The Other McCain

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

In Which @AlannaBennett Proves Why Online Dating Is for Desperate Losers

Posted on | July 31, 2016 | 19 Comments

 

Last month, BuzzFeed’s Alanna Bennett urged women to cause “male tears” by supporting the feminist Ghostbusters remake. And while working on today’s post about what a wretched flop the movie is, I scanned over the post I wrote three weeks ago entitled, “Man-Hater @AlannaBennett Promotes #Ghostbusters as Feminist Revenge.” Of course, all feminism is basically a spiteful anti-male revenge fantasy, but seldom is this vindictive hatred displayed as openly as when Ms. Bennett exhorted her feminist comrades, “Lay waste to their childhoods with your joy. Dance through all the male tears.” Why? Because they’re males, and anything that makes men miserable is considered a victory by feminists.

This explains why Alanna Bennett is on OKCupid. If you’re a woman who hates men, there is no better way to confirm your anti-male prejudice than by trawling through the subhuman scum of online dating.

According to OKCupid, a majority of their users are liberal. This makes sense, because it is so unlikely that anyone who actually knows a liberal would want to date one. The kind of guys who vote Democrat are such dangerous creeps that women who know them in real life avoid them, and so these weirdos end up on OKCupid. Research indicates a male-female ratio of 3-to-1 on OKCupid, and women users say that 80% of the men on OKCupid are “below average” in looks. Of course, these men are also below average in intelligence, because in real life the male-female ratio is 1-to-1, so an average guy actually lowers his chances of success by dating online, where the odds are always against him. This is why there are no decent guys on OKCupid. If a guy was decent, he’d already have a girlfriend or, at least, he’d be sufficiently optimistic about finding a girlfriend in a real-life face-to-face encounter that he wouldn’t bother with OKCupid. Because the available pool of men in online dating is such a notorious swamp of inferior quality, only women who are truly desperate for companionship would sign up for OKCupid.

This is the dating dilemma. By the time you’re in your mid-20s, most of your peers are either married or in serious relationships, and the ones who are still available — well, why are they available? What’s the backstory? Why haven’t they found someone? What’s wrong with them?

Welcome to the real-life equivalent of The Island of Misfit Toys.

Here is Josh, chubby and balding. And here is Kevin, a bespectacled introvert with a weak chin, and over there’s Patrick, whose ex-girlfriend had to take out a restraining order against him when they broke up.

Adventurous young single women — “carousel riders” in pickup artist (PUA) parlance — take for granted that there will be some suitable man waiting for them whenever they decide they’re ready to settle down. Attractive guys interested in serious commitment . . .

Well, how common are those? Aren’t such guys likely to be married before the adventurous single woman tires of the carousel ride? It’s easy for young people, male or female, to imagine a future of infinite romantic opportunities, but how likely is it that your selection of potential partners will be better at 25 than at 21? Or better at 30 than at 25?

Wait too long, and you’ll find yourself on The Island of Misfit Toys, culling through the weirdos and losers on OKCupid, or wondering how to actually meet people in real life. Feminist hatemongers like Ms. Bennett enjoy revenge fantasies about “male tears,” but who is really crying?

 


Category: Sex Trouble

FMJRA 2.0: Secret Treaties

Posted on | July 30, 2016 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Rule 5 Sunday: Racy
Animal Magnetism
Ninety Miles from Tyranny
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

FMJRA 2.0: On The Floors Of Tokyo
The Pirate’s Cove
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

A Simple Question: Is This True?
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 07.25.16
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

Bungling, Inc.: Yahoo Sold to Verizon
Orphans of Liberty
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 07.26.15
Proof Positive
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 07.27.16
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

What Is ‘Rape Culture’?
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 07.28.16
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

2 Cops Shot in San Diego; 1 Dead
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 07.29.16
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

Top linkers this week:

  1.  Batshit Crazy News (12)
  2.  Proof Positive (7)
  3.  A View from the Beach (6)

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery!

Category: FMJRA Award

SJW ‘Ghostbusters’ Flops to No. 8

Posted on | July 30, 2016 | 24 Comments

 

The feminist remake of Ghostbusters has predictably failed at the box office. After opening at No. 2 its first weekend ($46 million gross in the U.S., behind The Secret Life of Pets), last weekend the ‘busters went bust, tumbling all the way to No. 5 ($21 million). This was a one-week decline of 54% in ticket sales, and three new films, including Star Trek Beyond, joined The Secret Life of Pets ahead of Ghostbusters. In its third week, however, Ghostbusters slid further, falling to No. 8 Friday, according to a Box Office Mojo estimate. To understand just how bad of an overhyped flop this is, compare Ghostbusters to Hotel Transylvania 2.

