NOW calling for WSJ columnist's termination for suggesting that if a man & woman are both drunk & have sex, they share blame.

Ted8367 · 2014-02-19T03:31:41+00:00

James Taranto doesn't need a national platform for demeaning women and condoning rape.

He neither demeaned women, nor condoned rape. But it's the president of NOW saying he did, so I guess we'll just have to gulp it down uncritically.

now he needs to be out of a job.

This is what a feminist looks like.

unbannable9412 · 2014-02-19T03:37:26+00:00

NOW, a major and influential feminist organization, arguably the most so if any today, tries to ruin a person's career because someone dared to challenge the feminist status quo.

"BUT ITZ JUST TEH RAD FEMZ, YOU DON'T GET IT, RRRRRRREEEEEELLLL FEMINISSTS DON'T DO THINGS LIK THIS!!!!1"

JayBopara · 2014-02-19T07:01:40+00:00

NOW - this is feminism. Wow, just wow. Someone dares speak the truth, and look what happens. Notice how NOW uses more feminist dubious statistics "one in four women will be sexually assaulted on campus" and the usual false narrative "rape culture".

All these people who say feminism is not the problem from Boys&Men basic human rights need to see this. Feminism IS THE PROBLEM.

golemsheppard · 2014-02-19T07:57:49+00:00

Honestly, after reading his article in the Wall Street Journal, immediately thought "Well that was s refreshing breath of accountability for people decisions" and "feminists are going to crucify him".

His article, if anyone had not read it, was not about blaming victims. Rather, he asks the obvious question: If being intoxicated eliminates your capacity to consent to sex, then when both the man and woman are intoxicated, why do we as a society presume that the man raped the woman? Why not presume the woman raped the man? If neither can legally consent to sex due to their intoxication, why not presume they both raped each other? Absent evidence to the contrary, why do we as a society natural see men as the offenders and women as the victims? Naturally, feminists don't like people challenging their victim complex. It yields them too much power.

snoopyzanus · 2014-02-19T07:00:30+00:00

So this is the next step.

Firstly, it was about promoting the idea that only men rape.

That framework established, they then radically expanded the definition of rape to include such things as having sex with someone who has been drinking (and as in this framework only men rape and only women are victims, that "someone" is always a woman).

This is the way things have stood for a while.

Now someone in the media has come out to publicly point out the obvious—that a man and a women having consensual sex after drinking is surely "mutual rape" under that definition.

So now we get to see the response—and it's a dirty one: as in their framework only men can be rapists and only women rape victims, it's already a clear case of male rapist and female victim—all they have to do is accuse the writer of rape apology and victim-blaming, then call for his job—without even having to address the issues raised.

They can't rationally defend what they are doing. It all falls apart under scrutiny. All they can do is try to smear, control, and silence.

PortalesoONR · 2014-02-19T04:56:37+00:00

who is now and who appointed them the arbiters of acceptable speech? who funds them?

TRPACC · 2014-02-19T13:32:23+00:00

They are making a deliberate false accusation about rape when they say

James Taranto stated that in sexual assault cases where both the victim and rapist are drunk -- both parties are equally to blame for the attack.

He never said that, he asked why it was assumed the woman is a rape victim, if neither person can remember who initiated.

c0mputar · 2014-02-19T13:17:22+00:00

James Taranto is either brave and/or naive for writing that article, but at least he is making public the hypocrisy of feminism's approach to sexual assaults.

How people can read that article and think James was talking about a situation other than 2 equally drunk individuals engaging in sex is precisely illustrates how far the pendulum has shifted with regards to colleges' approach to dealing with sexual assault accusations.

2095conash · 2014-02-19T06:04:48+00:00

Even on their own website... I usually don't like giving traffic to websites supporting these sort of opinions and all but this is DAMN good counter-NAFALT material. You don't even need to CRITICIZE it, any person with common sense whom isn't already biased against men a whole lot can plainly see that NOW is stating that they aren't for equality (at least in this situation) and are attacking someone for having an equality based opinion.

I'm probably going to be upsetting several of my moderate feminist friends for quite a few days with this, but just DAMN, I feel kinda like I have an OBLIGATION to make sure that anyone who really identifies as a feminist is fully aware that this hugely powerful group is out for blood against someone whom just posted a piece that's FOR equality! Because just.... It's one thing if some radical makes a blog post, it's one thing if you get 5 shrieking harpies coming at you because of your opinion, it's one thing if they made a press release that you have to go to some obscure website to hear about (and thus credibility of said website might call into question), it's one thing if you have to draw the parallels and conclusions or have to search long and hard to find the article but this is recent, on their official website, they spell it out in black and bold letters themselves, and this is one of the most influential players in the movement (at least in the western world).

I just..... I really think this is something that needs to get out, not to try to convert (against their will and all, I don't like the sorta bible-thumper like way of forcing people into your beliefs) all moderate feminists into anti-feminists or MRAs or egalitarians, but so that they KNOW who they're allied with, who their identification supports....

