by Connie Chastain*
Last month, sports columnist Sally Jenkins wrote a hit piece on male athletes for the Washington Post that's utterly breathtaking in its illogic. Now, I admit I don't follow Ms. Jenkins' sports column, and I wasn't aware of this particular one until a few days ago. But I can't let it go by without comment.
The title, George Huguely, Ben Roethlisberger, Lawrence Taylor: Male athletes encouraged to do the wrong thing, should give you an idea what's coming. "Should women fear athletes?" she asks. "Is there something in our sports culture that condones these assaults?"
She makes an attempt to cover her tush with the statement, "It's a difficult, even unsettling question, because it risks demonizing scores of decent, guiltless men." But then she proceeds to ignore these "scores" (more like hundreds of thousands) of decent, guiltless men and attempts to provide evidence that there is a "culture" among male athletes that shelters the guilty among them.
Now, aside from the fact that alleged rape (Roethlisberger & Taylor) is not murder (Huguely) and to imply equivalence is blatantly dishonest... and aside from the fact that the number of men who sexually assault women is tiny, and so the number of male athletes who do is even tinier--where is it written that male athletes are responsible for policing each other's conduct? What are they supposed to do, spy on each other? Would Sally hold all males to the same standard? Would she expect male senators, male airline pilots, male newspaper columnists to police each other's behavior with the opposite sex?
How about women? Should women--students, career women, housewives...athletes--who get drunk, sleep around and regret it in the morning police each other when they're tempted to claim they were raped? Of course not. What a silly idea.
As outrageous as Jenkins' entire column is, it peaks when she asks, "...what has happened to sexuality?
When did the most sublime human exchange become more about power and status than romance? When did it become so pornographic and transactional, so implacably cold?"
Well, gee, Sally. How about when second-wave feminism marched arm in arm with the sexual revolution and turned our culture, our most fundamental relationships, upside down? When women "took control" of their "sexuality" -- which meant becoming promiscuous ... just like men? Or just like they assumed men to be--in many cases, wrongly.
What could be more calculating and implacably cold than a woman making a charge of rape against a man that she knows is innocent?
But I don't expect a column about that from Sally. Do you?
Jenkins' column: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/07/AR2010050704895.html?sid=ST2010050704068
*Connie is a regular contributor to FRS. Her principal blog is http://conniechastain.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
27 comments:
"Well, gee, Sally. How about when second-wave feminism marched arm in arm with the sexual revolution and turned our culture, our most fundamental relationships, upside down? When women "took control" of their "sexuality" -- which meant becoming promiscuous ... just like men? Or just like they assumed men to be--in many cases, wrongly."
Bingo.
"Should women--students, career women, housewives...athletes--who get drunk, sleep around and regret it in the morning police each other when they're tempted to claim they were raped?"
Well, now that you mentioned it, perhaps they should. Being a false rape accuser doesn't seem to carry enough of a social stigma. Maybe "police" isn't the right word, but I am often dismayed how little social pressure women put on other women who make false rape accusations.
The Jenkins article is grossly offensive to me. She says: "Ben Roethlisberger seems to be a serial insulter of women."
OK, great. Excellent. And you know, that may be true, Ms. Jenkins.
But if you followed his case as I have, it is also fair to say that he is likely the victim of a false rape claim.
Did you just yawn when I said that, Ms. Jenkins? Does that mean NOTHING to you?
I guess not. The fact that Mr. Roethlisberger is a jerk to women is a bigger, more important, more newsworthy, more politically correct story than whether he was the victim of what is probably the worst thing that can happen to a human being, short of murder.
Did you just yawn again, Ms. Jenkins?
Does anyone know the name of Roethlisberger's accuser? I am fed up with this nonsense.
Great job, Connie.
A serial insulter of women?
So long as the women in question are bitches like Mzzz. Jenkins, good for him ...
Bravo Connie!
and another one bites the dust
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285876/Mother-falsely-accused-policeman-rape-jailed-2-years.html
Women don't police other women who falsely accuse because they are righteously AFRAID of them.
A woman who will do something like that is someone who will do ANYthing it takes to 'win'.
Go back and reread the postings about maunchaussen's, border line personality, narcissist, factitious,and bi polar disorders.
Remember, rape shield laws give these women right of way to accuse anyone at whim.
Try policing someone who will maliciously accuse YOU, your man,or your child just to "show you".