What? You’ve never heard of Hotel Transylvania 2? This G-rated animated comedy sequel opened last September with $48 million in gross domestic receipts its first weekend, which made it No. 1 at the box office. For the next two weeks it was in second place, and Hotel Transylvania 2 remained in the top five all the way to early November. In its first five weeks, the film grossed more than $150 million.

The production budget for Hotel Transylvania 2 was $80 million, whereas the SJW version of Ghostbusters was budgeted at $144 million. Given the steep falloff of box-office receipts, Ghostbusters “will barely make back its budget (probably),” writes Aric Mitchell at Inquisitr.com. And the movie’s dismal commercial performance is even more obviously a failure when you consider what Sony must have spent on the enormous publicity blitz that had this feminist propaganda “comedy” featured on the cover of Entertainment Weekly, as well as on the cover of a first-ever “Women in Comedy” issue of the fashion magazine Elle.

 

What was the point of this feminist flop? Simple: The Ghostbusters remake was Sony’s election-year contribution-in-kind to the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, part of the continuing effort by the media/entertainment/education establishment to promote the Feminist™ Brand in the lead-up to this year’s election. Going back to the 2012 campaign, when the “War on Women” meme helped Obama win re-election with the largest “gender gap” ever recorded by the Gallup poll, Democrat Party strategists began orchestrating a general push to make feminism a trendy issue. In 2014, Beyoncé Knowles performed in front of a huge lighted “Feminist” sign at the MTV Video Music Awards, and Harry Potter starlet Emma Watson launched her “He for She” campaign as the United Nations’ “ambassador” for feminism. Is anyone so naïve as to think this was mere coincidence, unrelated to the widely anticipated 2016 Hillary campaign? And then — lo and behold! — weeks before the 2016 Democrat National Convention, the international conglomerate Sony rolls out a feminist version of a 30-year-old comedy, accompanied by a massive P.R. campaign. Just another coincidence, you see?

Ghostbusters director Paul Feig doesn’t have a problem with the pro-Hillary Clinton tweet sent out by his film’s official Twitter account this week, and would not have deleted it if the decision were up to him.
On Wednesday, the official Twitter account for the female-led Ghostbusters remake sent out what appeared to be an endorsement of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. The tweet made reference to smashing a “glass ceiling” and featured the popular pro-Clinton hashtag, “#ImWithHer.”
After media reports drew attention to the tweet, Sony officials removed it and released a statement saying that the tweet was “never intended to be a political endorsement.”
“It was a shout-out to our own glass ceiling-busters,” a Sony spokeswoman said in astatement to theWrap.
But in a follow-up statement to the outlet, Ghostbusters director Paul Feig said he was surprised that Sony would take the tweet down. . . .
“We are pro-woman and all about smashing the glass ceiling and we support the message of this deleted tweet. And I personally am very much pro-Hillary.”
Ghostbusters has become one of the most divisive films of the summer, as its creative team have repeatedly called critics of the film misogynist and sexist. In June, Feig said that criticism of the film was primarily fueled by “misogynistic,” “right-wing radio monsters.”

Feig and everyone else involved in this project is a Democrat, and the underlying theme of the Ghostbusters remake is pure partisan politics: Vote for Hillary, or you are a hateful anti-woman right-wing misogynist.

Whatever else it is, this is a lousy formula for a movie.




 

PREVIOUSLY:

 


Category: Hollywood, Movies, Sex Trouble

Good News! Feminist @sondosia ‘Probably Won’t Be Having Children’

Posted on | July 30, 2016 | 46 Comments

 

In case you have forgotten atheist feminist Miriam Mogilevsky (@sondosia on Twitter), she is the “queer, gay, femme . . . homoflexible . . . lesbian with exceptions” who is “on the asexual spectrum somewhere” and does not “experience primary sexual attraction.” Ms. Mogilevsky’s confusing welter of identities is typical of Third Wave feminists, who are in favor of every kind of sexuality except normal sexuality.

