“But the hatred of women is a source of sexual pleasure for men in its own right. Intercourse appears to be the expression of that contempt in pure form, in the form of a sexed hierarchy; it requires no passion or heart because it is power without invention articulating the arrogance of those who do the f–king. Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men’s contempt for women . . .”
— Andrea Dworkin, Intercourse, 1987
“Male power is systemic. Coercive, legitimated, and epistemic, it is the regime.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989)
“There are politics in sexual relationships because they occur in the context of a society that assigns power based on gender and other systems of inequality and privilege. . . . [T]he interconnections of systems are reflected in the concept of heteropatriarchy, the dominance associated with a gender binary system that presumes heterosexuality as a social norm. . . .
“As many feminists have pointed out, heterosexuality is organized in such a way that the power men have in society gets carried into relationships and can encourage women’s subservience, sexually and emotionally.”
— Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee, Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions (fifth edition, 2012)
“Ultimately, there was a disenchantment with the ‘No means no’ framework — by requiring women to say no, we reinforce the idea that sex is something women, by definition, have, which men are trying to get, and of which women must be the moral guardians.”
— Jill Filipovic, “America, pop culture and tackling sexual assault,” Oct. 10, 2015
You probably have to read a lot of feminist theory (and I’ve been immersed in it for months) to understand that feminist rhetoric about a “campus rape epidemic” isn’t actually about rape. There has been no such “epidemic” on America’s university and college campuses, or anywhere else for that matter. Statistics from the Justice Department show a remarkable decline in the incidence of sexual assault in recent decades, which may be explained by a number of factors, including legislation (e.g., sex-offender registries) and technological advances in law enforcement, including DNA testing and widespread video surveillance. Sexual predators are less likely to get away with their crimes, and more likely to be locked away for long sentences when apprehended, preventing them from becoming repeat offenders.
American women are now less at risk of rape than at any time in the past 40 years, and the emergence of a frantic hysteria about “rape culture” on college campuses therefore seems contradictory — unless you understand how feminist theory “problematizes” heterosexuality.
To those who have read my book Sex Trouble, or followed the continuing discussion here, it is unnecessary for me to explain that feminist theory views heterosexuality as practically synonymous with male supremacy. Andrea Dworkin’s 1979 declaration that “the essence of so-called romance . . . is rape embellished with meaningful looks” was perhaps the most vivid expression of this view, but radical theory has been so widely promulgated within academic feminism (particularly within university Women’s Studies programs) that it is taken for granted.
Anyone who has read Catharine MacKinnon’s Toward a Feminist Theory of the State recognizes that what Jill Filipovic is calling into question — “the idea that sex is something women, by definition, have, which men are trying to get” — is simply normal human heterosexual behavior. The dynamics inherent to the testosterone-fueled male sexual drive as a biological force of nature, and the social customs necessary to restraining this unruly force, are not really controversial, except in feminist theory, which emphatically denies that there is any such thing as “human nature.” Because social customs surrounding sexual behavior have traditionally required certain female responsibilities (i.e., placing women in the role of “moral guardians,” as Filipovic says), feminists have sought not merely to destroy these customs (thus to absolve themselves of responsibility, moral or otherwise) but have attacked as “sexist” our basic understanding of normal sexual behavior.
What Filipovic describes as feminist “disenchantment with the ‘No means no’ framework” amounts to an admission that the recent rhetorical fury about “rape culture” is actually an attempt to move the goalposts, in such a way as to criminalize normal male sexual behavior. The confusion created by so-called “affirmative consent” policies (also known as “yes means yes”) is understandable because most people would be shocked senseless if they stopped to consider what it actually means. Under the rules of “affirmative consent,” any attempt by a male to initiate sexual activity with a female, under any circumstances, is presumed to be sexual assault if she says it was. If a man and a woman have any sexual contact whatsoever — a kiss, a hug, anything — and she subsequently claims this contact was “unwanted,” “unwelcome” or “coerced,” then he is presumed guilty of sexual assault.