Thanks for the link, it's going to be really useful in my ideological harassment of my friends!

JoshtheAspie · 2014-02-19T06:09:14+00:00

And this is an example of why, even before I found folks that also saw through this BS, I've been actively sceptical about phrases like "sexism", or "victim blaming", or "sexual assault" or "rape". I am similarly sceptical about the phrases "oppression" and "racism".

To be sure, rape, and racism both exist. But the idea that a given outcome or action is the result of racism, unless it meets the definition on it's face, is something that I'll need evidence of.

Affirmative Action? Sexism/Racism on it's face. It's giving a codified legal advantage to one group over another. Even if you argue it's a needed advantage to counter-act disadvantage, that doesn't make it not-racism. In this case, you're just arguing that form of racism is a good one.

On the other hand, the majority of opposition to Eric Holder, or Barak Obama is not racist on it's face. While I agree with the president that there is some element of racism to his opposition, the amount that can be shown as racist on it's face is minuscule. Yet this is the answer he often goes to to explain opposition to his policies.

Hillary uses sexism as her go-to in almost the exact same way.

Quite frankly, if that WSJ article qualifies as "victim blaming", we could use a lot more "victim blaming" of a similar sort in the world.

I think I may buy a subscription to the WSJ over this. I've been meaning to read up more on economics anyway.

dungone · 2014-02-19T15:03:26+00:00

The attacks we are seeing from feminists, including this one from NOW, virtually all rely on what looks like a logical fallacy or a combination of several fallacies. I would almost say it's an affirmation of the consequent and begging the question. Maybe someone else has a better idea? Here's what I'm seeing:

A) Someone who does X is a rapist (unproven assertion)

B) A man was labeled a rapist.

C) Therefore, whatever he did was rape; he's a rapist; (affirming the consequent, equivocation)

D) Therefore, doing X makes you a rapist (begging the question)

E) if you point out that his female partner also did X, then you're a rape apologist because C)

F) if you question the validity of the original premise in A), then you're a rape apologist because of D)

jvardrake · 2014-02-19T16:30:19+00:00

It's just amazing to me that what he said is controversial at all. Unless we are talking about a drunk guy physically assaulting a woman, and forcibly raping her - in which case, no one - including the author - is arguing that the male hasn't obviously committed a crime - I don't see how one can argue that:

BOTH people got drunk.
BOTH people did so, despite the fact that they BOTH knew that their decision making would be impaired.
Sex that either one (or both) parties later regretted (after they sobered up) occurred.
ONE party should be charged with rape, and have their entire life destroyed.

Seriously - it's just insane.

If you are going to say that getting drunk and having sex that the other party later regrets - again (I want to be absolutely clear on this), where no physical assault, or force was used - equals some sort of heinous crime, then BOTH drunken parties need to be charged.

I swear, it's the same thing with these people all the time. It's just like their stance on males not having the option of aborting their parental rights/responsibilities. I.e., despite the fact that both the female and male go into sex knowing that, regardless of whatever precautions they take, pregnancy can be the result; only the woman is allowed all kinds of choices to terminate all of her responsibilities/obligations (abortion, adoption, leaving the child in a baby drop box, etc...). The male is told that he knew a baby could be the result of his choice to have sex, and that his only choice now is to "man up" - he needs to live with the consequences of the choice that he made.

This is absolute bullshit. The society/legal system we have created does not seem like it is based on treating both parties equally, at all. It seems like one gender is always held accountable for their actions, and the other is absolved whenever they later change their mind about what they originally did.

blueoak9 · 2014-02-19T18:58:50+00:00

NOW doesn't want a woman called a rapist or prosecuted like one if she has sex with a drunk man.

This is feminist rape culture. That's what this is.

laurence88 · 2014-02-19T15:07:36+00:00

Lol they called him out of touch, that's hilarious!

AusNation · 2014-02-19T16:35:35+00:00

James Taranto should have been more sensitive. Does he expect feminists to be able to think critically?

2014-02-19T05:48:48+00:00

Once again one can see how dangerous a person with a pen and an own opinion is.

oneiorosgrip · 2014-02-19T12:43:10+00:00

If they take any action beyond the initial whiny press release, I suggest a campaign of letters and phone calls to counter it.
Contact info
The points that need to be made is that regardless of public sympathy for women's causes, NOW, like any other group, should not have the power to control speech in the U.S.

Female MRAs can also help with this by emphasizing that the organization doesn't speak for women, but promotes their own political perspective in the name of women.

Trunk-Monkey · 2014-02-19T17:08:13+00:00

One has to wonder if Terry O’Neill, president of NOW and author of that statement on the NOW website, even took the time to read Taranto’s article...