Did I mention she’s into “polyamory”? That’s what we used to call “screwing around,” but when intellectuals screw around, they need a fancy word for it, to make it sound clever. But I digress . . .

Ms. Mogilevsky recently shared some good news with her blog readers — she has decided against spawning any little weirdos:

When I say that I probably won’t be having children, people tend to assume that I’m firmly against the idea of it, that I hate the thought of having children, or even that I hate children themselves.
None of those is true, especially not the last one.
I’m ambivalent about having children. There are some things that make me want to–I love children, I think I’d be a good parent, I like the idea of raising kids who will become the kind of people we need more of in the world. . . .

(Is there a weirdo shortage?)

I think I would find many aspects of parenting enjoyable. I think it would change my opinions and worldview in interesting ways.
But I also have reasons for not wanting to have children, and there are more of those and they are more emotionally salient. I don’t think I could mentally handle such demands on my time and energy, on my very body itself. I don’t want to give up all that brainspace that was previously spent on friends, work, writing, and other stuff and instead spend it on feeding schedules, shopping lists, doctor visits, and all the many, many other forms of emotional labor mothers have to do. . . . I don’t want to slow or damage my career. I don’t want to stop having sex, or be forced to have it in secrecy and silence. . . .

(How much sex does someone “on the asexual spectrum somewhere” who does not “experience primary sexual attraction” have anyway?)

I don’t expect to have enough resources and social support to make parenting financially and emotionally sustainable, not even with one co-parent. (Raising children in a large polyamorous household would be a different story, but one unlikely to happen in this society.) I am wildly terrified of pregnancy and childbirth and literally any medical procedure, so the only options for me are adoption or co-parenting with a partner who already has children. . . .

(America, keep your children far away from Miriam Mogilevsky!)

Those are just a few of my personal issues with having children. And sure, I recognize that most of these are not inevitable, that in a different society with proper support for parents (especially mothers), none of this would have to be the case. But if I have children, I have to have children in the society we have now, or the society we have in ten years when I’ll be in a position to have children. I don’t get to have children inside my own hypothetical science fiction novel with widespread democratic socialism and polyamorous communes and super advanced reproductive technology that instantly teleports a fetus out of my womb and into an incubator where it will develop for the next nine months. . . .

OK, enough — read the rest of that crazy stuff, if you want. Strange as it may seem, my 23-year-old son and his wife already have two sons, and somehow manage to mentally handle the demands. Meanwhile Miriam Mogilevsky, a 25-year-old alumna of elite Northwestern University with a master’s degree from Columbia University, is so “terrified of pregnancy and childbirth” that she would require a democratic socialist state with “super advanced reproductive technology” even to consider motherhood as a possibility. Why is it that, despite her (allegedly) superior intelligence, Ms. Mogilevsky is such a psychiatric casualty that she could not cope with the ordinary tasks of normal human life?

Never mind. Another feminist heading toward the Darwinian Dead End — manifestly unfit for survival, she subtracts her defective DNA from the future — and all we can say is, “Bon voyage, Crazy Cat Lady!”

Liberalism must ultimately result in the extinction of liberals.




 

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 07.29.16

Posted on | July 29, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 07.29.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
Proof Positive: College Should Be Free For Everyone!
EBL: Hillary Clinton’s Acceptance Speech Was Powerful…Like Ambien
Michelle Malkin: Hang In There, Blake Shelton, And Blow Of Hillary’s Harridans
Twitchy: Hilarious New Trump Video Hits “Tired” Bill Clinton
Tim Sommer: The Man Who Made Blue Oyster Cult – RIP Sandy Pearlman