The ‘Regret Equals Rape’ Standard
We have seen this scenario made explicit by numerous recent lawsuits filed by male students protesting the denial of due-process rights in university “sexual misconduct” cases. An official at Washington and Lee University in Virginia, for example, reportedly told students that “regret equals rape,” which the plaintiff said led to his girlfriend claiming he had raped her. In other cases, notably the “Mattress Girl” episode at Columbia University, it appears that accusations of sexual assault were acts of revenge by women who felt spurned after a sexual hookup did not lead to a romantic relationship. Obviously, the kind of “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” situation outlined in the Nungesser v. Columbia complaint should alarm any parent who has a son attending college, or hoping to do so in the future. Any male student could be subjected to this kind of heinous treatment if he has any interaction with a female classmate which she subsequently regrets. Indeed, hysterical claims about a “campus rape epidemic” seem to have inspired some female students to invent sexual assaults by fictitious assailants, as in the infamous Rolling Stone hoax at the University of Virginia. In the UVA case, evidence suggests that the student “Jackie” so desired to be accepted as a member of the sexual assault “survivor” community on campus that she created the character “Haven Monahan” from whole cloth, and made up a tale about a gang rape that never happened, an imaginative tale perhaps inspired by narratives of previous assaults she had heard about through her involvement in anti-rape activism.
Because “normal human interaction is now being redefined as sexual assault,” as Ashe Schow of the Washington Examiner has explained of the current climate on campus, male students “need to stop viewing sex merely as pleasure or as an expression of affection or love, and begin seeing it as a potentially life-ruining moment.” Stripped of due-process rights in Title IX procedures, so that he has no protection against false accusations, any male who is sexually active on campus exposes himself to destruction, as Schow writes:
The situation has gotten so bad that one parents’ group has begun distributing flyers on California campuses warning students of how easy it is to be accused and expelled.
The reality of it is this: There is little trust anymore between the sexes. Women are being told that men, especially men they believe are their friends, are waiting to get them drunk and rape them. This in turn is leading men to believe that women are going to accuse them of sexual assault for just about any reason, even for consensual sexual encounters.
How did we get here? The origins of feminism’s “rape culture” discourse can be traced back to the Women’s Liberation movement of the late 1960s and ’70s. Treatises like “Rape: The All-American Crime” (Susan Griffin, 1971) and Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape (Susan Brownmiller, 1975) depicted rape as an exercise of male power that was inherent in, and necessary to, the system of male supremacy. Brownmiller described rapists as “front-line masculine shock troops, terrorist guerrillas” who served to keep women captive and subjugated under a regime of pervasive sexual fear. This feminist concept of rape as an instrument of political power gained currency within a movement that was, at that time, beginning to call into question the legitimacy of heterosexuality. Radical feminists denied that heterosexual behavior was “natural.” There was no biological “urge” or “instinct” involved in the observable patterns of male and female sexual behavior, feminists insisted. Instead, all of this was “socially constructed” by an oppressive male-dominated system that proponents of feminist gender theory now call heteronormative patriarchy. Viewing sexual behavior in this political context of systemic and collective male power, it is impossible for feminists to view any sexual behavior as private or personal. No man or woman is merely an individual in feminist theory, but each is viewed as acting within a system where men (as a collective group) exercise power to unjustly oppress women (as a collective group).
The most notorious expression of this view was arguably Andrea Dworkin’s 1987 book Intercourse — which condemned heterosexual intercourse as an expression of male “contempt” for women — but if Dworkin was more flamboyantly outspoken than some of her feminist comrades, she was not an isolated “extremist,” as some have claimed. Women’s Studies professors embraced this ideology.
At a 1980 meeting of the National Women’s Studies Association, Michigan State University Professor Marilyn Frye declared her belief “that most women have to be coerced into heterosexuality.” This idea of heterosexuality as “imposed” on women was incorporated into an all-encompassing theoretical analysis in Heterosexuality: A Feminism & Psychology Reader (edited by Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger, 1993) which cited Dworkin six times (pp. 76, 77, 78, 128, 208, 231-2) and Frye five times (pp. 20, 23, 175, 199, 211). Similarly, in Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence and Women’s Lives (Dee L.R. Graham, 1994) we find Dworkin cited nine times (pp. 87, 93, 116, 123, 162, 2000, 206, 275, 276) and Frye also cited nine times (pp. 100, 109, 110, 112, 113, 115, 209, 214, 243). In her book, Dee Graham, a professor of psychology and women’s studies at the University of Cincinnati, described female heterosexuality as resulting from emotional trauma similar to “Stockholm Syndrome.” In Chapter 4 of Loving to Survive, she argues that “women’s fear of male violence” inspires homophobia and is correlated with “support of heterosexism and male-female roles”:
Men’s violence against women encourages women to bond with “kind” men for protection against other men, setting the stage for men’s one-on-one oppression of women (Brownmiller 1975; Dworkin 1983) and the institutionalization of heterosexuality. This violence is mystified as normal under the guise of the masculine sex role. . . .
