About

Cheryl Miller is a 2007 Phillips Foundation Journalism Fellow and the editor of Doublethink magazine. Her work has appeared in such publications as The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Wall Street Journal, Reason, and The Claremont Review of Books.

She can be contacted at cheryl [at] americasfuture [dot] org.

Read my other blog. The one that's not obnoxious and self-absorbed!

Recent publications

"The Master" in The Claremont Review of Books

"Scary Rise of the 'Sanctimommy'" in The Washington Times

"Why Malamud Faded" in Commentary

"Blogging Infertility" in The New Atlantis

"Outsourcing Childbirth" in The Wall Street Journal

"The Painless Peace of Twilight Sleep" in The New Atlantis

"The Genius of Old New York" in The Claremont Review of Books

"Parenthood At Any Price" in The New Atlantis

"Modern Girls and the Moral Revival They Are Leading" in The Washington Times

ARTICLE ARCHIVE

Links

Monday, February 25, 2008

Just Go Back To The Fifties And No One Gets Hurt

I just don't get all the conservative opposition to (as Heather Mac Donald calls it) the "campus rape industry." Or I do get some of it, but I don't see how else conservatives would like to solve the problem. Yes, colleges should warn women about the dangers of drinking and not invite porn stars to give lectures. Yes, women should be more prudent (e.g., probably not a smart idea to get drunk and naked at a man's apartment when you don't plan to have sex with him). Agreed, all. But then what?

Mac Donald attacks colleges for treating campus rape in a way inconsistent with the sexual liberationist ethos prevalent elsewhere on campus. But isn't this a feature, not a bug? Don't conservatives agree that men and women are different (especially when it comes to sex), that women are more vulnerable, and that men thus have a special responsibility to protect women? (Think Charlotte Simmons.) As Rita puts it:

Earlier, it might have been argued that such a double standard speaks to inherent gender differences--men are more sexually aggressive by nature, and women less likely to seek out intercourse, so women must be protected from men.

This seems like a much better solution (sneaking social conservatives values in through the back door) than some of the things you hear in certain conservative circles. A few years back, I went to dinner with some friends of my ex-boyfriend, and we got into just this argument. There were two guys at the dinner--seemingly nice, decent men, both social conservative types--and their position was basically, "If they're sluts enough to be willing to go back to my apartment, then they must be game." As they saw it, the occasional date rape was a punishment for the Sexual Revolution. "Payback is a bitch," and all that (an argument which Rita seems to be very close to making, though she probably wouldn't say "punishment.").

So our options it would seem are 1) to go back to the Fifties and no one gets hurt (a solution I don't think any sane conservative sees as desirable or even possible), 2) resign ourselves to the occasional date rape as the collateral damage of the Sexual Revolution (which I think is Rita's ultimate position), or 3) try to deal with these situations seriously even if it's an incoherent and imperfect solution.

Labels: gender wars

posted by Cheryl # 4:25 PM

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home