> In fact, it seems dangerously close to, "well, men evolved to be stronger, therefore, only men should be able to be ['soldiers', 'policemen', 'construction workers', 'etc...'].
Funnily enough, everytime someone tries to say that male ascendancy in society isn't a conspiracy by evil men to put down women, there is always someone who construes this as a moral validation of male dominance, or even as an imperative for it.
That cultural, historical and legal issues might have been side-products of gender differences rather than their cause seems to be unthinkable for the typical feminist kool-aid drinker.
The feminist ideology requires us males to be villains, because otherwise there is no war (because males aren't fighting it, and probably never have), and they become obsolete. Which is of course exactly what they are. Gender-gap in pay, academic and economic achievements, or even domestic violence have little or no cultural basis nowadays, so feminists are about as useful as slavery abolitionists would be today in western societies.
The article is very good. Incomplete, but very good. Your response is disappointing because it dismisses the suffering of many people: women and slaves. Just because some university professor came up with a good explanation for the origin of suffering, it does not mean that the suffering is good, or that we should tolerate it.
As usual, there is a continuum there. While some young teenage girls (and all boys ;) might be interested in sex, at how young do we put the limit? 13, like in Spain? 12? 11? When does it becomes really uncomfortable to talk about their "sexual drives"?
When it comes to teenage sex becoming criminalized, though, the author is right on the money: this is just crazy. When I was a teenager I knew some girls my age who were having sex with young men in their 20s. None of us thought this was creepy. They were boyfriend/girlfriend, and that was it. But it was in France in the 80s, and I'm not sure people would be so understanding today.
Ultimately, this should be a case of "has there been violence or coercion?", and "how did the minor perceive the experience?". Anti-rape laws should suffice for this, with the youth of the victim as an aggravating factor. As to when to decide that the child was unable to give consent, that, ultimately, should be in the hands of the judge, as advised by a psychologist. Not a perfect system, but far more humane than automatically putting a 18-years old behind bars for boinking his 17-years old girlfriend.
Agree with last paragraph. I had my first sex at 17 with a 15 yo girl who then became my girlfriend for seven years. Guess America would gladly brand me a pedophile.
I'm not sure people would be so understanding today
The focused brainwashing by the media that led to this recent change in people's opinions should really be the focus of discussion here.
Funnily enough, everytime someone tries to say that male ascendancy in society isn't a conspiracy by evil men to put down women, there is always someone who construes this as a moral validation of male dominance, or even as an imperative for it.
That cultural, historical and legal issues might have been side-products of gender differences rather than their cause seems to be unthinkable for the typical feminist kool-aid drinker.
The feminist ideology requires us males to be villains, because otherwise there is no war (because males aren't fighting it, and probably never have), and they become obsolete. Which is of course exactly what they are. Gender-gap in pay, academic and economic achievements, or even domestic violence have little or no cultural basis nowadays, so feminists are about as useful as slavery abolitionists would be today in western societies.