If love of men arises from terror brought on by male threat to female survival, women have to defend against any feelings that might challenge our love for men. Is this one of the reasons that most women vehemently deny their own lesbian feelings? . . .
Because of the coercive conditions under which heterosexual love arises, it has a regressive quality for women. . . . However, as a survival strategy, heterosexual love may be safer for women in the short run than any other alternative short of collective action (such as that offered by the feminist movement) by women against male violence and tyranny.
This idea of women’s heterosexuality as a pathology, symptomatic of a mental illness or the result of patriarchal indoctrination, is quite commonly accepted in academic feminism. A student in an “Introduction to Feminist Theory” class declares, “every time I walk out of this class I just become more sexually confused!” The student who reported this explains how, being in a university Gender Studies program, “the more I seem to learn, the more I question how the person I am today seems to be merely product of socialization.”
The ‘I-Didn’t-Think-It-Was-Rape’ Problem
If there is nothing natural about sexual behavior — if biology is irrelevant and “socialization” is all-powerful — then it follows logically that “men’s one-on-one oppression of women” within the “coercive conditions” of heterosexuality, to quote Professor Graham, can be abolished by changing the “gender binary system that presumes heterosexuality as a social norm,” to quote Professors Lee and Shaw. Thus, after a long detour into feminist theory, we return to Jill Filipovic’s “disenchantment with the ‘No means no’ framework.” Filipovic describes how the Internet functioned as a sort of digital “consciousness-raising” session:
The early 2000s birthed the first generation of feminist blogs, and sexual violence was high on the To Blog About list. Blogs quickly developed their own rules of engagement and their own vernacular, with writers adding “trigger warnings” to content about sexual assault, commenters debating the utility of standard sexual-assault prevention tips, and women writing openly, if sometimes pseudonymously, about their own rapes and their I-didn’t-think-it-was-rape rapes and all the other assaults on women’s physical autonomy and right to bodily safety that add up to a bigger thing called “rape culture”.
That most women are raped by someone they know, often in their late teens or early twenties, was not news. Neither was the fact that many of them didn’t identify what happened as rape, exactly, since it didn’t fit that stranger-in-the-bushes scenario that so many women are raised to fear. But many women still carried anger and, sometimes, shame or sadness or confusion, and feminist spaces online offered women from many different backgrounds — although disproportionately college-educated and middle- or upper-middle class — the chance to talk about it or, at least, read about it, with a large like-minded audience. That connectivity and the domino “Aha!” moments the conversations sparked — moments of, “Why are we telling young women it’s their responsibility to drink less to avoid getting raped?” and “Why do we think acquaintance rape is some sort of misunderstanding?” and “Why should sexual consent focus on women assenting or refusing, rather than both parties wanting it?” — in such great numbers across so many of the barriers of race and class and age and location, that was new.
What we see Jill Filipovic developing here are two related ideas:
- Women are never responsible for sexual activity — Indeed, it is “rape culture” to say, for example, that women should be careful not to get so drunk that they might engage in sexual activity they regret when they sober up the next day.
- Men routinely coerce women into having sex when women don’t really want it — This is what Filipovic means in referencing the “I-didn’t-think-it-was-rape” scenario. The guy wants to have sex, the girl acquiesces to his desire, but she later feels that it wasn’t really something she should have agreed to do, and that the guy unfairly pressured her into this.
The problem should be obvious, when you’re talking about enforcing a policy with a bunch of drunk, horny teenagers — the typical “I-didn’t-think-it-was-rape” scenario, involving college freshmen and sophomores. We can acknowledge that this is very bad for the girls involved in these situations, on the one hand, while on the other hand we must acknowledge the near-impossibility of proving rape happened in this kind of “he-said/she-said” case.
The normal way sex happens, where men are the pursuers whose interest initiates the encounter, with women either rejecting or acquiescing to the male’s advances, is unacceptable from the feminist perspective. Any male effort to persuade a woman to engage in sexual activity is offensive and degrading. Sexual activity should never occur except when the female “enthusiastically” solicits such activity. What is most disturbing to me in this is the way feminists have exploited the “campus rape epidemic” (a phony crisis manufactured by the use of Statistical Voodoo and Elastic Definitions) as an excuse to delegitimize the normal pattern of heterosexual behavior. Jill Filipovic writes:
Instead of the push-pull of sexual pressure and rebuff, feminists largely said sex should be entered into mutually, with both parties enthusiastically consenting. The question shouldn’t be whether a woman said no — and if she failed to appropriately lock her theoretical chastity belt, well, too bad — the question should be whether she wanted sex and therefore said yes to it. Anything less isn’t just crappy sex — it’s a violation. . . .
