The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Courtesy Is Now ‘Rape Culture’

Posted on | January 13, 2016 | 89 Comments

In an astounding leap of feminist logic, Berkeley law student Courtney Fraser condemns chivalry as “benevolent sexism,” blaming “sexual violence against women” on “the perpetuation of rape culture, which normalizes this violence.” Of course, “the age of chivalry is gone,” as Edmund Burke observed in 1790, but feminists are fiercely determined to eradicate whatever vestiges of the “unbought grace of life” yet remain. Men’s obligation of courtesy toward women is patriarchal oppression, and any sense a man may have of a duty to protect women against insult or injury must be abolished, Ms. Fraser insists:

“[R]ape culture, or the complex of images and ideologies
in society that normalize sexual violence,
depends on chivalry for its existence. More precisely,
it depends on the attendant ideologies that place women
on a pedestal and strip them of agency in the process.”

This assertion is perhaps as startling to most readers in the 21st century as it would have been to Edmund Burke more than 200 years ago, but this is where feminist ideology must inevitably lead. The pursuit of radical “equality” requires lunatic madness, and everyone who climbs aboard the feminist bandwagon must understand that the movement’s ultimate destination is Bedlam.

What is perhaps most interesting in Ms. Fraser’s argument is her sources. Her first cited source is Susan Griffin, whose 1971 article “Rape: The All-American Crime” was first published in the radical journal Ramparts. A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, Griffin portrayed rape as a political crime — a manifestation of women’s oppression under the sexist regime of male supremacy — and asserted that “rape and the fear of rape are a daily part of every woman’s consciousness.” To support her claim that “forcible rape is the most frequently committed violent crime in America today,” Griffin engaged in what has since become a well-known feminist tactic, statistical creativity:

In 1968, 31,060 rapes were reported. According to the FBI and independent criminologists, however, to approach accuracy this figure must be multiplied by a factor of ten to compensate for the fact that most rapes are not reported; when these compensatory mathematics are used, there are more rapes committed than aggravated assaults and homicides.

The use of this kind of “compensatory mathematics” to exaggerate the prevalence of rape is necessary to the feminist project of blaming all men for “violence against women.” Feminists employ a deceptive rhetoric that generalizes responsibility, so that wrongdoing is always blamed on a collective group (males) rather than on the individual. While this collectivist worldview amounts to an unjust accusation against law-abiding males, it also simultaneously empowers feminists to assert their authority to speak as victims of collective oppression.

“Women are an oppressed class. . . .
“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All men have oppressed women.”
— Redstockings, 1969

Feminism divides humanity into two groups — men (the oppressors) and women (the oppressed) — and thereby establishes a double-standard wherein no woman is ever responsible for her failures or disappointments, and everything men say or do is condemned as tainted by “male supremacy.” A critical student of feminist discourse notices their use of jargon terms (“sexism,” “misogyny,” “objectification,” “patriarchy,” etc.) all of which are more or less interchangeable synonyms, pejorative ways of labeling the ordinary behavior of normal men. Any man who admires a woman’s beauty is a sexist who has objectified her with the male gaze, according to feminist ideology, so that men are subject to denunciation merely for looking at women.

A key function of this rhetoric is to allow extraordinary privileged women to assert that they are actually victims of oppression. We are not surprised to learn, for example, that Courtney Fraser is an alumna of Reed College (annual tuition, $47,760) and that at this elite private college in Oregon, Ms. Fraser majored in linguistics and wrote her senior thesis on the “Construction of Gender in Instant Messaging.” Learning how to pursue social justice is a very expensive endeavor, and the secret ingredient of feminist ideology is Daddy’s money.

Among the sources cited in Ms. Fraser’s anti-chivalry treatise, in addition to Susan Griffin (from Rape: The Politics of Consciousness, 1978), are Sandra Lee Bartky (from The Politics of Women’s Bodies: Sexuality, Appearance, and Behavior, a Women’s Studies textbook edited by Rose Weitz and Samantha Kwan) and bell hooks’ notorious anti-male treatise deceptively titled Feminism Is for Everybody. Ms. Fraser also cites such eminent “Second Wave” feminists as Shulamith Firestone (The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution, 1970), Susan Brownmiller (Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, 1975), Andrea Dworkin (Pornography: Men Possessing Women, 1981) and Catharine MacKinnon’s 1989 Toward a Feminist Theory of the State.

