The WSJ Needs to Stop Publishing James Taranto's Rape Apologia

Illustration for article titled The WSJ Needs to Stop Publishing James Taranto's Rape Apologia

Instead of freaking out about James Taranto's latest vile Wall Street Journal op-ed, which claims the campaign against military sexual assault is a "war on men" that "shows signs of becoming an effort to criminalize male sexuality," we asked the paper's editors to defend Taranto's slimy piece. Unsurprisingly, none of them got back to us.


James Taranto is a prolific woman-hating troll. Some of his recent misogynist masterpieces include a miserable analogy of rape and theft and a defense of the infamous "Princeton Mom's" warning to young women to, in Taranto's words, "take advantage of the simultaneity of their own peak nubility." (Yours truly is quoted in that one; yay.) Taranto also questioned whether Gabby Giffords was really capable of writing a lengthy op-ed on gun control because she's disabled thanks to being shot in the head. He is the worst.

Yesterday's column on sexual assault in the military isn't worth detailing in full because it's so overwhelmingly horrible, but Taranto essentially argues that so-called "sexually assaulted" women (who he thinks experience "hanky-panky" and "sexual recklessness," not rape) are asking for it and that men are incapable of not raping because of testosterone, or something. HE IS THE WORST.

I'm not interested in engaging with Taranto, because he's a cockroach, but I'm interested in hearing his editors defend his work. Why does the Wall Street Journal, the best-selling newspaper in the country, publish Taranto's drivel? Are they in it for the pageviews, or do they really think his point of view is worthwhile?

I emailed Paul A. Gigot (Editor, Editorial Page), Daniel Henninger (Deputy Editor, Editorial Page), Bret Stephens (Deputy Editor, Editorial Page) and James Freeman (Assistant Editor, Editorial Page) the following message this morning:

I'm writing a piece about James Taranto's recent assertion that the effort to stop pervasive sexual assault in the military is a "war on men." I'm wondering why the Wall Street Journal would publish this piece, which doesn't foster discussion or present an interesting viewpoint as much as perpetuate ridiculous, sexist stereotypes about both men and women. Can you or someone else please explain the decision to run this piece? Feel free to write back or call me to talk further: XXX-XXX-XXXX. If you could get back to me as soon as possible, that would be great.


I haven't gotten any emails or calls back, but will update if I do.



Me after reading his drivel: