If you have a round peg that doesn’t fit in a square hole, do you blame the peg or the hole? You probably blame neither. We don’t assign blame to inanimate objects. But you might have some questions about the person who provided you with these mismatched items and set you up to fail.Obviously he is writing with Anthony Weiner in mind. Yep a real scuzzbag. But I find it outrageous how the pots in Washington are busy calling the kettles "black". This reminds me of when they tried to impeach Clinton. The Republicans behind this were guilty of the very same sex crimes, but that didn't stop them. I didn't like Clinton's scuzzy ways, but I liked the attempt to drum him out based on hypocritical outrage even less. Via Wikipedia:
If a lion and a zebra show up at the same watering hole, and the lion kills the zebra, whose fault is that? Maybe you say the lion is at fault for doing the killing. Maybe you say the zebra should have chosen a safer watering hole. But in the end, you probably conclude that both animals acted according to their natures, so no one is to blame. However, if this is your local zoo, you might have some questions about who put the lions with the zebras in the same habitat.
Now consider human males. No doubt you have noticed an alarming trend in the news. Powerful men have been behaving badly, e.g. tweeting, raping, cheating, and being offensive to just about everyone in the entire world. The current view of such things is that the men are to blame for their own bad behavior. That seems right. Obviously we shouldn’t blame the victims. I think we all agree on that point. Blame and shame are society’s tools for keeping things under control.
The part that interests me is that society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable. In other words, men are born as round pegs in a society full of square holes. Whose fault is that? Do you blame the baby who didn’t ask to be born male? Or do you blame the society that brought him into the world, all round-pegged and turgid, and said, “Here’s your square hole”?
The way society is organized at the moment, we have no choice but to blame men for bad behavior. If we allowed men to act like unrestrained horny animals, all hell would break loose. All I’m saying is that society has evolved to keep males in a state of continuous unfulfilled urges, more commonly known as unhappiness. No one planned it that way. Things just drifted in that direction.
Consider Hugh Hefner. He had every benefit of being a single man, and yet he decided he needed to try marriage. Marriage didn’t work out, so he tried the single life again. That didn’t work out, so he planned to get married again, although reportedly the wedding just got called off. For Hef, being single didn’t work, and getting married didn’t work, at least not in the long run. Society didn’t offer him a round hole for his round peg. All it offered were unlimited square holes.
To be fair, if a man meets and marries the right woman, and she fulfills his needs, he might have no desire to tweet his meat to strangers. Everyone is different. But in general, society is organized as a virtual prison for men’s natural desires. I don’t have a solution in mind. It’s a zero sum game. If men get everything they want, women lose, and vice versa. And there’s no real middle ground because that would look like tweeting a picture of your junk with your underpants still on. Some things just don’t have a compromise solution.
Long term, I think science will come up with a drug that keeps men chemically castrated for as long as they are on it. It sounds bad, but I suspect that if a man loses his urge for sex, he also doesn’t miss it. Men and women would also need a second drug that increases oxytocin levels in couples who want to bond. Copulation will become extinct. Men who want to reproduce will stop taking the castration drug for a week, fill a few jars with sperm for artificial insemination, and go back on the castration pill.
That might sound to you like a horrible world. But the oxytocin would make us a society of huggers, and no one whttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifould be treated as a sex object. You’d have no rape, fewer divorces, stronger friendships, and a lot of other advantages. I think that’s where we’re headed in a few generations.
Many other prominent Republican members of Congress (including Dan Burton of Indiana, Helen Chenoweth of Idaho, and Henry Hyde of Illinois, the chief House manager of Clinton's trial in the Senate) had infidelities exposed around this time, as publisher Larry Flynt offered a reward for such information and many supporters of Clinton accused Republicans of hypocrisy.Let's see:
- Dan Burton produced a bastard via an affhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifair with a state employee. So much for Republican "family values". According to Wikipedia: In 1995 speaking of the then recent affairs of Republican Robert Packwood and the unfolding affair of Democrat Bill Clinton Burton stated "No one, regardless of what party they serve, no one, regardless of what branch of government they serve, should be allowed to get away with these alleged sexual improprieties..." In 1998 the magazine Vanity Fair was to print an article detailing an affair which Burton himself had in 1983 which phttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifroduced a child. Before publication Burton admitted to fathering a son with a former state employee.
- Helen Chenoweth-Hage carried on a six year illicit affair with a married man, again another variant of "family values" beloved by the Republicans. As stated in Wikipedia: Chenoweth claimed that her case was different from the Clinton/Lewinsky case since shhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gife was a private citizen at the time, and claimed her case was different because "I've asked for God's forgiveness, and I've received it."
- Henry Hyde lead the impeachment effort and was the foremost hypocrite because he had his own extramarital affair. But of course, when it is a Republican, it isn't the same as for a Democrat. Wikipedia puts Hyde's "explaination" as: Hyde, who was 41 years old and married when the affair occurred, admitted to the affair in 1998, describing the relationship as a "youthful indiscretion". The revelation of this affair took place as Hyde was spearheading the impeachment hearings of President Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
The job of a legislative body is purely political. Whether a guy has a shoe fetish or lusts after sheep has nothing to do with his ability to represent his constituency and provide sound political judgement. Personally I would think such a guy is a scumbag and would throw him out at the next election, but it is outrageous when other legislators step in and decide who is and is not fit to represent some other district. This removes the right of those people to representation. Wasn't the American Revolution fought over "taxation without representation"? If Congress removes that district's legislators, don't they then have the right to rebel and demand independence because of the tyranny of Congress that will be taxing them without representation?
No comments:
Post a Comment