Saturday, March 23, 2013

An Equal Right to be Sexually Vulnerable: How liberals brought about the sexual assault crisis in the military and why they should stop blaming other people for it

The response by liberals to my article on the sexual assault crisis in the military is quite humorous. They apparently don't get satire at all. It should be a hint that a post is satirical when the writer is a conservative and he's writing as if he were a liberal.

Satire, of course, is a literary technique with a long history. But apparently these are mostly publikly skooled people who don't have a great familiarity with literature, and aren't too versed in history either.

Let's just call them poetically challenged.

So let's see if we can bring this point down to its most simple, basic level so we don't confuse them.

Here's the point: Because liberal ideology holds that men and women are fundamentally equal, they put women in military positions which only men occupied before--positions in which men are not vulnerable, but in which women are. The positions in which they are particularly vulnerable are those in which women are being supervised by men. Then, when sexual assault skyrockets as a result, they all of a sudden begin ringing alarm bells and asking how all this could have happened.

Well, duh.

Because they can't let go of their egalitarian fantasy, they just don't get the idea that women can be vulnerable in places where men are not.

Then, instead of admitting that they have victimized women by their own policies, they try to indict, well, they're not exactly sure. Somehow males in general are culpable. Particularly the ones in the military. They've figured that much out: Since it is males who have sexually assaulted females, males are to blame.

It's sort of like the comic Peter Cook, who once said that he had figured out who had committed a series of thefts: thieves.

But that's as far as their thinking goes. Unfortunately that's not enough to constitute an acceptable scapegoat.

But wait. There there is someone we can blame: the people who warned against the policies in the first place! Instead of admitting they screwed up, they go and blame the people (like me) who warned against the very policies that put women into these vulnerable positions. We are the ones who are callous when it comes to sexual assault, even though we were the ones who said that it wasn't going to work!

Those of us who pointed out that men and women are not equal in the ways liberals want to think they are equal are the ones at fault for the policies that assume that they are! The conservatives who said "Don't do this" are the ones who get blamed for the consequences that ensue when the liberals, in disregard of this advice, do it anyway.

We are to blame because we have had the temerity to point out how their own insipid ideology brought about the crisis. And when you satirize them for doing what they have done, they scratch their heads dumbly, squint at the type on the page in utter incomprehension, and then, unable to understand your point, they point their finger at you and say you're insensitive.

When liberals lament the fact that women have been victimized by the very vulnerability liberals created for them, they have given up the right to complain about it. They should stop complaining about it because they helped bring it about. Instead of complaining, they should apologize.

But they won't apologize--and they won't change their policies either. They will continue to put women in vulnerable positions. In fact, they'll make it worse by placing them in combat situations. And the problem of sexual assault by the enemy (if they engage in actual combat) will then be added to the problem of sexual assault by their male colleagues.

And then, of course, they'll blame us for it. Just watch.

2 comments:

Singring said...

Oh, don't worry, we know bad satire when we see it. But it's still bad satire.

'They've figured that much out: Since it is males who have sexually assaulted females, males are to blame.

It's sort of like the comic Peter Cook, who once said that he had figured out who had committed a series of thefts: thieves.

But that's as far as their thinking goes. Unfortunately that's not enough to constitute an acceptable scapegoat.'

Ah yes, more of Martin's legendary moral relativity in action - just to remind yourself of the scope of it, go back to his posts on Jared Loughner and the Newtown massacre.

There he was telling us, in ringing verbosity, how it was the sheer evilness of those boys that is to blame and nothing else.

Guns? Not an issue (of course).

Their upbringing? Not an issue (they're just evil, see?).

The social environment? Who care - don;t you get it, they were just *evil*, OK?


...but then here we have the other, 180 degree opposite version of Martin: the one who blames college CoEd policies for raped students (I mean, those poor boys were just following their nature, after all!). The one who thinks that those libruls are to blame when the military can't protect women from being raped on the job!

See, here it's all about the social context and the institutions - they are to blame! Not those poor rapists - I mean, it's just their nature to do these things!

And remember - this is the same military that claims to be able to protect all Americans from invasion, pillage, torture rape and destruction - yet they can't even protect women on the job.

Nice going there!

But Martin doesn't stop there he needs to fully embarrass himself by saying that-

'...and then, unable to understand your point, they point their finger at you and say you're insensitive.'

Ah, yes, now I see. You were trying to make a clever point by mentioning 'winking' in the context of sexual assault. And that's our fault too, I guess. Right. Try that in a hall full of concerned women voters, see how that goes for ya.

'But they won't apologize--and they won't change their policies either. They will continue to put women in vulnerable positions. In fact, they'll make it worse by placing them in combat situations. And the problem of sexual assault by the enemy (if they engage in actual combat) will then be added to the problem of sexual assault by their male colleagues.'

First, it seems that in the conservative mind, men are completely invulnerable to sexual assault and harassment.

Second, Martin seems to think that women are incapable of judging the risks when making the free decision to go into combat and facing enemy forces. According to Martin, women are just 'put' in places by others (presumably men). Another strong talking point for the Republican Party come next election, I would suggest.

Third, let's take Martin's argument to its logical conclusion: let's lock up women to keep them safe from all those men who just can't help themselves.

Sounds a bit familiar...I just can't quite put my finger on it.

Lee said...

Martin, if you think liberals are twisted around the axle now, just wait until there is actual combat.

If you think friendly forces are the source of all possible sexual assaults, wait until women GIs are taken prisoner.

And then we get into the multi-cultural side of the debate: in some cultures, it's considered okay to assault women -- and (just a guess) this is probably particularly true if they're pointing rifles and bayonets in your direction.

Decisions, decisions. Uphold feminist policy? Or uphold a different culture's right to see things differently than we do?

What's a poor liberal to do?

Oh right, I forgot -- blame conservatives. (What was I thinking?)