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: The Really Really Safe And Unhackable Australian Census
American Power: Hillary – Australia’s Gun Confiscation Program Is “An Example Worth Looking At”
American Thinker: What If An Anti-American Cult Had A Convention?
Animal Magnetism: Rule 5 “President Clinton 2.0?” Friday
Da Tech Guy: The One Word To Associate With Hillary That Would Doom Her Campaign
Don Surber: Oh, What An Awful Thing To Tweet. He Should Be Ashamed.
Dustbury: Didn’t Even Check Her Shoes
Jammie Wearing Fools: Feelgood Video Of The Day – Dimwit Democrat Lights Self On Fire Burning American Flag
Joe For America: If Bernie Sanders Is Jewish, Why Do His Supporters Burn The Israeli Flag?
JustOneMinute: Hillary’s Speech – Christmas In July
Pamela Geller: Idaho Prosecutor’s Coverup In Case Of Child Raped By Muslim Migrant
Shark Tank: Trump Continues His Praise Of Marco Rubio
Shot In The Dark: Black Flag
STUMP: Tales Of Pension Fraud – Hidden Deaths And Elder Abuse
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – Vaginal Atrophy And You
The Political Hat: University Requires Ideological Purity
This Ain’t Hell: Democrats Convinced Their Gun Control Message Can Win
Weasel Zippers: Socialism In Action – Venezuela Has New Forced Labor Law That Can Require People To Work In Fields
Megan McArdle: Trump’s Nationalist Appeal Fades When He Starts Winking At Putin


On Your Feet Or On Your Knees
Imaginos
Don’t Fear The Reaper – The Best Of Blue Oyster Cult

Category: Linkagery

2 Cops Shot in San Diego; 1 Dead

Posted on | July 29, 2016 | 9 Comments

The San Diego Union-Tribune reports:

Two San Diego police gang-detail officers making a traffic stop in Southcrest late Thursday night were shot several times, one mortally wounded, triggering a massive police search into the daylight hours. One suspect is in custody. . . .
The slain officer was shot several times, rushed to a hospital in a patrol car but died at a hospital despite life-saving efforts, San Diego Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman said early Friday. The wounded officer underwent surgery early Friday and was expected to survive. . . .
There was no update on the condition of the suspect, who was taken into custody about 11:30 p.m. in the Chollas Creek ravine just south of the site of the shooting. Officers had found a blood trail leading toward him.

A second suspect was reportedly in a standoff with police. More from Fox News and the Los Angeles Times. (Via Memeorandum.)

 

Category: Crime

In The Mailbox: 07.28.16

Posted on | July 28, 2016 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Trump Turns Obama & Hillary’s Statements Against Them, Trolls The Media All Day
Twitchy: “Then Take It From Me, Commie!” Black Trump Supporter Defends The Flag At #DemsInPhilly
Austin Bay: Tailgunner Hillary And The Putin Hack
Moe Lane: Let’s Unpack The Glaring Problem With The Rocketeer Sequel


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: Podcast #11 – The Bragging Episode
American Power: Francesca Valle Threatens Harassment Suit Over Facebook Post
American Thinker: Creeping Sharia In Healthcare
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s Daily News
Da Tech Guy: Public Breastfeeding Is A Gentleman’s Business
Don Surber: Trump The DNC
Dustbury: Is It Mary Or Sue?
Fred On Everything: Virtue And The Streets – A Dummy’s Guide To Police Work
Jammie Wearing Fools: Historic! Another Top Clinton Supporter Is Under Federal Investigation
Joe For America: Chuck Norris Sets It Straight
JustOneMinute: Hillary’s Big Night Is Coming Up
Pamela Geller: Gang Of Muslims Storms Nudist Pool In Germany Yelling “Allahu Akbar”, Threatening To “Exterminate” Women
Shark Tank: Rubio’s New Ad Attacks Failed Obama/Clinton Foreign Policy
Shot In The Dark: Wolf!
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – Bigfoot More Likely To Exist Than Moderate Syrian Rebels, also, Things Banned At Twitter
The Political Hat: Intersectional Irony Of Planned Parenthood
This Ain’t Hell: Stolen Valor Hunting – Not For Amateurs, also, Bernath V, Lilyea Et Al., Updates
Weasel Zippers: VA Spent $20 Million On Art While 1,000 Veterans Died Waiting For Treatment
Megan McArdle: How Obama Learned To Speak Republican


The Rocketeer
Shop Amazon – Handmade Handbags & Accessories

Category: Linkagery

What Is ‘Rape Culture’?