And get away with it.
These women are walking plagues that lash out and destroy anyone who gets in their way.
Much as I want to confront the horror show that has just accused a family friend of DV (he broke up with her after she invited him to celebrate screwing over her child's father). I will not "police" her in anyway, except anonymous complaints on blogs. I'm scared shitless of her.
I'd be safer trying to "police" the black plague.
Just as there are check lists and warnings for women about errant males, there needs to be warning signs and symptoms for bi polar babes.
Trouble is, no one listens until it's too late.
How about women? Should women--students, career women, housewives...athletes--who get drunk, sleep around and regret it in the morning police each other when they're tempted to claim they were raped? Of course not. What a silly idea.
Well, that's exactly what women used to do when another female behaved in a loose manner in public.The shaming language was always towards the female not the man. This is actually still true in most places.If some girl got drunk and had sex with some man and she regretted it she would either just keep it to herself or if she mentioned it to a friend the respnse would be that it was her own fault and that she should behave better in the furture. It's only in the US,UK and a handful of other places where the blame would be put on the man.
Anon at 8:45: It is unfortunate that you blink at the legitimate concerns raised about Jenkins' broad brush indictment of male athletes, and her unnuanced take on the hypermasculine culture of pro sports -- you give a pass to this "well compensated" writer who resolutely refuses to see the difference between an athlete who seems to have been falsely accused of rape and one who committed murder. Oh, well, "they're all the same," those dastardly men.
The entire indictment of the male athletic culture -- by the way, the same sweeping stereotype that led to the Duke lacrosse travesty -- insults not only males (and make no mistake, Jenkins' screech is an attack on hyper-maleness) but also the women they "abuse." It implicitly treats people like the Roethlisberger accuser as infantile, innocent lambs being led to slaughter instead of what they really are -- free moral agents who often happen to be oversexed, drunken sorority girls, out for their own conquests, and looking at famous men as some sort of strange trophies.
If Jenkins and her ilk would be willing to do something other than go over well-trodden ground, she'd tackle how the urban masculine culture has crept into the pro sports scene, replete with its frankly immature view of male-female relations. But hey, that would require us to confront the whole issue of boys being raised without fathers (you know, the Great Society's "Man out of the house rule" that Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned us about), and how that has warped our young men's dealings with women.
WP, perhaps I would be more willing to listen to your argument had I not been subjected to feminist treatment, all over the news media, of Tim Tebow and his family at Superbowl time.
No, "...binge drinking, women-as-trophies, the hubris resulting from exaggerated entitlement and years of being let off the hook" are not the problem for feminists, because none of that fits Tebow and "scores of other decent and guiltless men" in athletics who Jenkins already (cough) acknowledged.
The problem for feminists is men, M-E-N, men. Rapists, murderers, pro-lifers -- they're all the same to feminists...if they're males.
It's evident that Tiger Woods and Jessee James are being 'policed' by their male peers, even though their behavior is really none of anyone's business.
The mistresses in these cases are NOT being 'policed' by their female peers - not much anyway, the criticisms aimed at swastika tattoos rather than knowingly having an affair with another woman's husband.
Dr. Snark said...
"Well, gee, Sally. How about when second-wave feminism marched arm in arm with the sexual revolution and turned our culture, our most fundamental relationships, upside down? When women "took control" of their "sexuality" -- which meant becoming promiscuous ... just like men? Or just like they assumed men to be--in many cases, wrongly."
Bingo.
File this under "Be Careful Of What You Wish For".
I remember when 'good girls' were accused of being lesbians, "frigid" (anyone here remember FRIGID?) "Abnormal"? Put out or get out?
Well, wishes DO come true.
The tendency to want to blame men falsely accused of rape, or suggest they somehow are to blame for it because they didn't behave like a perfect gentleman, while undoubtedly offensive to enlightened decent people, is however somewhat easy to understand when you grasp certain psychological quirks of the average human mind.
There are two specific ones that come to mind: the just world hypothesis, and Stockholm Syndrome. The just world theory suggests that humans have some psychological need to believe that the world is generally just, that people usually get what they deserve, that bad things normally only happen to those that deserve them, and that there are authorities you can turn to that are normally just.