Today’s college freshmen were just entering adolescence when [the 2007 anthology] Yes Means Yes! was published. The college students of the past several years came of age at a time when feminism was increasingly cool, and had unfettered access to feminist content online that is significantly more radical and diverse than just about anything on the internet a decade ago. It’s no surprise that those same young women brought a kind of feminist entitlement to their campuses: the simple belief that sex is something they get to choose to enter into, no matter what.
Unfortunately, as many of those same young women are now learning, that view isn’t as widely held off the feminist internet. The idea of sex as a battle, one party cajoling and the other assenting or rejecting, runs deep in the American psyche, to the point where a whole lot of people have a difficult time imagining a different social model, let alone a legal one.
You can read the whole thing. Filipovic’s suggestion of “a different social model” as the basis for a legal standard where men are deemed guilty of rape if a woman later says she did not consent “enthusiastically” raises the question of how such a standard could be enforced. Preventing rape is a laudable goal, but that’s not Filipovic’s goal. Her goal is to make men responsible for women’s post-coital regret.
Hey, @AsheSchow, did anybody ever answer this question? https://t.co/sdl68D4C9K
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 11, 2015
“Dubious claims about ‘rape culture’ are an attempt to create an all-purpose scapegoat for the emotional dark side of promiscuity,” Robert Tracinski wrote in February 2015:
College campuses have long since been taken over by a culture in which casual sex with acquaintances is considered normal and where slightly outré sexual experimentation is strongly encouraged, all of it spurred on by alcohol, which figures prominently in most of these cases. But it’s clear that some young women are not psychologically prepared for this. They have casual relationships and hookups, but then feel regret and emotional trauma when the experience ends up being emotionally unsatisfying or disturbing. Then they are encouraged, by the feminists and “rape culture” activists, to reinterpret the experience as all the fault of an evil man who must have coerced them.
It’s a system which systematically preys on and exploits the emotional vulnerability of young women in order to use them as publicity fodder for an ideological agenda.
Don’t let your sons or daughters become part of this problem — drunken hookups that turn into “he-said/she-said” dramas — but beware of the “ideological agenda” of feminism. They are moving the goalposts, attempting to redefine sexuality and reorganize society, as part of a radical War Against Human Nature.
"Normal male behavior is now a human rights violation." http://t.co/wiRCrsZ67C #tcot
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 9, 2015
"All that is necessary to defeat feminism is to tell the truth about feminism." — SEX TROUBLE, p. 116 #tcot http://t.co/RyoP9RUcm5
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) May 17, 2015
UPDATE: Linked at Blazing Cat Fur and a sidebar headline at Ace of Spades HQ and welcome, Instapundit readers! Meanwhile . . .
Campus Feminists and the Rape Shortage
It never ends, you see.
One of the reasons I tried to avoid dating while on campus for my second go-round. I didn’t want to get hauled in front of a kangaroo court and destroyed publicly.
Second, I turned 26 right before I came on campus. Being 8 years older than the freshthings made it all kind of weird.
Almost every word of feminist theory is written by people who will never know the female privilege of having a man devote a significant portion of his labor to supporting her. Nor will most of them know the female privilege of having a child who adores them and thinks they are wonderful.
The normal way sex happens, where men are the pursuers whose interest initiates the encounter, with women either rejecting or acquiescing to the male’s advances, is unacceptable from the feminist perspective.
Perhaps that was the “normal” way back in the late ’70s and early ’80s when some of us were in college. With the advent of the so-called “hook-up” phenomenon coupled with the subset of “sex positive” feminism, I think females are close to equally responsible for initiated sexual trysts. See, e.g. “Mattress Girl.”
This does not detract from your thesis, but in a sense strengthens it in a sense. Feminism has created a couple of generations of sexually aggressive females. It is now creating a means by which these same “aggressors” can alleviate themselves retrospectively of all responsibility and moral accountability. In that sense, the continual harping on the non-existent “rape epidemic” is even more insidious.