However, the work most often cited by Ms. Fraser is Judith Butler’s 2004 book Undoing Gender. Professor Butler is the leading proponent of feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — and one gathers that Ms. Fraser’s plan to end “rape culture” is simply to eliminate all differences between men and women. She contends (p. 141) that “gender norms, and the rigid binary division of gender, must be broken down if the rates at which rape is committed and acquitted are to decrease.” Ms. Fraser claims (p. 190) that Professor Butler’s writing on butch/femme lesbian roles “presents a compelling argument that identities that queer the gender or sexuality paradigm have the potential, if legitimized, to undermine  the hegemony of the normative status quo.” In a footnote (p. 145), Ms. Fraser laments “cultural narratives and stereotypes . . . based largely on heteronormative and cisgender categories and relationships,” and she finally concludes (p. 203):

Feminist advocates should seek to shape the law to accommodate and protect those with nonnormative genders and sexualities — not only as an end in itself, but as a means of delegitimizing the gender-based norms that support rape culture through destabilizing gender in the first instance.

Feminism Is Queer, as Professor Mimi Marinucci says, and Ms. Fraser’s insistence that “gender-based norms . . . support rape culture” reflects the anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology now taught in university Women’s Studies programs. Feminism promotes an attitude of sexual paranoia (“Fear and Loathing of the Penis”) which reflects a belief that heterosexual intercourse is so inherently harmful that no woman should ever consent to participate in it. Feminists argue that “heterosexuality as an institution and an ideology is a cornerstone of male supremacy” (to quote Professor Charlotte Bunch), that “men have forced women into heterosexuality in order to exploit them” (to quote Professor Celia Kitzinger), that “patriarchal domination” is based on “the coercive power of compulsory heterosexuality” (to quote Professor Stevi Jackson) and, to quote a popular Women’s Studies textbook by Oregon State University professors Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee, “Heterosexism is maintained by the illusion that heterosexuality is the norm.”

In the 21st century, it would be considered an insult to accuse a feminist of heterosexuality. One notes the use of first-person plural pronouns in a 2013 comment Courtney Fraser wrote at an Oregon newspaper’s website in support of same-sex marriage, as well as Ms. Fraser’s use of the phrase “us queer folks” in a blog post about the 2013 Windsor decision. We may take this as signifying Ms. Fraser’s refusal to participate in “the normative status quo” of “heteronormative and cisgender categories and relationships.” While her non-participation in heterosexuality is entirely her own private choice, however, who is Courtney Fraser to present herself as an authority fit to pass judgment on the choices of those who do participate in heterosexuality? That is to say, why must the rest of us be lectured in this manner by a law school student who proclaims that chivalry is the cause of “rape culture,” which Ms. Fraser proposes to eliminate by “destabilizing gender”? And speaking of insane feminists obsessed with rape, Alexandra Brodsky (Yale Law, Class of 2016) is angry at Democrat Bernie Sanders for saying this:

“Rape and assault is rape and assault. Whether it takes place on campus or on a dark street. And if a student rapes a fellow student, that has got to be understood to be a very serious crime. It has got to get outside of the school and have a police investigation. And that has to take place. Too many schools are seeing this as well it’s a student issue, let’s deal with it. I disagree with that. It is a crime and it has to be treated as a serious crime. And you are seeing now the real horror of many women who have been assaulted or raped, sitting in a classroom alongside somebody who raped them. Rape is a very, very serious crime and it has to be prosecuted. It has to be dealt with.”

What’s wrong with that? Well, campus rape is a “civil rights issue,” Ms. Brodsky says: “To treat gender violence as only a crime is to give up on the project of campus sex equality.” This is why Ms. Brodsky and other feminists demand the use of campus Title IX proceedings — where accused students are denied due-process rights that would be guaranteed to any common criminal in a court of law — to punish males based upon the mere accusation of sexual misconduct. More than 100 male students have filed lawsuits against universities, claiming they were falsely accused and unjustly punished in these campus kangaroo courts.