Posted on | July 28, 2016 | 49 Comments

“Once you understand what rape is, you will understand the forces that systematically oppress you as women. . . .
“What is rape?
“Rape is the first model for marriage. . . .
“Rape is the primary heterosexual model for sexual relating.
“Rape is the primary emblem of romantic love. . . .
“Rape is a function of male imperialism over and against women.
“The crime of rape against one woman is a crime committed against all women.”
— Andrea Dworkin, “The Rape Atrocity and the Boy Next Door,” in Our Blood: Prophecies and Discourses on Sexual Politics (1976)

As previously mentioned, I will be giving a presentation for the “Forum on Campus Sexual Assault, Consent and Due Process” Aug. 1 at Central Piedmont Community College Central Campus in Charlotte, NC. The title of my presentation will be “Sexual Paranoia: The Ideology of ‘Rape Culture’ Hysteria,” and will include about two dozen quotes demonstrating how the current campus crisis has its roots in feminist theory, especially as this anti-male ideology is promoted in university Women’s Studies programs. My presentation will include about two dozen quotes from feminist sources spanning nearly five decades since the emergence of the so-called Women’s Liberation movement in the late 1960s. Most of those quotes have been used here at the blog over the past two years and many are included in my book Sex Trouble: Essays on Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature.

The quote from Andrea Dworkin cited above is not included in my conference presentation, but I wanted to discuss it here to show how this anti-male belief system is so deeply rooted in feminist belief that it is impossible to speak of “moderate feminism.” This quote from Dworkin, describing rape as “the primary heterosexual model for sexual relating,” is about as close as she ever came to saying that all heterosexual intercourse is rape. She never said that in so many words, but in reading her work — and I have read four of her books — this is the only reasonable inference of her meaning. This is not a matter of a few phrases in a single book or article, but a theme endlessly reiterated throughout Dworkin’s career, and her vehement opposition to heterosexuality, per se, was the entire basis of Dworkin’s fame. “Maligning Andrea Dworkin in death amounts to little more than misogyny,” feminist Meghan Murphy wrote last year on the 10th anniversary of Dworkin’s death, but who is “maligning” Dworkin? Is it “misogyny” to quote Dworkin?

Feminists are fundamentally dishonest, and their defensive reaction when confronted with their own words — compelled either to defend or repudiate what they or one of their eminent comrades have written — exposes this dishonesty. Andrea Dworkin was a particularly bold liar, whose career was built on slanderous falsehoods. Her hateful anti-male screeds were constructed by an artful use of propaganda tactics. The speech quoted above was one she delivered seven times between March 1975 and April 1976, mainly on college campuses, including SUNY-Stony Brook, the University of Pennsylvania, SUNY-Old Westbury and Queens College/CUNY. Her use of evidence is selective, as she presents various authorities (e.g., the biblical Book of Deuteronomy and Ovid’s Ars Amatoria) as sanctioning rape and cites these ancient sources as supposedly representing a universal regime of male supremacy. The problem with this, of course, is that the vast majority of Americans have never read anything Ovid ever wrote, and how many Americans in 1975 were living as if they took the Bible seriously? Was it pious Christian young men whose “male imperialism” was terrorizing helpless college girls at SUNY-Stony Brook or Penn? Or perhaps Andrea Dworkin meant to impugn scholars of Latin, who left the library filled with concupiscent lust after reading Ovid and assaulted the first coed who caught their eye.

Speaking of dishonesty, Dworkin was often guilty of using the work of others without due credit. She was not a plagiarist, but she had a habit of citing the same facts from the same sources used by other feminist writers, without acknowledging where she had found these facts. Susan Griffin’s groundbreaking 1971 article “Rape: The All-American Crime” gets a single footnote reference in Dworkin’s Our Blood, although anyone can compare her 1975 speech “The Rape Atrocity and the Boy Next Door” to Griffin’s 1971 article and see the repeated use of the same sources (e.g., a 1952 Yale Law Journal article and a 1971 book by Menachim Amir) to make the same points. You might think that Dworkin could have been bothered to mention Griffin’s name in the actual text of her speech in acknowledgement of her debt, but it would not do for The Great Author to admit the extent of her wholesale borrowings from a lesser writer.

The Methods of Anti-Male Propaganda

Dworkin’s skill as a propagandist, however, was remarkable. She tosses out the names of a few 20th-century novelists (e.g., D.H. Lawrence and Norman Mailer) and claims their work proves that society condones rape:

A woman is taken, possessed, conquered by brute force — and it is the rape itself that transforms her into a carnal creature. It is the rape itself which defines both her identity and her function: she is a woman, and as a woman she exists to be f–ked. In masculinist terms, a woman can never be raped against her will since the notion is that if she does not want to be raped, she does not know her will.

