this time, and Kavanaugh is destroyed, they will overrreach the next time, or the next.

And then—most likely already, now—it will never again be a plausible argument to demand that people simply “believe the woman.” Indeed, from now on, given the Kavanaugh example, the base assumption is more likely to be the opposite. Not good for anyone who really has been sexually assaulted, but this is the fault of the feminists.

Men? It's All Your Fault

Absolutely no comment.

A recent piece in the New York Times reflects upon the sex scandals rocking Hollywood and Washington, and argues that it all just shows how evil men are.

Superficially plausible: it is only men who are being called out for sexual misdeeds. However, this is simply a result of men being expected to make the first move sexually.

Pamela Anderson has made a good point, and is being raked over the coals for it: why would a woman go into a man's hotel room alone in the first place?

If she does, given the current vague and ambiguous rules of engagement, isn't it fairly reasonable for the man to conclude that she is voluntarily in the game and on the hunt?

For every man being accused of unwanted sexual aggressions, there is probably a woman guilty of using sexual favours to get ahead. But the men, if they miscalculate, lose their career and their public reputation. The women face no consequences. They can even play the game, get the preferment, then years later turn on their boss and accuse him of sexual misconduct.

Either way, it is a bad thing: women getting sexually harassed, or women getting advantages through sex. Allow it, and a lot of innocent men and innocent women are harmed.

It turns out that there were good reasons for traditional morality. One great advantage—and only one of many—to “no sex outside marriage” as a rule was that it made the boundaries perfectly clear; there could be no misunderstandings. This same calculation also explains why, traditionally, having men and women mingle in the world of work was considered a bad idea. Not incidentally, it also explains, on the same basis, why homosexual employees were considered a problem. In all these cases, too much chance for sexual attractions to get messed up in the mix.

We have knocked down all these fences, all the fences that made our civilization function. And feminism has been in the forefront in doing this. Much of civilization is such fences, which is why the left hates civilization. It prevents us, after all, from getting what we want, when we want it. We have created this problem, and are still, it seems, thrashing about for scapegoats.

According to the NYT piece, the crisis reflects on “the nature of men in general,” “the grotesquerie of their sexuality,” the “ugly and dangerous nature of the male libido” “the implicit brutality of male sexuality.” “Male mechanisms of desire are inherently brutal.” So, in order for women to continue to do whatever they want, men must be put in chains.

Go back and substitute the word “Jews” or “Jewish” for “male” or “men” in the above statements. Or substitute “black” and “blacks.” Or “women” and “female.” How does it sound? That will give you a pretty clear idea of who is being oppressed in our present society, and who is being privileged.

Surprised? You have not been paying attention.

A chilling statement from the piece:

“How naïve must you be not to understand that sex itself is about power every bit as much as it’s about pleasure?”

Indeed. And how emotionally dead must you be to not even think about the possibility of it being about love? Everything to some is either for pleasure or for power. Everything is for self.

Drunk Sex

Instapundit makes an interesting point. These days, by law, in both Canada and the US, if a man has sex with a woman who is inebriated, it is rape. The idea is that a woman cannot give consent if she is drunk.

Fine--but what if the man is also drunk? Sexual equality: if the woman when drunk is not responsible for her own actions, then neither is the man. Any way you slice it, it is not rape.