Ms. Brodsky and her feminist comrades have used a non-existent “rape epidemic” to incite a climate of sexual hysteria, which has resulted in male students being expelled from universities because of accusations that are not only unsubstantiated, but actually contradicted by evidence and testimony. The kind of “campus equality” Ms. Brodsky advocates turns out to mean that heterosexuality is effectively criminalized on college campuses, because no male student can ever be certain that the girl who says “yes” tonight won’t change her mind tomorrow and accuse him of rape (because “regret equals rape”).

Feminism is a totalitarian movement that promotes anti-male hate propaganda in law, in politics, in media and especially in education. No honest person could support such a movement, which is why “feminist” has become a synonym for liar.




 

Category: Sex Trouble

Comments

89 Responses to “Courtesy Is Now ‘Rape Culture’”

  1. Matt_SE
    January 13th, 2016 @ 10:40 pm

    As we all know, feminism is heavily derivative of Marxism. Marxism analyzes everything through the lens of power, so every narrative must have a designated victim and a designated oppressor, even if such designations make no sense such as in the case of consensual prostitution.
    Hard leftists are incapable of accepting that many things in life don’t fit that mold.

    It also explains why so many on the left are obsessed with power: it defines everything they see.

  2. concern00
    January 13th, 2016 @ 10:47 pm

    I’m guessing by extension that women in Cologne (and the rest of Europe) won’t need any male assistance for their next public celebration. We should let Merkel and Reker handle it instead.

  3. M. Thompson
    January 13th, 2016 @ 10:47 pm

    Women’s Studies: telling co-eds who’ve had an easy life they’ve been oppressed.

    And a serious criminal matter should be treated as such. These stupid women.

  4. Durasim
    January 13th, 2016 @ 10:58 pm

    Some feminists (and their mangina sympathizers) do not advocate the wholesale abolition of chivalry but try to mutate it along Critical-Marxist lines.

    They want to transform it into some kind of “restitutional” chivalry in which all males must atone for their class crimes of being agents and beneficiaries of the patriarchy and must provide whatever benefit or assistance any female may demand. Of course, they may not want traditional courtesies like volunteering to hold the door open, because any act of male assertion must constitute some kind of rape or violation in feminist terms.

    They want to transform “chivalry” into something akin to a groveling servant forbidden to look in the direction of his female better without her permission.

  5. mole
    January 13th, 2016 @ 11:19 pm

    Sounds about right, all the privilege and protection with no reciprocal responsibilities or norms on their end.

    Has anyone worked out what thing of value womens studies departments actually produce?
    or are they the ones Obamas going to fund to cure cancer?

  6. mole
    January 13th, 2016 @ 11:23 pm

    Ive found a fairly good way to cause a feminist to call me a bad person is to point out they can either have major crimes put through the full process of law carrying major punishments, or petty law decided administratively resulting in relatively minor sentences or fines.

    You can mix the 2 types of law/procedure together rape is either serious business requiring the full majesty and terror of the system, or its a local council speeding fine level offence.

  7. Good Stuff
    January 13th, 2016 @ 11:48 pm

    People tend to state that they see chivalrous acts less and less often, frequently citing the Women’s Liberation Movement as the cause of that trend. Did Feminism kill Chivalry? Was Chivalry something used by men to demean women to a degree where it was needed to be stomped out by the militant feminist boots? Should a man fear being a male chauvinist if he had the audacity to open a door for a lady? Is a man who offers his seat in a bus proving he is a misogynist pig?

  8. Rodrigo
    January 14th, 2016 @ 1:48 am

    I was in northern Washington for a conference and happened to go out with my wife to a nice restaurant. As we entered, a group of young women were just behind us so I naturally held the door for my wife and then for them. They moved as a group to the side and just stared at me – until I decided they rejected my courtesy so I went in. They followed immediately afterwards. The worse part was that several of them were young girls with their mothers.

  9. Joe Joe
    January 14th, 2016 @ 2:31 am

    Robert Stacy McCain:

    You should post THIS on Feminist Twitter:

    Hey American feminists: This is what ‘rape culture’ really looks like
    http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25715/

    “Rape culture” — what does it look like?

    It looks like an ISIS fatwa that details the regulations in which its followers are asked to consider when raping their female “slaves.”

    Among the rules: You can only rape a mother, or daughter, but not both. You can only rape one sister, not two. A father and son cannot both rape the same woman. But wait, there’s a proviso to that. If the father sells the woman to his son, the son can then rape her.