Let us admit that the attitude Dworkin describes flourished among certain bohemian and intellectual types as a consequence of the popularity of Freudianism and other theoretical explanations of sexual psychology. Well, theories are a dime a dozen, but the basic idea that some sort of natural instinct is involved in sex is just a matter of common sense:

Sex is about reproductive biology. Human beings are mammals, and any eighth-grader can figure out what that means in terms of sex.
Once you understand this scientific definition of sex, everything else is just details.

Alas, intellectuals require theories to explain everything, and novelists require action for their books, so Freudian theory inspired a great many triumphant rape scenes in 20th-century novels. Could I discuss this at length? Could I point out, for example, that women are naturally reluctant to engage in sexual intercourse because the potential consequence of pregnancy involves a tremendous responsibility? Could I furthermore point out that women are naturally concerned to avoid a reputation for promiscuity, since such a reputation decreases her opportunities for marriage? Yes, I could discuss many factors related to the issue of consent, and why the “default no” is every woman’s basic attitude toward sex, thus requiring men to engage in negotiation to close the deal. However, it is not my purpose here to articulate any theory of my own in regard to human sexual behavior. Rather, I merely wish to say that the particular theories which produced what Dworkin calls “masculinist” ideas about rape as “the primary emblem of romantic love” were no more to be considered typical of the average male than Dworkin’s own attitudes could be considered typical of the average woman.

 

Dworkin employed a typical method of feminist “rape culture” propaganda, playing games with statistics and anecdotes. First, use dubious statistical methods to exaggerate the frequency of rape, making it seem commonplace, creating the impression that every man is a violent sexual predator and every woman must live constantly in fear. Then, include anecdotes about particularly atrocious cases (e.g., a gang rape where the accused suspects were not prosecuted) to convey the idea that women are routinely victimized in brutal ways and that the system — patriarchy! — is deliberately rigged against women. And so, about midway through “The Rape Atrocity and the Boy Next Door,” Andrea Dworkin offers this:

The FBI, in its Uniform Crime Reports, reported that in 1974, 55,210 women were raped in this country. This was an 8 percent increase over 1973, and a 49 percent increase over 1969. The FBI notes that rape is “probably one of the most under-reported crimes due primarily to fear and/or embarrassment on the part of its victims.” Carol V. Horos, in her book Rape, estimates that for every rape reported to the police, ten are not. Applying Horos’ estimate to the number of rapes reported in 1974 brings the total estimate of rapes committed in that year to 607,310. It is important to remember that FBI statistics are based on the male definition of rape, and on the numbers of men arrested and convicted for rape under that definition. According to the FBI, of all those rapes reported to the police in 1974, only 51 percent resulted in arrest, and in only one case out of ten was the rapist finally convicted.

Dworkin here demonstrates how the propagandist uses facts to create lies. A false impression (i.e., rape is common) is intentionally created by the use of an actual statistic (55,210 reported rapes) combined with an estimate of unreported rapes used as a Magic Multiplier to produce a figure of more than 600,000 rapes — a Scary Big Number. Whatever the actual number of rapes in 1975 was, however, the U.S. population in 1974 was 214 million, about 110 million of whom were women, so that even if we accept the 10x Magic Multiplier and stipulate that there were 600,000 rapes in 1974, this means 0.5% of women were raped that year. In other words, 99.5% of women managed to get through the year without being victims of rape and (something else Dworkin doesn’t mention) this was during an era when violent crime had spiraled out of control.

Crime ………………. 1960 ………. 1975
Rape ……………………….. 17,190 …….. 56,090
Robbery ………………… 107,840 …… 470,500
Aggravated assault ….. 154,320 …… 492,620
Murder………………………. 9,110 ……… 20,510
All violent crime …….. 288,460 …. 1,039,710

There was a frightening increase in the number of reported rapes during this 15-year span, but this was part of a trend when all violent crime increased by 277% percent, when the number of murders more than doubled, aggravated assaults tripled, and robberies quadrupled.