Lesbian Liberation Ideology is dedicated mostly to one thing: reversing the “fact” lesbians have been cast out of heaven (the norm) in pre-history by heterosexual men. In Political Lesbianism, lesbians are the wily Fremen with their secret knowledge hiding in their caves, biding their time. The Messiah they wait for is not an Atreides but themselves. Men are the fat, entitled and lucky Harkonnens; the plunderers of wimmen-knowledge who sit on a throne which rightfully belongs to morbidly obese lesbians with mental health issues, nose rings and blue hair. Given the psychotic supremacist Aryan-like myths political lesbians support, their last place status in history is self-explanatory. On a civilizational level they are retarded morons. Even the insane Hitler could organize armored divisions. Gender feminists can’t create an industrial base to even make paper or a safety pin.
“… political lesbianism has a crucial role, because it tells women that sexuality is political under a system of male supremacy. It tells us that sexual acts are all political and that none of them are without meaning.” – lesbian feminist Julie Bindel, Aug. 29, 2015, RadFem Collective.
Bindel is the woman banned from speaking – along with Milo – at Manchester U in the U. K. The Student Union which did the banning is part of the larger NUS which asked people to use feminist jazz hands instead of clapping at its last conference because of possible PTSD issues. To say the lot of them are insane is accurate.
The left treats each identity-politicking useful idiot the same: instruct him in how best to destroy himself, then portray his self-destruction as an indictment against the system.
Your throwaway remark about the sexual assault “survivor” community reminded me of the flying saucer abductees. Years ago I read extensively on the “flying saucer” phenomenon, which appears to have subsided somewhat of late. I noted that the vast majority of abductee cases appeared to be people desperately seeking attention and affirmation.
There was also, as there is today with false rape claims, a “standard narrative” from which deviation was seldom and always minor. UFOlogists always claimed that the synchronicity of detail in the stories “proved” their truth, disregarding the probability that abductees were simply reciting from a standard script that was so well established that even the general population with no specific interest in flying saucers could reliably sketch the expected alien physiognomy and general shape of the intersteller conveyance. The details had seeped into popular culture, and if one wanted to construct an abduction tale, one knew already what details were expected. You saw it in movies and on TV.
I suppose the difference here is that the feminist rape culture fraud is overtly aimed at destroying our culture. And of course I am not making this up – as RSM has tirelessly demonstrated, that is the explicit stated goal of radical feminism.
“sex should be entered into mutually, with both parties enthusiastically consenting”
Where I come from, we call that ‘marriage’. We even have a fancy piece of paper with the consent written on it, all witnessed and signed official-like!
OT, ever notice how closely correlated are sex and death in slasher/horror flicks?
From a blurb for an interesting-looking book on amazon, Monsters from the id: The Rise of Horror in Fiction and Film
“In a compelling new study of horror from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein to modern Hollywood, one of America’s most original critics shows that the moral order, when suppressed, reasserts itself as an avenging monster in the midst of the chaos and suffering of cultural revolution.”
http://www.amazon.com/Monsters-Id-Rise-Horror-Fiction/dp/1890626066
Horror movie monsters are a manifestation of bad conscience, killing those who transgress against the rightful moral order.
“I think females are close to equally responsible for initiated sexual trysts.”
This kind of “Sadie Hawkins Day” girls-chasing-boys thing wasn’t invented last week, you know. I can still remember the name of a certain Delta Zeta who was my first pursuer in 1978. I could also name others from Back in the Day. But this kind of “liberated” sexuality is not what feminists are now trying to criminalize. What they are trying to do is to ban old-fashioned seduction so that any time a guy makes the first move — where he initiates the encounter — the woman can accuse him of “harassment” (as feminists define flirting) or sexual assault (if he gets past first base). And, of course, no matter what the circumstances, if she ever gets mad at him after they have sex, he will be accused of rape, automatically judged guilty and expelled.
They are turning romance into such a minefield of legal hazards that I cannot imagine how any college man would dare so much as speak to a woman on campus.
“… the moral order, when suppressed, reasserts itself as an avenging monster …”
Amanda Marcotte comes to mind.
Yeah, right before I flush
Damned if that didn’t look like a photo of a young Joe Biden.
It doesn’t help that the context is so bidenesque. He’d TOTALLY do that.
Wasn’t mental case Julie Bindel the one who said she was crucial in making marital rape against the law in the U.K.? Everything’s an epidemic to these nuthatches when it comes to sex.
Well, when you think about it, that photo explains the whole democrat party platform for the last few decades.
[…] http://theothermccain.com/2015/10/11/moving-the-goalposts-what-feminist-rape-culture-discourse-is-ab… […]
I wanted to make a joke about the TREE and BUSH’s fault, but nothing comes to mind. I bet there’s one there, though.