O’Neill claims “James Taranto stated that in sexual assault cases where both the victim and rapist are drunk -- both parties are equally to blame for the attack.” He didn’t. Not once. What he did do was make a point of distinguishing between intoxicated sex that is later regretted and sexual assault that may involve drinking, and he quoted Winerip’s piece that points out that neither party can legally give consent if both are drunk, and that both are responsible in cases of intoxicated sex that is later regretted.

O’Neill claims that “Taranto even went as far as to compare rape to a car crash involving two drunk drivers“ He didn’t. Taranto never compared rape to a car crash… Winerip did in his New York Times piece Stepping Up to Stop sexual Assault, February 7th 2014. Taranto only pointed out that the drunk driving analogy used in Winerip’s piece has limitations:

“Which points to a limitation of the drunk-driving analogy. 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.”

I read the whole article when it came out, I also read each of the pieces that Taranto quotes from, but I don’t think that O’Neill did the same, because nothing in Taranto’s article is, as O’Neill put it, victim-blaming, demeaning to women, or condoning rape.

Lipophobicity · 2014-02-19T15:01:36+00:00

See how they frame it on their page:

"Taranto Believes Drunk Sexual Assault Victims are Equally to Blame"

NoW makes it sound like he said that rape is fine if she's drunk. They make the jump in logic that sex while drunk is always sexual assault. This is completely disingenuous by design. By using this line of reasoning you can accuse almost anyone of anything

ZimbaZumba · 2014-02-19T18:03:19+00:00

Powerful groups trying to control the message. Straight out of 1984 and Brave New World. They are a despicable bunch.

bsutansalt · 2014-02-19T21:54:19+00:00

Amazing, just absolutely amazing. His questioning of how drunk sex is handled is being called "misogyny" by NOW, the leading feminist organization in the United States.

Taranto's recent screed is not his first misogynist claim.

lillojohn · 2014-02-19T12:11:51+00:00

Women can not consent when being drunk, because they are retards. /s

How can some people in the comments degrade women so much.

ThePigmanAgain · 2014-02-19T09:46:17+00:00

In other news, that Duck Dynasty guy don't like them there queers!

duglock · 2014-02-19T17:55:22+00:00

We really are living in another McCarthy era. Regardless of your political/social opinions, having a job should not be predicated on your belief system and your support of issues such as gay marriage, feminism, etc.

This tactic, which has really arisen the past few years, is destined to fail as you aren't changing any minds (enlightening them) but rather forcing change through implied and overt threats of punishment and retribution. The former is real change the latter is a facade facilitated via fear.

One of the things the mods of this sub can really be applauded for is their commitment to open discussion in this sub and their refusal to censor, restrict, or control the sub through force (mod powers). It is one of the major moral high grounds that separates MRA's from feminists and I would encourage all MRAs to practice the same principles when engaging others.

vaselinepete · 2014-02-19T09:40:32+00:00

If he didn't say the word 'rape' then this is blatant misinformation by NOW.

Some of the comments here are concerning though. A PERSON who takes advantage of a drunk PERSON, is a rapist. If a person can barely walk and is clearly massively inebriated, and someone knowingly uses their condition as a way to have sex with them, then they are no better than date rapists.

If my wife were to go out with friends, get stinking drunk, and then some dude who can see she's fucked up takes her into the toilets and fucks her - that piece of shit is a rapist. Yeah, my wife is also a dumbass, but that doesn't change that the guy consciously did a bad thing.

If I go out and get stinking drunk, and some woman who can see I'm absolutely wasted and not able to make good decisions takes me into the toilets and fucks me - then that piece of shit is a rapist. Yeah, I'm a dumbass for getting so drunk I can't look after myself, but that doesn't change that the woman consciously did a bad thing.

Straight, gay, man, woman - if you knowingly have sex with someone who is clearly incapable of clarity of thought, let along walking in a straight line - you're a fucking rapist.

Now, James Taranto isn't saying that - he's talking about two equally drunk people (I believe) - but we need to be careful about letting our bravado and desire for a fight stray into unsavoury territory.

Arby01 · 2014-02-19T18:07:44+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Steampunk_Moustache · 2014-02-20T00:37:40+00:00

Duh, only men can be blamed for things. Did you know that blaming women for anything ever, under any circumstance, is part of patriarchy?

luxury_banana · 2014-02-20T06:44:12+00:00

Yet another case of bullying via bluelisting by professional victims who think they have a right to not be offended (by someone who merely disagrees with their nonsense) and that anyone who disagrees with their insane politics should have their lives ruined.

This time by the biggest feminist organization there is. This is what mainstream feminism is all about. Need more evidence? How about some from just this past week. Here's the kind of product that Harvard's women's studies program churns out, right here.

Title	NOW calling for WSJ columnist's termination for suggesting that if a man & woman are both drunk & have sex, they share blame.
Author	notnotnotfred
Upvotes	184
Comments	94
Date	February 19, 2014 3:04 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1yb1b5/now_calling_for_wsj_columnists_termination_for/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/now-calling-for-wsj-columnists-termination-for.1003617 https://theredarchive.com/post/1003617

Comments