Activists who now claim that there is a “campus rape epidemic” never acknowledge the historical background of how rape, like all violent crime, increased so dramatically during the social upheavals of the 1960s and ’70s. This was an era when “reforms” promoted by liberals (including the decriminalization of pornography) were arguably major contributors to the breakdown of cultural norms that had previously served to restrain sexual violence. The crime wave that erupted in the 1960s was finally halted in the 1980s and 1990s as a result of conservative policies (including federal “mandatory minimum” sentences for drug traffickers) that put criminals in prison where they belong. Technological developments — national computer databases of DNA, fingerprints and criminal records, as well as widespread video surveillance — have made it easier to solve crimes and prosecute perpetrators, and this has produced a remarkable decrease in crime since the 1990s:

Between 1997 and 2013, the rate of rape or sexual assault against women dropped by about 50 percent. . . . The decline in the rate of sexual assault is part of a widely observed decline in violent crime more generally, which is down about 60 percent over the past 15 to 20 years.

Remember that, even according to the figures cited by Andrea Dworkin in 1975 — when violent crime rates had sharply increased — only 1 in 200 U.S. women were victims of rape annually, assuming that the actual number of rapes was 10 times the number reported to police.

Yet here we are, more than 40 years later, when authorities agree that crime rates have significantly decreased, and feminists insist that 1-in-5 female college students are victims of sexual assault. This aspect of “rape culture” rhetoric cannot be justified by reference to known facts, which means that feminists are lying about rape — and doing so on a monumental scale, deliberately exaggerating the frequency of campus rape perhaps as much as 40 times the actual rate.

“No, 1 in 5 women have not been raped on college campuses,” Ashe Schow wrote in the headline of an August 2014 column explaining the basic flaws in the methodology behind this phony statistic. The problem of campus sexual assault “will not be solved by statistical hijinks,” as Christina Hoff Sommers has said. Sommers seems willing to extend to feminists the courtesy of believing they actually care about preventing rape. But why should liars be granted the presumption of good faith?

For more than 40 years, feminists have been exploiting the issue of rape in the same way that Andrea Dworkin did — combine horrifying anecdotes of violence and injustice with inflated statistics to create the impression that these atrocities are routine, that all women are victims and all men are dangerous predators. And this anti-male propaganda culminates in a call to action: “We must do something! Organize! Protest! Demand new laws! Pay more feminists to give speeches on campus!”

Feminism: Sex With Men Is ‘Impossible’

What was Andrea Dworkin’s motive for lying about rape? To make money. To sell books. To encourage young women to hate men as much as she hated men, thus to build a loyal readership of man-hating women sympathetic to her radical message. Why?

“Rape culture” is a feminist synonym for heterosexuality.

When Andrea Dworkin began touring campuses lecturing college girls about rape in 1975, she was promoting her book Woman Hating: A Radical Look at Sexuality, which makes genuinely strange arguments, as Dworkin avows herself an apostle of “natural androgynous eroticism”:

The discovery is, of course, that “man” and “woman” are fictions, caricatures, cultural constructs. As models they are reductive, totalitarian, inappropriate to human becoming. As roles they are static, demeaning to the female, dead-ended for male and female both. . . .
I have defined heterosexuality as the ritualized behavior built on polar role definition. Intercourse with men as we know them is increasingly impossible. It requires an aborting of creativity and strength, a refusal of responsibility and freedom: a bitter personal death. It means remaining the victim, forever annihilating all self-respect. It means acting out the female role, incorporating the masochism, self-hatred, and passivity which are central to it. Unambiguous conventional heterosexual behavior is the worst betrayal of our common humanity.

In her first book, Andrea Dworkin declared herself against heterosexuality, per se, and she never recanted this radical position, condemning sexual intercourse as synonymous with “personal death” for women. Her next book, Our Blood, included the speech she made at a 1975 Lesbian Pride rally in New York, in which she declared that lesbianism “shines as bright as the summer sun as noon.” Depicting men as the forces of darkness, Dworkin issued this remarkable prophecy:

In this country in the coming years, I think that there will be a terrible storm. I think that the skies will darken beyond all recognition. Those who walk the streets will walk them in darkness. . . Those who are raped will see the darkness as they look up into the face of the rapist. Those who are assaulted and brutalized by madmen will start intently into the darkness to discern who is moving toward them at every moment.