…even the general population with no specific interest in
flying saucersfeminism could reliably sketch the expected alien physiognomy and general shape of theintersteller conveyancelesbian feminist.[…] Moving the Goalposts: What Feminist “Rape Culture” Discourse Is About You probably have to read a lot of feminist theory (and I’ve been immersed in it for months) to understand that feminist rhetoric about a “campus rape epidemic” isn’t actually about rape. There has been no such “epidemic” on America’s university and college campuses, or anywhere else for that matter. […]
If you waved at him he’d come down even quicker.
Yeah, well, as I noted it has seeped into our shared cultural shorthand.
If you read Homer you’ll note a lot of standard phrases, one of the most well known is “wine dark sea.” Then there’s “man slaying Hector” or “green eyed Athena.” Those aided in oral storytelling, but they also provided a rich basis of shared literary experience.
I do not expect that several millennia hence people will be quoting Andrea Dworkin, however. Unless it’s as a punch line. As for me, I have no inclination to describe the lesbian feminist. I wish her well.
Well away from me.
Excuse me, dude, I have to go drop a Marcotte.
If you know what I mean.
As outrageous as Milo is, folks like Bindel make him look like the reincarnation of William Freakin’ Buckley.
The fact that he’d dismantle the likes of Bindel in a free for all debate within fifteen minutes doesn’t hurt, either.
If we men are Harkonnens I get to be Feyd. Seems safe since they have no prospect of producing a Kwisach Haderach (in fact, according to the canon they cannot, being, you know, girls).
Come to think of it, whiskey is a corruption of the Gaelic for “water of life.” So also means aqavit, and vodka. So that means I can be both Feyd and Muad’Dib.
Winning! Suck on that, ladies!
If you reverse the gender of the rhetoric spewed in feminist studies, it would be classified as hate speech.
Why is this tripe allowed on college campuses.
What good does a degree in feminist do. What job is a feminist studies graduate qualified for. Would women be better served with a degree in math?
Feminist studies is a financial black hole, intellectual cesspool, fostered on women by a bunch of unhappy women with too much time on their hands.
Sex on campus is not a good idea. Don’t do it.
Graduated and married within three months.
Why are we telling young women it’s their responsibility to drink less to avoid getting raped?
Does anybody complain about this sort of thing with respect to any other crime? I’ve seen lots of posters in car parks saying “Don’t leave your valuables in your car,” but nobody ever seems to complain that “We should instead be teaching burglars not to burgle.”
The normal way sex happens, where men are the pursuers whose interest initiates the encounter, with women either rejecting or acquiescing to the male’s advances, is unacceptable from the feminist perspective. Any male effort to persuade a woman to engage in sexual activity is offensive and degrading. Sexual activity should never occur except when the female “enthusiastically” solicits such activity.
Of course, any man who *does* wait for the woman to initiate sex is called a “Nice Guy” and reviled with an intensity that would make George Orwell shocked. You can’t win with these people. Which, I suspect, may not be accidental.
How is someone accused of sexual assault supposed to prove they obtained consent under “yes means yes” laws?
I remember when I posed this question to a friend on Facebook a while ago, she replied that it was alright, because she was a teacher and had to provide a paper trail for whatever she did, and there was no reason not to apply a similar standard when it came to sex. When I asked her whether she was seriously suggesting that people sign a form every time they have sex, she promptly broke off the conversation.
Why is this tripe allowed on college campuses.
The problem isn’t these ideas, it’s that no one is allowed to dissent from these ideas.
Speaking of Brownmiller:
“I was wondering if you have been following the discussions of rape activism on college campuses.
Yes, very closely. In the 1970s we had an extraordinary movement against sexual assault in this country and changed the laws. They [the campus activists] don’t seem to know that. They think they are the first people to discover rape, and the problem of consent, and they are not.
They have been tremendously influenced by the idea that “You can drink as much as you want because you are the equal of a guy,” and it is not true. They don’t accept the fact there are predators out there, and that all women have to take special precautions. They think they can drink as much as men, which is crazy because they can’t drink as much as men. I find the position “Don’t blame us, we’re survivors” to be appalling.
Also, they [college women] are not the chief targets of rapists. Young women and all women in housing projects and ghettos are still in far greater danger than college girls.
So what would you tell the college activists right now?
Extend your focus to the larger percentage of women and girls who are in danger of being raped. They are more important than the college kids.
Also, the rape kits that have not been processed are a huge problem, and they are not dealing with that.
Is there a reason why you think the conversation has reemerged on college campuses?