    Raping children is also acceptable: “It is permissible to have intercourse with the female slave who hasn’t reached puberty, if she is fit for intercourse.”

    According to reports, many women choose suicide over such a fate. They cut their wrists or jump off bridges. For those who live, their life includes forced abortions. Some women smear their face with battery acid to look less attractive to men. It doesn’t always work….

  10. Fail Burton
    January 14th, 2016 @ 2:48 am

    I don’t know anything of the kind. The idea that self-pity, sociopathy, supremacy and the mentally deranged are Marxists carries no weight. Was Robin Hood a Marxist?

  11. Fail Burton
    January 14th, 2016 @ 2:48 am

    Man, these people are truly mentally ill.

  12. DeadMessenger
    January 14th, 2016 @ 4:38 am

    You know that when Bernie Sanders starts looking sane and reasonable in comparison, then the given proposition is off the charts crazy.

  13. DeadMessenger
    January 14th, 2016 @ 4:48 am

    Screw feminists. When I see a man doing manly stuff, I gotta slide him my crooked grin with my patented “Hey there, cowboy” look, in which the words “Hey there, cowboy” usually actually pass my lips. And I want, and expect, him to hold doors, carry heavy things, and escort me from Point A to Point B, for which he receives the fabulous prize of a brilliant smile and a look that says, “Baby, you the man.”

    And feminists, if you don’t like that, you can go straight to hell, no passing Go, no collecting $200.

  14. DeadMessenger
    January 14th, 2016 @ 4:49 am

    Women’s studies departments only produce stupid hoes, far as I can tell.

  15. DeadMessenger
    January 14th, 2016 @ 5:02 am

    There’s so much egregious, flagrant BS in the quotes in this article, that an entire second article would be required to address them all. But I’ll just pick this one, on account of being a mathematician and all:

    “In 1968, 31,060 rapes were reported. According to the FBI and independent criminologists, however, to approach accuracy this figure must be multiplied by a factor of ten to compensate for the fact that most rapes are not reported; when these compensatory mathematics are used, there are more rapes committed than aggravated assaults and homicides.”

    I’m wondering, is the “factor of 10” thing coming from the actual FBI, or is it coming from the “independent criminologists”, whoever and whatever they are? Further, the problem with “compensatory mathematics” is this: how many aggravated assaults ans homicides are unreported? Common sense – and yes, I am a woman, and I have this – tells me that way more aggravated assaults than rapes are unreported. Additionally, on account of the authorities finding “mystery remains”, we may learn that there are unreported homicides, too.

    Thus, “compensatory mathematics” are total and complete BS, and the only, sort of, comparison one could make, is using the actual reported data. Which is why, of course, as retarded as a government agency such as the FBI is, they only use reported statistics for reporting purposes.

    Thus, when you are more retarded than a government agency, as Miss Fraser is, you are pretty bloody stoopid.

  16. DeadMessenger
    January 14th, 2016 @ 5:49 am

    They were all stupid hoes.

    I stand at a door to the side and wait for a man to open it for me. I’d stand there all day if I needed to, but I never do. Most men are polite, as it turns out.

    Funny story. I did that at a high rise where my company was located. A guy pulled the door open and went in, ignoring me, and I thought he was just some a-hole. Next guy opened the door for me. Then he held the door at the elevator, and the first guy was in there. Dude 2 tells off Dude 1 for being rude. Dude 1 gave a rude response that his mom taught him not to hold doors for ladies. I said, “Simple answer, your mom is no lady.” He told me to eff off.

    I go to my office to wait for some guy I’m interviewing for a job. Guy walks in…Dude 1. I just smile real, real big. Guess who doesn’t get hired? I figured, you know, maybe his mummy can hire him. I told him to eff off. Circle of life and all that, you know.

  17. Dana
    January 14th, 2016 @ 6:22 am

    When I walk into a store, and there is a person coming behind me, I stop and hold the door for this person, regardless of whether the person is male or female, because it’s rude to let a door lose in someone’s face.

    Now, given that I have objectified and oppressed women by this act of courtesy, does it also mean that, if the person for whom I have held the door is male, I have oppressed him as well, perhaps implying that he is homosexual?