Men are darkness, a looming threat in a “terrible storm” of rape, assault and brutality — this is what Andrea Dworkin believed and, we are told by feminists today, it is “misogyny” to criticize Dworkin. Her speech about rape, which Dworkin gave on so many college campuses, concluded by summarizing the themes of her book Woman Hating, which rejected “polar role definition” and the “fictions” of male and female identities:

Rape is the direct consequence of our polar definitions of men and woman. . . . Given these polar gender definitions, it is the very nature of men to aggress sexually against women. . . Rape is no excess, no aberration, no accident, no mistake — it embodies sexuality as the culture defines it. . . .
In this society, the norm of masculinity is phallic aggression. Male sexuality is, by definition, intensely and rigidly phallic. . . .
The fact is that in order to stop rape, and all of the other systematic abuses against us, we must destroy these very definitions, of masculinity and femininity, of men and women. . . We must excise them from our social fabric, destroy any and all institutions based on them, render them vestigial, useless. We must destroy the very structure of culture as we know it, its art, its churches, its laws; we must eradicate from consciousness and memory all of the images, institutions, and structural mental sets that turn men into rapists by definition and women into victims by definition. Until we do, rape will remain our primary sexual model and women will be raped by men.
As women, we must begin this revolutionary work. When we change, those who define themselves over and against us will have to kill us all, change, or die. In order to change, we must renounce every male definition we have ever learned; we must renounce male definitions and descriptions of our lives, our bodies, our needs, our wants, our worth . . . We must refuse to be complicit in a sexual-social system that is built on our labor as an inferior slave class.

Heterosexuality is synonymous with slavery, Dworkin declared, and she is certainly not the only feminist who has said as much — the quotes in my presentation next Monday will include numerous other examples of such claims. And notice that Dworkin’s demand for “revolutionary work” is entirely destructive in its motives and goals. Because “our social fabric,” our “institutions” and our “culture” are based upon definitions of masculinity and femininity that assume heterosexuality as the norm, then everything must be destroyed in order to end “phallic aggression.”

Thus we return to the original question: “What is ‘rape culture’?”

Feminists who have fomented a phony “rape epidemic” hysteria on our nation’s capital have relied upon public ignorance as to the nature of feminism’s core belief system. Anti-male hate-mongers expected that no one would ever take the time to do what I have done in the past two years, namely to acquire more than 100 books by feminist authors, dating back to the very beginning of the Women’s Liberation movement and including textbooks commonly assigned in Women’s Studies courses today, and extract from these works the fundamental elements of feminist theory.

For too long, most conservatives have treated feminism as a joke, a thing to be mocked when it occasionally erupts in daily news headlines. It is easy to laugh, for example, when we hear about a staff member at a Catholic university being suspended for having a discussion with a student in which the staffer was accused of “denying transgenderism” — an accusation that Los Angeles investigated as a hate crime. Yet the fact that a formerly religious institution has now become so corrupt that no one can be permitted to teach Christian belief on campus is no laughing matter. Nor is it humorous that university students in the throes of bizarre delusions (Cosette Carleo calls herself “gender-neutral”) wield the power to inflict career-ending punishment on anyone on campus who criticizes their madness. Before you laugh at this, imagine the horror of parents who have sent their children to Loyola Marymount University (annual tuition $42,569) only to discover that this allegedly Christian institution has instead been captured by the Gender-Sexuality Alliance which, along with the office of LGBT Student Services, annually promotes “Rainbow Week,” otherwise known as LGBTQ+ Awareness Week.

 

Here we see how the radical project announced by Andrea Dworkin — the destruction of masculinity and femininity, etc. — has attained official authority in academia, so that no one employed at Loyola Marymount (or any other university) would dare speak out against feminism’s avowed purpose to “destroy the very structure of culture as we know it.”

Our nation’s universities are now committed to this cultural destruction. Readers will perhaps not be surprised to learn that female students are a majority (57%) of enrollment at Loyola Marymount, where the Department of Women’s and Gender Studies has just hired Dr. Mairead Sullivan as a new assistant professor. Dr. Sullivan’s dissertation, “challenging the conventional border between feminist and queer theory,” makes “a claim for the theoretical value of feminism’s radical variant and its commitment to an ‘anti-social politics’ and a violent ‘politics of destruction’ as providing a specific and terrorist threat to reproductive futurism.” Exactly why Catholic parents would pay $42,569 a year to send their children to a university that promotes this “politics of destruction” is something the administration of Loyola Marymount has not bothered to explain. Adam Cassandra asks, “Why Is This Catholic University Trashing Catholic Teaching On Sexuality?” Well, because that’s what it takes to “destroy the very structure of culture as we know it.”

What is “rape culture”? Everything — and feminists want to destroy it all.




 


Category: Sex Trouble
« go back — keep looking »