I talked with my best friend (and a philosopher) last night and he suggested I read up a bit on John Stuart Mill. That, and a good night's sleep, helped me clarify and consolidate the thoughts I was trying for in last night's admittedly muddy diary "RAPE IS NOT DEFENSIBLE, but Freedom of Thought Should Be". For those of you that are curious about a different take on the Dave Catanese tweet controversy, here goes:
A) A lot of people can be wrong about something sometimes ("tyranny of the majority"). In this case, I think a lot of people are wrong about Catanese's intent and what he was trying to accomplish with his tweets. He wasn't defending rape, or even defending a defender of rape.
B) I think Twitter was the wrong medium for what Catanese was trying to do. It left him producing disjointed nibbles and his cohesive message got lost in that. Here are his tweets:
[1]Ok, I'm gonna (ask for it) & defend @ToddAkin for argument's sake. We all know what he was trying to say... <-----terrible opener! It sounds like he's about to defend Akin, instead of what he actually ends up doing (see last tweet)
[2]Poor phrasing, but if you watch the intv @ToddAkin meant to convey that there's less chance of getting pregnant if raped.
[3]So perhaps some can agree that all rapes that are reported are not actually rapes? Or are we gonna really deny that for PC sake
[4]So looks like he meant to say -- "If a woman was REALLY raped, it's statistically less likely for her to get pregnant." What's the science?
[5]So maybe. Just maybe, @ToddAkin didn't really mean 'legitimate.' Perhaps he meant if 'someone IS really raped' or 'a rape really occurs' <----- the actual crux of Catanese's argument
C) I don't think Catanese was defending Akin's side, nor Akin's science. That science has been
shown to be wrong, but it doesn't actually change Catanese's charge: that maybe Akins did misspeak.
D) Fleshed out, Catanese's charge is that maybe Akin, when saying "legitimate rape", meant to say something closer to "actual rape", and therefore, when Akin later said he misspoke, Akin really meant it.
We all know how problematic a phrase like "legitimate rape" is, because, as Obama famously said yesterday, "rape is rape". However, Catanese was saying that if not every single reported rape is indeed an actual rape (another problematic and explosive statement, because women historically and unjustly face skepticism when they report rapes; they are not generally given the benefit of the doubt), then, when Akin said "legitimate rape", Akin was meaning to say "situations of rape that indeed happened".
Putting aside these problems, and the erroneous science behind Akin's allegations on pregnancy rates notwithstanding, if Akin's use of the phrase "legitimate rape" came down to poor word choice, then maybe Akin was not lying when he said he had misspoken.
(In this instance, I don't think Akin used the phrase "legitimate rape" as a category of rape, or that he was trying to classify "legitimate rape" as a certain type of rape, which the GOP has tried to do legislatively in the past).
So it seems to me that Catanese was not defending rape, was not taking a (+) stance on the science of pregnancies during rape, was not calling into question rape victims' allegations or calling them liars, and was not, in my view, disseminating propaganda. I think Catanese was very narrowly arguing that maybe Akin did indeed misspeak.
E) My own argument, the reason for yesterday's diary and for my ongoing dedication of mental energy to this issue, is that Catanese should not have to lose his job over considering how semantics and intent played a role in Akin's admitted self-implosion.
F) Even though a lot of people read Catanese's tweets as an implicit defense of Akin at worst, or as a dangerously irresponsible journalistic conversation at best (for not including links to the science), I think it unfair for Catanese to get the same consequence as Akin. He hasn't, but some have called for it. Although, as some commentators last night said, we all have the right to call (or not call) for any person to lose their job, firing Catanese or others that engage in what he did would be an uncritical application of consequence. I suspect Slate's Weigel would agree.
Thanks for reading :)