  18. Dana
    January 14th, 2016 @ 6:25 am

    Miss Fraser wrote:

    gender norms, and the rigid binary division of gender, must be broken down if the rates at which rape is committed and acquitted are to decrease.

    If we somehow increase the number of sexes or “genders,” won’t that leave fewer normal women out there, thereby increasing the probability that each individual woman will be raped, because, well, just because?

  19. Dana
    January 14th, 2016 @ 6:28 am

    If Miss Fraser happens to walk up to a restaurant door first, open it and hold it for the next person, and the next person is male, has she oppressed him?

  20. RS
    January 14th, 2016 @ 7:02 am

    I suppose I could click over and read the underlying link, but I really don’t want to invest the time. I would say, however, Ms. Fraser’s assertion suffers from failing to define what she means by “chivalry.” Chivalry was a medieval institutional code of behavior which carried with it many obligations for society’s members. The term has morphed over the years to imply simple common courtesy. Fraser now attempts a further redefinition which involves “putting women on a pedestal,” and removing “agency” from them, phrases which are so vague as to be meaningless.

    Even if we ignore the definitional problems, we still have the fundamental problem of whether “chivalry”–whatever that is–causes “rape culture”–whatever that is–which is the gravamen of her complaint. If “chivalry” is anything, it is a respect bestowed upon another solely by virtue of existing as a human being. That is, the respect has not been earned in any way. It simply is. I think that Ms. Fraser would agree that “rape culture” is the absence of such respect and acknowledgment of human dignity. Neither is dependent on the other for its existence, anymore than light depends upon darkness for its existence or heat depends on cold for its existence. We can distinguish the two because they are opposites, but they do not rely upon each other.

    For that reason, Fraser’s quest to eliminate “chivalry” is bizarre. If the opposite of “rape culture” is eliminated from social consciousness, by what reference is “rape culture” then condemned? Destroying a code of conduct which prohibits sexual violence does nothing to end sexual violence. It merely removes a social barrier to same and eliminates knowledge of the former social prohibition.

  21. robertstacymccain
    January 14th, 2016 @ 7:02 am

    The gentleman’s obligation of courtesy toward women is about deference, and it is remarkable how this is so taken for granted that feminists scream “misogyny” when any man dares to treat them as equals. Nearly every feminist of any consequence has me blocked on Twitter for the simple reason that I call them out on their bullshit the same way I would call out any man. What can we conclude from this? Simply that feminists, like other women, are accustomed to being treated with deference, and are offended when this courtesy is denied to them. A man is regarded as a horrible bully if he calls attention to the absurdity of their arguments, and points out the insulting nature of their rhetoric.

  22. Ilion
    January 14th, 2016 @ 8:52 am

    “It also explains why so many on the left are obsessed with power: it defines everything they see.”
    When the only “problem” you have is a nail, then every “solution” must be a hammer.

  23. robertstacymccain
    January 14th, 2016 @ 9:00 am

    Chivalry was a medieval institutional code of behavior which carried with it many obligations for society’s members. The term has morphed over the years to imply simple common courtesy.

    The key word there is “obligation.” To quote what someone once said, “Duty is the most sublime word in the English language.”

    What underlies the sense of duty at the heart of chivalry is the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This commandment requires careful study to be properly understood, because we must have the wisdom to ask what others actually need, as opposed to what they may foolishly desire. A fool will often say he “needs” something harmful to himself — heroin or pornography or welfare –and will become enraged at you if you deny him what he wants. This demanding attitude of entitlement — “Give me what I want, because I want it” — is the negation of a Golden Rule philosophy of life, and is at the heart of feminist ideology. Every responsible person must consider the good of others in choosing his own actions, and yet feminists claim that it is unfair (“sexist”) to expect a woman to make any consideration for the good of anyone else. Feminism thereby justifies selfishness as “social justice,” and the failure of conservative opposition to feminism can be attributed largely to the unwillingness (or inability) of conservatives to recognize, describe, and call attention to this error. Feminism is dishonest, selfish and cruel; it fosters an attitude (in both men and women) that everyone is, and should be, in a mad scramble for whatever we can get. Feminist rhetoric attempts to conceal this error, and justify itself, by appeals to “Equality,” as if this were such a wonderful goal as to excuse any lie told on behalf of “Equality.”

