I don’t like to butt in, but you may be interested in how a casual observer sees this thing.
For starters, Ms Jackson’s article was crystal-clear and very concise. She saw a basic error in the logic of the MacDonald book and attributes it to the blindness induced by her (MacDonald’s) ethics, which Ms Jackson identifies with the double standard that modern feminism strove to destroy.
All of this is supported with facts or reasoning. No one here has challenged either the facts or the reasoning that Ms Jackson uses. They only seem to argue in favor of the double standard or ignore the issue entirely in favor of arguing for some point of sexual morality. I never saw Ms Jackson give an opinion as to the morality of sexual behavior; she only demands that the same morality be applied to both sexes equally. It’s the oldest liberal demand in the books and people have trouble understanding what it means? Well…blarmy my kippers! Who’a thunk it?
What does all this mean? Are we so blinded that we can’t see such an obvious contradiction even when it’s shoved in our faces so clearly, as Ms Jackson does? What it the world are we trying to defend? How could such a thing happen in the first place?
