Ms. Jackson,
I see a number of conclusions that you draw from Ms. Mac Donald’s writing, that I do not. I’ll outline my reasoning, and then, if there is no agreement, we can civilly agree to disagree, without castigating the other person. Fair?
First, I don’t recall Ms. Mac Donald calling all women, or all women who engage in drunken sex, “sluts.” She described their behavior as “sluttish,” to be sure, and sometimes it is. Not all the time, or all women, but some women’s behavior, some of the time, can certainly be described as, “sluttish,” don’t you agree? Or is it just too loaded a term? Could we agree on “irresponsible” instead?”
Ms. Mac Donald, in the same paragraph where “sluttish” appears, also describes college sexual behavior as “boorish,” and “thuggish” – terms that apply to the male sex, and which I agree, reflect the behavior of some men, some of the time. In short, the description of (some) female behavior does not stand alone, it is both preceded and followed by descriptions of (some) male behavior. I don’t see that she condones either behavior, much less adopts a ‘boys will be boys’ attitude. “Thuggish” is hardly a condoning word. I see her describing how women can help avoid unwanted sex and its consequences (some of which, like pregnancy, unique to women). I don’t see that advice as unreasonable, any more than it is unreasonable to suggest all kinds of defensive measures against many crimes, some of which advice may infringe on the kind of life we want to live, but which, in the real world, are necessary to avoid injury or loss.
If she were talking about a crime committed largely by blacks on whites – mugging, for instance – wouldn’t it be a little odd if all her argument focused on what whites could do to avoid being mugged, and none on what blacks should do to avoid mugging?
I don’t believe that it would be odd at all. It makes emininent sense to advise people how to keep themselves safe in an unsafe world. Don’t flash large amounts of cash, don’t visibly wear expensive watches, jewelry, etc. in known high-crime areas, don’t walk alone at night. This does not imply culpability on the part of someone who does these things and yet gets mugged, but it does not ignore the fact that there will always be those who will take advantage of a situation. There is nothing we can do to alter that – muggers will always exist. Rapists will always exist. Acknowledging their existence, and advising people how to increase their own safety, does not amount to endorsing muggers and rapists. It is not a double standard to say, “there are bad people out there. Here’s how you can be safer.” I don’t think it’s a double standard to skip the first part, and just say, “here’s how you can be safer.” The latter phrase implies the former – what or who are you trying to be safer from? Bad things and bad people.
I’m thankful, though, that there is not a “mugging industry” that is advertising that muggings are extraordinarily prevalent, let’s say 1 in 3, pumping up their statistics by classifying as a mugging the act of giving a quarter to a bum, then later regretting it.
Well, according to Mac Donald, these “sluts” aren’t victims, are they? They’re not being raped, are they?
According to the rape industry, any incident of unwanted sex is rape, even if it was freely engaged in by both parties and remorse only set in after the fact. Ms. Mac Donald is telling women that they are not passive beings who are at the mercy of men’s animal desires, but that they can control many of the circumstances that the rape industry defines as “rape.” So while not all women who engage in drunken hookups are raped, not getting drunk in the first place pretty much avoids the whole unpleasant situation of waking up next to someone you may or may not know, not knowing what you did or didn’t do. Sounds like common sense to me.
It is not directly addressed to college women, but talks about them in the third person, through the hypothetical mouthpiece of “rape industrialists”. This in itself indicates that Mac Donald is not concerned with women’s welfare so much as berating them. And of course, in doing so, she earns the approval of men, as shown on this thread. Her comments reassure men that not all women are like those nasty feminists, and some know how to behave themselves, and let boys be boys.
While Ms. Mac Donald may not directly address women as you say, I do not agree that it follows that Ms. Mac Donald shows any lack of concern for women’s welfare. She repeats the theme of women taking control of and responsibility for their actions, as opposed to the rape industry’s message of women’s helplessness in the face of men’s carnal lusting. (If 1/3, 1/4, or 1/5 of your peers are raped, as the rape industry claims, and yet the RI does not advise women on how to avoid rape – or acts that meet their definition of rape – in the first place, is that not implying submission to men?) As stated above, acknowledgement that an undesireable behavior exists does not imply endorsement of it, so I do not accept that Ms. Mac Donald is stating that “boys will be boys.”
Could not an analogy be made to the “mugging industry” (MI) hypothesized above, off on a campaign to convince the country that one-third of us will be the victim of a mugging in our lifetimes? Think about it. One-third. One third of your family, one third of your friends, neighbors, your co-workers. But (and this is a big “but”) many of them don’t know that they’ve been mugged. Others have been mugged, but they’re in denial. We need mugging counselors to help them see the truth! To discuss the MI, its inflated statistics, and its questionable motivations, I don’t see how it would be wrong to speak wholly or predominantly to whites. The same advice that applies to whites would also apply to potential mugging victims who are black. Not chastising the muggers does not amount to endorsing them. With some things, including illegal and immoral acts, overt disapproval is not always needed. Most would assume, in a discussion of the supposed MI, that the existence of muggers is not a good thing. Likewise with murder, robbery, assault, and, yes, rape. In these instances it would take an explicit statement, or at the least a clear implication, for a reader to infer that the writer does not disapprove of the perpetrators of the crime in question. I do not see that in Ms. Mac Donald’s writing. If you interpret her writing otherwise, then we’ll just have to disagree on that. But without rancor, please?