In other words, there is a certain psychological cowardice that operates as a defence mechanism. People don't want to confront how bad some things are. And to live in a world that is so corrupt, arbitrary and capricious is too difficult for some people to accept. So it is easier to deny it, pretend that people get what they deserve, and that the world is more just and orderly, and that bad things will usually only happen to bad people who deserve it. Rest easy at night, because there is a method in the madness and justice of sorts prevails.
As for the Stockholm Syndrome effect. When people are confronted by an oppressive reality that seems too entrenched and impossible to defeat (such as abuses of state power, or pervasive contempt for males), there is a tendency to learn to accept it and not despise it so much. Again, this is a psychological defense mechanism. It is simply too exhausting and taxing to be consumed with rage the whole time when something appears insurmountable. Easier to learn to accept, perhaps make excuses for it, and learn to live with it. Again, it is a certain form of psychological cowardice. People cannot fully comprehend the extent of the evil they are being forced to live with.
Oprah Winfrey has, on several occasions, presented to her audiences women whose only claim to fame is having had sex with young boys. Those women are given an international forum in which to put their side, and only their side, of the story with absolutely no reference to the potential harm their victims face. Oprah's thousands strong studio audiences thunder their approval with standing ovations after which the entire thing is broadcast internationally for hundreds of millions of women - for their "entertainment".
In Australia the high circulation womens magazine New Idea paid travel and living costs for a US woman thus enabling her to travel to this country to consumate the internet grooming of a boy which commenced when he was thirteen. My country women not only sponsored this borderline paedophile they also wet themselves reading about it in glossy, colour magazine articles under such titles as "Schoolboy Lover".
WP said...
The same can be said for most other all-male groups. No, we should not police our team members, but the message should be clear that "brothers" will not condone and hide unacceptable behavior of a few rotten apples.
One thing I can assure you of WP is that men have never gathered in their thousands and screamed applause for other men who have raped ten year old girls. Men do not openly and shamelessly applaud and support other men who mutilate women, rape them or otherwise abuse them. Rallies in support of male kiddy fiddlers are not deemed appropriate to global free-to-air television or magazines at supermaket checkouts.
No WP, this is what women do.
Whoops! My finger slipped and WP's lengthy comment was forever erased.
"Whoops! My finger slipped and WP's lengthy comment was forever erased."
Well, I also can't seem to find the "Anon at 8:45" to whom Archivist was replying.
I think that was WP and not an Anon.
Things I can't say here or yet, but I'm telling you, this whole issue is built upon either undiagnosed, or unknown to the accused diagnosed, cased of mental disorders.
lots of things falling into place lately.
The only males that Gender feminists deem politically correct, and "Safe" males; are homosexuals.
Just like the only "true" feminist is a lesbian.
The Gender / Raunch community get "Empowered" by false Rape accusations.
The Gender / Raunch community also get "Empowered" by attacking anything male, and their tactics are deviant.
I say their tactics are deviant because they use faulty and inflammatory misinformation to attack hetero-sexual males...in order to feed their "Empowerment".
http://www.smh.com.au/national/judge-puts-early-end-to-rape-case-20100612-y4or.html
http://www.birminghammail.net/news/birmingham-news/2010/06/12/weoley-castle-woman-jailed-for-two-years-after-false-rape-allegation-97319-26637217/
At AfOR's second link - she is named, and he isn't.
Even though he says his name has been dragged through the mud since the allegation was made, that publication had the decency to not publish the name of an innocent, falsely accused man - I assume that is what has happened.
How refreshing to see some compassionate journalism.
@Anonymous on 11 June 9:30AM and @ AfOR on 12 June 7:47 AM:
YES! Exactly. I, too, think that false accusers with Cluster B personality disorders and factitious disorder are responsible for the vast majority of false rape claims.
See the comments here on FRS on 30 April 2010.
Also:
http://journals.lww.com/smajournalonline/Abstract/1994/07000/Deceiving_Others_Deceiving_Oneself__Four_Cases_of.12.aspx
http://www.google.com/search?q=factitious+disorders+and+rape+allegations
An older news story, but worth repeating on the theme of factitious disorder:
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/77340_acquit05.shtml
Whoops
Finger slipped again.
At least it only demolished a comment which was intended to derail.
No damage done.
Snark is like AdBlock, I never see ads in firefox, and now I never see feminazi trolls on FRS... lol
FemBlock ... now what a great product that would be. Imagine a feminism-free internet ...
Post a Comment