I don’t know. The women’s movement in the ’70s was not a campus movement at all. I like to see activism wherever it rears its head, but this is a very limited movement that doesn’t accept reality. Culture may tell you, “You can drink as much as men,” but you can’t. People think they can have it all ways. The slut marches bothered me, too, when they said you can wear whatever you want. Well sure, but you look like a hooker. They say, “That doesn’t matter,” but it matters to the man who
wants to rape. It’s unrealistic. I don’t know what happened to the
understanding people had in the 1970s.”
http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/09/what-todays-rape-activists-dont-get.html
Well, Ms. Brownmiller, you created an environment where having that “understanding”=”rape denial”
See my post uptopic. It would seem that Susan Brownmiller is a more appropriate figure here, since this is a Frankenstein monster she helped to unleash.
See my post up-topic. It would seem that Susan Brownmiller is a more
appropriate figure here, since this is a Frankenstein monster she helped
to unleash.
They are both problems.
I think this gets close, but doesn’t completely make it.
Ask the question: why is Filipovic’s goal is to make men responsible for women’s post-coital regret? The answer is simply: control. As far as feminists are concerned, women should be in control of everything. Why wouldn’t normal sexuality also be controlled by women?
Once you get that point, it all makes sense.
Pardon, but they are not.
You have to trust that your ideas are good enough to succeed and spread despite competition. You have to trust that dissent tests your ideas and keeps you honest.
If you “outlaw” their ideas because you “know better,” how is that different from what they are trying to do to you?
Well, folks……just remember that you can’t help a feral female. Why get falsely accused? As for drunken feminist coeds, leave them completely alone. Women who drink to excess pass out and throw up. It’s a real common occurrence. Ignore the drunk that is aspirating her own vomit. Just walk away……cruel? No, Darwinian. As for that car load of drunken feminists…… (1) you can’t stop them from driving….you can be falsely accused of anything (2) if they kill someone else, well, that’s tragic……but that’s a societal problem…..because you face personal ruin if you intervene. Best let nature take its course. (3) This isn’t cowardice…..it’s just a frank assessment of the cost/benefit to be had. There isn’t any upside, other than personal survival.
Young men had best understand that young feral feminists are poison. They’re raised hating men. Why be a pop up target? Yes, women lie a lot. That’s just the way it is.
So, sex with a feminist is actually bone headed stupid. There’s no possible benefit. Fact is, there’s no such thing as free sex. There’s ALWAYS a cost. Sad to say, feminists are insane. Clinically. So, knowing that, keep to yourself.
See, this is the thing I can’t follow: how, exactly, did the human species come to be if heterosexuality isn’t the norm?
.
What exactly are they suggesting, that lions and dogs and bears and deer all have oppressive social organizations that prevent lionesses, b*tches, sows (which is apparently the proper term for female bears) and does from having lesbian relationships?
.
Are they saying that graybacks (female gorillas) congregate in large groups around dominant silverbacks because a single silverback somehow coerces them all into submitting to his will?
.
Are they saying that ant queens have been coerced into mating with drones and birthing ant colonies in the process?
.
.
Or is it that they are going full-on creationist and saying that none of the sexual relationships of any of the other species in the animal kingdom have any bearing on human sexual habits?
.
I don’t get it. Yes, in 50 years we might potentially be able to combine one ova with another to make an all-female offspring, but they can’t really be suggesting that things only can only be possible through advanced technology are or should be moral norms… can they?
.
Or am I reading too much into this, and the reality is that they simply haven’t thought quite that hard about all this?
“As far as feminists are concerned, women should be in control of everything.”
Let me re-phrase that slightly:
“As far as feminists are concerned, feminists should be in control of everything.”
We should never accept “feminist” and “women” as synonymous. Women already do, in fact, exercise extensive influence over male behavior. My wife may not exactly “control” me or my sons, but her influence cannot be denied. The problem for feminists is that so very few of them exercise the kind of influence that my wife takes for granted. Feminists have a sour-grapes resentment of marriage — they denounce husbands as tyrants because no man in his right mind would want to marry a feminist — and feminists’ hatred of motherhood (expressed in their demand for abortion) is nearly the sine qua non of their movement. Having influence over neither husbands nor sons, the feminist seeks to exercise authority over males, generally, by organizing other women who share her anti-male resentments, in order to extract personal revenge by sadistic and punitive measures against men.
You can’t win with these people. Which, I suspect, may not be accidental.”
Exactly. Feminism is the perfect Kafkatrap.
