Thursday, April 24, 2014

Amanda Marcotte is a Fast-talking Feminist Con Artist

Amanda Marcotte, the self-confessed feminist, published an article at the online journal Slate, on 28 February, 2014. That article is linked below:

 Anybody who is "in the know" can immediately see that Marcotte is twisting, slanting, smearing, distorting and lying through her teeth every step of the way. The article is so shamelessly dishonest that anything good about it is frankly not worth the effort of ferreting out and discussing. So I will not dignify Marcotte's ostensible message, let alone her narrative as a whole, with any consideration. However, I should like to draw attention to a couple of points that stick out like inflamed hangnails.

First, a small point. Near the beginning Amanda refers to James Taranto, the  Wall Street Journal columnist, as an "anti-feminist troll". Here she insinuates that "anti-feminist" is a bad thing, yet she never explains why it is a bad thing.  Therefore, since "anti-feminist" means "opposed to feminism", we may fairly conclude that the feminist Amanda Marcotte despises non-feminist people who voice their thoughts about feminism. Interestingly, however, she feels no duty to justify this, likely because she reckons her reading public is on the same page with her and unlikely to call her out. So count Amanda's behavior as another form of feminist privilege and feminist aggression.

Additionally, when Marcotte labels James Taranto as a "troll", she uses the word incorrectly and thereby commits a slander. For the record, a "troll" is a person who enters a conversation on the internet in order to disrupt or derail it. A columnist voicing his considered opinion in a major newspaper is not a troll. Likewise, a person who sharply disagrees with you is not a troll. But Amanda Marcotte is trying to control the language by introducing semantic drift, and this behavior, once again, counts as feminist aggression.

Now let's turn to the featured point of interest, where Amanda discredits herself with stunningly naive oblivion. Near the end of the article, she cites a passage from the Stanford University sexual assault policy. Her reason for doing so, is to discredit somebody else by showing that that person had (supposedly) misinterpreted the document - in other words, that the person had not paid attention. Here is the passage which Amanda cites:
"Sexual assault is the commission of an unwanted sexual act, whether by an acquaintance or by a stranger, that occurs without indication of consent of both individuals, or that occurs under threat or coercion. Sexual assault can occur either forcibly and/or against a person's will, or when a person is incapable of giving consent. A person is legally incapable of giving consent if under age 18 years; if intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol; if developmentally disabled; or if temporarily or permanently mentally or physically unable to do so."
Pay special attention to the bolded typeface in the above selection. Think about it for a minute. It very precisely states that if a person is intoxicated by drugs or alcohol, then that person is LEGALLY incapable of giving consent. So if you "have your way" with such a person, you are LEGALLY committing a "sexual assault". The language is clear. There is no room to wiggle out of it.

But notice what Amanda says next, when she lays out the conclusion that she wants you agree with.  Once again, pay attention to the boldfaced passage:
Considering that the policy explicitly states that the sex in question is unwanted, the paranoia that wanted sex is going to be redefined as rape after the fact because a woman drank alcohol seems unjustified. (After all, the accused can argue the sex was wanted and can bring evidence to support that contention.) Indeed, one reason this paranoia is so infuriating is that rapists tend to target drunk women specifically because they know that people who are too drunk to remember what's going on make really bad witnesses in court. We don't have an epidemic of women exploiting men's drunkenness to get them thrown into jail, but we do have an epidemic of rapists exploiting women's drunkenness to get away with their crimes.
 Now, I'm not sure whether to call this a bait-and-switch, or a merely a contradiction, so I will compromise and call it a bait-and-switch contradiction. Likewise, I'm not sure whether Amanda Marcotte stupidly overlooked this intellectual fumble, or just blandly assumed that nobody would call her out for it. But either way, it stacks up poorly: she is either stupid and careless, or a shameless intellectual con artist.

By the way, what does it mean to call paranoia "unjustified"? Isn't that redundant - like saying "an equilateral square"? If there is such a thing as justified paranoia, then it is not paranoia, but a contradictio in adjecto - or more to the point, rational hyper-vigilance.  However, that nuance seems to have escaped Amanda Marcotte. 

Very well. We read that sex with a drunken women is defined by law as "sexual assault", and if that is not precisely the same as "rape" (is it?), it's still pretty fucking serious when you get stuck on the business end of an accusation. When the law clearly stipulates that sex with a drunken woman is a sex crime, then you are not a damned bit "paranoid" to fear having sex with a drunken woman. Are you?

So let's spell this out as clearly as we possibly can. The law says that "sexual assault" (rape?) occurs when the sex in question meets any or all of the following conditions:
  1. It is unwanted.
  2. It lacks mutual indication of consent. 
  3. It occurs under threat or coercion.
The law enlarges on point number 2 by stipulating that the power to consent is legally voided by the state of intoxication. So it no longer matters if the sexual act is "wanted" or not. It is illegal by definition, hence prosecutable. Wanted or unwanted, intoxicated sex can be prosecuted, under law, as sexual assault. That is not paranoia. That is the plain, ugly, bald-headed truth.

By definition, the sex in question can never be "redefined" as rape, because it was never not defined as rape.

Did Amanda Marcotte, the notorious feminist asshole, really fail to notice this? Seriously? Is she really that stupid?

You know what? I don't think she was stupid at all. I think she was pulling a fast one on purpose and thought she could get away with it. She is just so arrogantly cocksure of herself that she believes she has an infinite moral license to do such things. It never entered her head that she was doing something rancid.

But I am not a bit surprised. After all, Amanda Marcotte is a feminist, and such behavior is absolutely normative of feminists everywhere. They do it all the time! Yes, you can multiply this example by millions. Now do you understand what we are up against? This is feminism, friends. This is feminism. And this is why we fight.

In conclusion, let me say that Slate.Com ought to be ashamed for publishing such garbage. This certainly puts Slate in the tabloid category, and it puts their hip, progressive, educated readers in the class of tabloid readers.


Anonymous Lastango said...

The first time I was called a "troll", which happened at a lipstick feminist website, I raised the same point you have: that the the term refers to someone amusing themselves by stimulating reactions from readers. It is not applicable to someone who is presenting another viewpoint, and supporting their case with arguments and links.

That's when I learned that "troll" has been deliberately drifted to become a smear. Like "creepy", or a derisive "LULZ!", it is intended to demonize the target and attract a punkswarm of derision from sophomoric followers. It also cautions any readers tempted to offer support or respectful inquiry that they, too, will be marginalized and bullied unless they wisely shut up.

As such, this use of "troll" strikes me as an extension of campus culture, where only pre-approved voices are allowed, and the threat of thuggish abuse by students, professors and administrators is the elephant in every room. Similarly, at a feminist website, the blogger(s) and their admirers can do whatever they want. So they do. A lust for privilege and power oozes from their pores, and they are entitled to destroy others by any means necessary.

2:13 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home