It seems like a rape joke.<\/b>
\nThe Wall Street Journal\u2019s editorial board applauded Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) for deciding to vote for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh with what appears to be a joke about sexual consent. Really.
\u201c Susan Collins Consents \u201d reads the headline of the editorial, which WSJ published on Friday evening after Collins on the Senate floor announced she would indeed vote for Kavanaugh after weeks of deliberation. The text of the editorial makes clear that the \u201cconsent\u201d reference is actually tied to the Senate\u2019s role in providing \u201cadvice and consent\u201d to the president of the United States on nominations and international treaties.
Still, given the circumstances of Kavanaugh\u2019s nomination \u2014 he has been accused of sexual assault by one woman and sexual misconduct by another, accusations he has vehemently denied \u2014 the headline is, at the very least, in extremely poor taste. It\u2019s a rape joke.
Palo Alto University professor Christine Blasey Ford alleges that while they were at a high school party in the 1980s, Kavanaugh drunkenly pinned her down, tried to take off her clothes, and covered her mouth as she screamed as one of his friends, Mark Judge, looked on. She didn\u2019t consent to that. Deborah Ramirez claims that Kavanaugh drunkenly exposed himself to her and thrust his genitals in her face while they were in college. She didn\u2019t consent to that either.
The type of consent the editorial board\u2019s editorial goes on to discuss is the Senate\u2019s \u201cadvice and consent\u201d role \u2014 the constitutionally assigned duty for senators to review and approve federal appointments and treaties \u2014 in relation to President Donald Trump in his nomination of Kavanaugh. Collins invoked that while discussing her decision to support Kavanaugh on Friday, saying that the Senate\u2019s process was \u201cthrown into a tailspin\u201d after the allegations against Kavanaugh came to light.
\u201cThe presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee\u2019s otherwise exemplary record,\u201d Collins said.
From WSJ\u2019s editorial:
But the editorial isn\u2019t headlined Collins \u201cadvises and consents.\u201d The \u201cadvice\u201d part is left out.
The internet was quick to notice the apparent double-entendre.
It was also quick to damn the paper\u2019s leadership. (Editorials are different than op-eds, which are opinion pieces written by contributors and reflect the opinions of the individual author. Editorials are written by a newspaper\u2019s board and represent the official institutional position of the paper.)
The Wall Street Journal has not yet responded to the outcry and did not return a request for comment.
Headlines making a play on words about rape would be in poor taste anytime, but it\u2019s a fraught moment for many women and men in America. The Kavanaugh hearings have brought forth a lot of raw emotions about sexual assault and misconduct and the meaning of consent. The #MeToo era has, too.
Perhaps no one who saw the headline before it went out noticed it would be problematic, or if they did, they were overruled. Or they knew it would draw criticism, and they ran it anyway.<\/p>\n

\n

Similarity rank: 7<\/div>\n

Sentiment rank: -0.2<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

TW posts: 48<\/div>\n

TW reposts: 59<\/div>\n

TW likes: 128<\/div>\n

TW sentiment: -5<\/div>\n<\/div>\n