How the N.Y. Times ex­plains male sex scan­dals

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary -

An­thony Weiner, Do­minique StraussKahn, Arnold Sch­warzeneg­ger, these are just the most re­cent ex­am­ples of pow­er­ful men who have ru­ined their lives be­cause of some in­ap­pro­pri­ate (or, in the case of Strauss-Kahn, al­legedly much worse than in­ap­pro­pri­ate) sex­ual con­duct.

Can you name a sin­gle woman politi­cian caught in a sim­i­lar sex scan­dal? If not, why not? The an­swer is so sim­ple and so ob­vi­ous that there should be no need to write a col­umn on the sub­ject. But, thanks to fem­i­nism and academia, the ob­vi­ous has been de­clared un­true.

Take the ar­ti­cle on this sub­ject by New York Times Wash­ing­ton cor­re­spon­dent Sh­eryl Gay Stolberg. Ti­tled “When It Comes to Scan­dal, Girls Won’t Be Boys,” Stolberg be­gins her an­swer to the ques­tion as to why pow­er­ful men, but not pow­er­ful women, are in­volved in sex scan­dals with this dis­claimer: “It would be easy to file this un­der the cat­e­gory of ‘men be­hav­ing badly,’ to dis­miss it as a testos­terone-in­duced, hard-wired con­nec­tion be­tween sex and power (pow­er­ful men at­tract women) . . . .”

Of course, what Stolberg dis- misses as the rea­son is pre­cisely the rea­son. Power (and money and fame) se­duces women in the same way women’s bod­ies and faces se­duce men. And, un­less men ex­ert ma­jor ef­forts to con­trol their sex­ual na­ture, they will use their power (or money or fame) to ob­tain sex with a va­ri­ety of women.

There are only two things that stop pow­er­ful and fa­mous men from sleep­ing with avail­able women. The first is a strong value sys­tem (that is, a sense of obli­ga­tion to their wives and/or their re­li­gion’s power over them). The sec­ond is an over­whelm­ing fear of get­ting caught. In ei­ther case, these things must be cou­pled with pow­er­ful self-con­trol.

Yes, Stolberg, men, the least pow­er­ful as much as the most pow­er­ful, are “hard-wired” to sleep with as many women as they can.

The only dif­fer­ence be­tween the gov­er­nor of Cal­i­for­nia and a male san­i­ta­tion worker is that the for­mer has far more op­por- tu­ni­ties.

But Stolberg, our well-ed­u­cated New York Times cor­re­spon­dent, de­nies this ba­sic re­al­ity about men’s na­tures. Fem­i­nism 101 teaches the op­po­site of re­al­ity, that men and women have sim­i­lar, if not iden­ti­cal, sex­ual drives. And there­fore she dis­misses the truth of the mat­ter at the out­set of her ar­ti­cle.

But if it isn’t male sex­ual na­ture, what is the New York Times re­porter’s fem­i­nist ex- pla­na­tion for why sex­ual scan­dal is vir­tu­ally a mo­nop­oly of pow­er­ful men?

“There may be some­thing else at work: Re­search points to a sub­stan­tial gen­der gap in the way women and men ap­proach run­ning for of­fice. Women have dif­fer­ent rea­sons for run­ning, are more re­luc­tant to do so and, be­cause there are so few of them in pol­i­tics, are acutely aware of the scrutiny they draw, all of which seems to lead to dif­fer­ences in the way they han­dle their jobs once elected.”

See? In her world­view, pow- er­ful women might be driven to bed good-look­ing men as much as pow­er­ful men are driven to bed good-look­ing women. But “re­search points” to an­other ex­pla­na­tion for why they do not.

And what is that other rea­son? Stolberg quotes a fel­low fem­i­nist.

“’The short­hand of it is that women run for of­fice to do some­thing, and men run for of­fice to be some­body,’ said Deb­bie Walsh, di­rec­tor of the Cen­ter for Amer­i­can Women and

So, then, women politi­cians are not more no­ble than their male col­leagues, just bet­ter at not get­ting caught!

Pol­i­tics at Rut­gers Univer­sity.”

Aha! Women politi­cians are more no­ble.

Later in her ar­ti­cle, Stolberg re­in­forces, per­haps sens­ing that even New York Times read­ers might find the “women are more no­ble” than men ex­pla­na­tion tough to take, her orig­i­nal de­nial that the is­sue is male sex­ual na­ture. She writes: “He­len Fisher, an an­thro­pol­o­gist at Rut­gers, said her stud­ies on adul­tery show that, at least un­der the age of 40, women are equally as likely to en­gage in it as men. She the­o­rizes that per- haps women are sim­ply more clever about not get­ting caught.” So, then, women politi­cians are not more no­ble than their male col­leagues, just bet­ter at not get­ting caught!

But then Stolberg re­verts to her orig­i­nal the­sis by not­ing that “Dee Dee My­ers, a press sec­re­tary to Pres­i­dent Bill Clin­ton . . . and the au­thor of ‘Why Women Should Rule the World,’ sur­mises that male politi­cians feel in­vin­ci­ble.

“It would be im­pos­si­ble, she said, to imag­ine Nancy Pelosi, the for­mer House speaker, do­ing any­thing like what Mr. Weiner did.”

Of course, it is im­pos­si­ble to imag­ine Nancy Pelosi do­ing any­thing like An­thony Weiner did.

But not be­cause pow­er­ful men think they are in­vin­ci­ble and pow­er­ful women do not, but be­cause of male sex­ual na­ture.

Pow­er­ful men are in­volved in sex scan­dals be­cause they think they can get away with do­ing so, and be­cause the drive to do what they did is so pow­er­ful they risk ev­ery­thing they cher­ish in life for it.

Den­nis Prager hosts a na­tion­ally syn­di­cated ra­dio talk show and is a vis­it­ing fel­low at the Hoover In­sti­tu­tion at Stan­ford Univer­sity.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.