The elephant in the room here is lesbian feminists versus straight ones- lesbian feminists often ARE repulsed by straight sex (us hairy, smelly men) and – frankly- ARE coerced, to varying degrees- to go along with straight sex. An earlier generation of lesbians were basically pressured into straight marriages/relationships which were very unsatisfying, to say the least. Even today a young lesbian might be tempted to put off coming out and just go with Jimmy to the Homecoming dance-
But- straight women actually like/love sex with men (yeah- I don’t get it either) and should occasionally point this out to their sisters. THAT is why so many women claim “I am not a feminist”- and then explain it with “I like men”. No- these women are NOT confused or stupid- they correctly gauge that hard core feminists despise straight sex- and the smelly men that go along with it.
Straight women need to take back power from lesbians in various women’s groups- and deal with realistic problems like healthcare, jobs, childcare. But- as people like Robert Conquest has pointed out- extremists often take over organizations- and take them down very dark roads.
The completely crazy part is how women can blame men for assault even when there is written proof (again- “Mattress girl”) that the woman pursued the man. Its just dismissed as some sort of Stockholm Syndrome- The Stockholm case involved kidnapped people in a bank- not women who were merely on the same campus as their “attacker”.
It should be noted that the Columbia student was “cleared” by the admin- but certainly not by the feminists- who were incensed that their crazy argument didn’t work.
Cue the standard jokes about married life and how “enthusiastic” sex is.
“When I asked her whether she was seriously suggesting that people sign a form every time they have sex, she promptly broke off the conversation.”
Such a form would be useless anyway- the woman would just claim she was drunk/being threatened. Unless you have two witnesses and a notary- which is basically marriage. And- even married men can rape their wives. So- yeah- its hopeless.
I really don’t see that happening. Straight women are getting the benefits of feminism without having to do much. Frivorce, economic rape of their husbands, destroying their families on a whim, etc…….wouldn’t be possible without feminism. However, there’s a real problem growing for these women…..the Red Pill. Hypergamy and that good ole Alpha fu##s, beta bucks scenario.
That’s getting to be a real hard sell……imagine that a young woman swears…”I won’t ruin you, I promise”. And the young guy says….”Yeah, right, you won’t do what your sister did to her husband”.
Feminism has consequences. Once a young man becomes gun shy, well….
Too bad for the women who went to college to find a mate in their self perceived social class.
When this starts to affect those women in significant numbers, this will change. Until then, and no matter how many men get thrown into a meat grinder, no one is going to give a damn until it seriously affects women.
Its true- women have basically destroyed marriage- and the safeguards that protected THEM with it.
The problem that you ignore is that women want to make casual sex illegal- so the man who thinks that he can ditch marriage and just have a few girlfriends might get a rude surprise when one of his “back-burner” girls gets mad and calls the police.
Frankly- the “Yes means Yes” meme might be a tactic to avoid being the discarded lover . “Treat me right- OR ELSE”
They seriously do expect that women should be allowed to do whatever they want, with “society” picking up all of the expenses for it. From being a single mom to a CEO, if she wants it, she should get it, with zero judgement and accountability.
That’s just human nature…..but in my opinion, even if the women start to become more amenable, the damage has been done. Too many young men have seen frivorce and economic rape and ruin. You get what you incentivise.
Speaking as a man, most of our social beliefs become fixed by experience as young men. We detest being made a sucker. We mercilessly mock suckers, making the absolute point not to be a sucker. Getting with a young feral female is a suckers bet. If a young woman is in college, she’s a feminist. Plain fact. She has to be to survive the herd mentality.
So, are you an easily caught sucker? That cute little hottie can ruin your life, and look heroic doing it. You have absolutely no rights in such a situation.
Your best bet is to be a black knight. Dissimulation is your best friend. You must understand that feminists mean to ruin you. So, evasive tactics are required. Dress and act like a virginal geek. Fly under the radar. Understand that you cannot afford to draw attention. Your best revenge is getting your degree, and getting the hell out of Dodge.
I just connected with an old friend on Facebook- she has 5 sons and is a stay at home mom. When I mentioned this to my sister- who was friends with
my friend’s younger sisters- she said “Funny- the twins are also stay-at-home-moms”
Quick- name three brothers you know who are stay-at-home dads.
Not that being a housewife is easy- raising 5 sons gets a huge amount of respect from me- but men simply don’t have that as a choice the way women do.
Also- do you think my friend- with 5 sons and a husband that supports them all- has a Dworkin-like view of the world? Hardly.