  24. Ilion
    January 14th, 2016 @ 9:06 am

    That’s rather funny.

    But, I’m not sure you’ve noticed that, for good or ill, it’s women calling the shots in society, as they always have. Until women in general emphatically suppress feminism — which they will not do (*) — we’re going to continue to have such Catch-22 instances as you describe, of a men being damned if they do and damned if they don’t (and the young ones, as in this case, not having enough experience to navigate the situation).

    (*) women, in general — and I specifically mean most of those who would adamantly deny being feminisns — enjoy the headiness of being able to use feminism to keep men, in general, off balance.

  25. Ilion
    January 14th, 2016 @ 9:09 am

    Exactly. Feminists no more want to be treated as our equals than more normal women do.

  26. Ilion
    January 14th, 2016 @ 9:10 am

    No.
    Because she’d never hold it open for the next person, regardless of that person’s sex or age or disability.

  27. Dana
    January 14th, 2016 @ 9:37 am

    Our esteemed host erred:

    Nearly every feminist of any consequence has me blocked on Twitter for the simple reason that I call them out on their bullshit the same way I would call out any man.

    This statement assumes that there are feminists of consequence; you may wish to rethink that.

    This article holds that the essential difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the left see alt of these issues personally, while conservatives view them more philosophically. Assuming that to be the case, you can debate with a liberal and not take it personally, but the left see disagreements with their positions as not just philosophical, but as personal attacks; you aren’t just disagreeing with Amanda Marcotte’s positions, but you’re calling her stupid by disagreeing!

    Of course, that shouldn’t bother her, because calling people who disagree with her stupid is precisely her “debating” technique. Unfortunately, she is one of a great many thin-skinned people who can dish it out, but can’t take it.

  28. Dana
    January 14th, 2016 @ 9:38 am

    I needed a tweet from the lovely Miss Marcotte for an article of mine, and she has me blocked, so I simply logged out, and then looked up her tweets that way; it works.

  29. robertstacymccain
    January 14th, 2016 @ 10:16 am

    One reason feminists seldom criticize the notorious misogyny of gay male culture is this: Feminists despise male sexuality in general, and thus would rather see men directing their sexuality toward other men, so as to relieve women of this “burden.”

    One could observe this attitude in certain women even before “feminism” and “gay rights” became widespread phenomena. I very well remember how most of my female school teachers showed favoritism toward “nice” boys — quiet, studious, compliant — while taking a hostile and punitive attitude toward “disruptive” boys like me. The significance of this was not apparent to me at the time, but looking back on it now, I realize that most of those “nice” boys grew up to be gay men.

    Normal male behavior — the rowdy energy of boys — is offensive to a certain type of woman, and in reading Christian Hoff Sommers’ The War Against Boys or Helen Smith’s Men on Strike, you see how the “empowerment” of women in the name of “equality” has served to heighten the (female-dominated) education system’s punitive attitude toward boys. I managed to get an education despite every discouragement that the system imposed on me, but many very intelligent young men never recover from the psychological damage inflicted on them in the name of “education.”

    What we are seeing now — the “campus rape epidemic” hysteria — really should be seen as evidence of how badly our education system has failed both boys and girls in terms of teaching them how to deal with male/female relationships. Many students do not understand themselves, and certainly do not understand the opposite sex. That all of these young people have been educated in a system where women are a vast majority of teachers is seldom mentioned.

    I wonder why?

  30. ajpwriter
    January 14th, 2016 @ 11:00 am

    Chivalry is rape-culture, and the fault of all men everywhere.

    Rape-gangs are the actions of individuals, about which we should make no hasty generalizations.

    Is the cognitive dissonance supposed to make my head hurt?

  31. ajpwriter
    January 14th, 2016 @ 11:06 am

    I did not realize Twitter-blocking was that useless.

  32. Dana
    January 14th, 2016 @ 11:10 am

    Well, I still can’t respond to her directly, in a way in which her followers can see.

  33. Dana
    January 14th, 2016 @ 11:14 am

    Our long-suffering host wrote:

    The significance of this was not apparent to me at the time, but looking back on it now, I realize that most of those “nice” boys grew up to be gay men.

    Really? Homosexuals make up around 1.4% of the male population, with bisexuals adding another 0.7%. If you were in a class with 99 other boys, the most probable outcome would be that only one or two would not be normal.

