So, a New York Times columnist wrote a column predicting government-mandated redistribution of sex in the future, citing one of the best articles I have read in a long time. I had written about the article a few weeks ago and was quite horrified by how he had mangled its message. When Twitter blew up on him, he posted that article--which was on the Politics of Desire--whining that no one had read it. Maybe because he failed to understand why people were getting mad at him and not mad at the author of the other article.
The column also cited an economist who had wondered aloud why redistribution of sex was not considered as just an aim as redistribution of property or money. Well, for starters, because surrendering autonomy over your body is the definition of being enslaved. And, you cannot reduce the most intimate human act to the status of a commodity that can be traded or bartered. Paying higher taxes is not the same as being legally bound to sleep with someone, which is state-mandated rape.
The column referenced 'incels', or involuntary celibates--socially awkward men who lust after cheerleader types and hate such girls for spurning them or because they imagine that those girls will spurn them. These men lurk in the dregs of the internet and the craziest ones carry out mass murders. The New York Times was essentially saying that while he don't support their violent actions, their grievance was legitimate. That it is entirely legitimate to expect thin, blond women with big breasts to sleep with you. And with that, he turned the politics of desire article on its head. The author of that article had taken great pains to emphasize that examining the politics of desire and having a conversation about sexual marginalisation was not the same as asserting the right to sex. I come from a country which is teeming with 'incels' and which has staggering levels of sexual violence because many men assert this "right". Sexual marginalisation is a real thing. But there is a world of difference between empowerment, and entitlement enacted through violent means.
The column also cited an economist who had wondered aloud why redistribution of sex was not considered as just an aim as redistribution of property or money. Well, for starters, because surrendering autonomy over your body is the definition of being enslaved. And, you cannot reduce the most intimate human act to the status of a commodity that can be traded or bartered. Paying higher taxes is not the same as being legally bound to sleep with someone, which is state-mandated rape.
The column referenced 'incels', or involuntary celibates--socially awkward men who lust after cheerleader types and hate such girls for spurning them or because they imagine that those girls will spurn them. These men lurk in the dregs of the internet and the craziest ones carry out mass murders. The New York Times was essentially saying that while he don't support their violent actions, their grievance was legitimate. That it is entirely legitimate to expect thin, blond women with big breasts to sleep with you. And with that, he turned the politics of desire article on its head. The author of that article had taken great pains to emphasize that examining the politics of desire and having a conversation about sexual marginalisation was not the same as asserting the right to sex. I come from a country which is teeming with 'incels' and which has staggering levels of sexual violence because many men assert this "right". Sexual marginalisation is a real thing. But there is a world of difference between empowerment, and entitlement enacted through violent means.
No comments:
Post a Comment