    Maybe those ‘nice’ boys grew up to become the beta males . . . ?

  34. Dana
    January 14th, 2016 @ 11:19 am

    If all of us evil men are oppressors, how did we ever let the wimminfolks ever go to college or publish blogs or vote?

  35. NeoWayland
    January 14th, 2016 @ 11:25 am

    If they don’t respond to courtesy, there’s no reason they should get it the next time.

  36. ajpwriter
    January 14th, 2016 @ 11:32 am

    Because Feminism is Magic.

  37. Valerie Stewart
    January 14th, 2016 @ 12:16 pm

    I Googled the definitions of liberal, social, and radical feminism just for drill, and I was a bit stunned that liberal feminism “emphasizes individual liberty for cultural change.”

    But how could that possibly be, when the current liberal Democrats emphasize Big Government to solve all societal ills, especially how they say that inequality is inherently bad?

  38. DukeLax
    January 14th, 2016 @ 12:26 pm

    I was just Reading about how bernie Sanders Is talking about closing down these new campus rape tribunals run by the gender-studies students. Is protecting American males civil rights becoming a left issue, and not just the realm of conservatives??

  39. Steve Skubinna
    January 14th, 2016 @ 12:26 pm

    As for the gang rapes, it depends on who is doing them. Non Western men, totally not rape culture. Well, it is, but it is to be blamed upon Western men.

    Imaginary fantasy gang rapes by white frat boys? Totally rape culture. Even if they never happened.

  40. DukeLax
    January 14th, 2016 @ 12:27 pm

    Bernie Sanders is the only one running for president…that is talking about shutting down these new campus rape tribunals run by the gender-studies students.

  41. Steve Skubinna
    January 14th, 2016 @ 12:30 pm

    Sanders is a dotty old man with very narrow interests and no understanding of anything. Left to his own devices he muses a bit, and if he wanders off the reservation his handlers grab him him for reprogramming.

    In short, no, protecting civil rights for anybody is not a “left” issue. The left wants to keep tossing red meat to their various victim groups, all the while keeping them as isolated as possible in order to control and direct their rage.

    Watch. Five bucks says Sanders backpedals in a day or two.

  42. Steve Skubinna
    January 14th, 2016 @ 12:30 pm

    Feminism can best be understood as a perpetual tantrum. As such, it is impervious to reason.

  43. DukeLax
    January 14th, 2016 @ 12:31 pm

    “Victim feminism” ??? The greeks had an epic tale about the “Sirens”.

  44. DukeLax
    January 14th, 2016 @ 12:40 pm

    These new campus rape courts, run by the gender-studies students is one of the most glaring perversities to the American judicial system, that i have seen in a while, but you may be rights steve, maybe im being a little overly optomistic, and Bernie will soon cave to the party line???? lets keep an eye on it, shall we??

  45. Ilion
    January 14th, 2016 @ 1:32 pm

    Yeah, they have similar rules about raping your goat and whether you can eat it afterward (you can’t; but you can sell it to your neighbor, who can eat it).

  46. Southern Air Pirate
    January 14th, 2016 @ 1:45 pm

    In the animal world patriarchal oppression and rape culture exists. Is there no escape from the patriarchal oppressors!!!!!!

    http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-14/grieving-kangaroo-actually-sexually-aroused-expert-says/7088654

  47. Fail Burton
    January 14th, 2016 @ 1:53 pm

    No. Feminist “logic” always manages to keep the straight white male in its cross-hairs.

  48. MC227
    January 14th, 2016 @ 2:21 pm

    Where do these morons think they came from? A man and woman having heterosexual sex. So if they didn’t have sex we would be deprived of their limitless ignorance. Maybe there should a law that states feminists are absolutely forbidden to have heterosexual relations or maybe they should just check back into the mental hospital they escaped from.

  49. Valerie Stewart
    January 14th, 2016 @ 2:36 pm

    Yes, many of those radfems need to be institutionalized. They are too self-destructive, and more importantly too dangerous around even the mildly mentally ill.

    PS: I may have accidentally downvoted you and I apologize for my tablet being stupidly picky.

  50. MC227
    January 14th, 2016 @ 2:38 pm

    No worries