"She thinks it's okay to ruin this guy's life so that people don't think she's a slut, typical female mindset, men's suffering is irrelevant."
There is such a thing as spoiled brat-ism which is something that affects both genders. Feminists claim it only affects one, but they are full of it and most of them were spoiled brats themselves who never grew up.
Oooooh so you are saying what I am saying is whacked? No it isn't -- just listen to this:
What happened to this woman -- this happens all the time. And notice what she said about how the involvement of two female perpetrators who plotted and schemed along with the men gave the victim many fewer options. Aka, because feminists have defined rape as something that can only involve a male perpetrator, and women can only be seen as victims, all male rapists have to do to ensure impunity is to rope women into the crime -- and the criminal justice system, under "feminist governance" can be counted onto ignore all crimes that fail to fit that narrative. Furthermore, this whole system of "feminist governance" infiltrated our government when it did (in the 1980's) and subsequently began to refuse to recognize any crimes that fall outside the "male perpetrator female victim" narrative for a reason: and that reason was the Catholic Church, and all sorts of deal making that went on between the Catholic Church and feminist groups at that time.
In addition to which, I am pointing to holes in the system which I am very concerned about with regard to the manner in which they work to the detriment of rape victims. And, these aren't odd points, they are blatantly obvious and anyone with a brain can understand them.
How dare you question me? Surely no one who expresses concern for rape victims -- those who are victimized because of a corrupt system where feminists who have installed themselves into corrupt bureaucracies can leverage the issue of rape to collect bribes and make a pretty penny off of it -- should have their sincerity questioned in any way now should they?
Can't we all agree, it's the well being of rape victims or potential rape victims that is paramount here -- not the reputation of a particular movement that has sought to control the public narrative and public discussion regarding rape, all in the name of sympathy for said rape victims?
Who comes first? The interests of rape victims? Or the interests of those who claim to be the sole advocates for the interests of rape victims? Surely those who sincerely want to do the right thing would welcome constructive criticism.
My points are intellectual ones. And the copping of an attitude along with name calling does not make up for a willful refusal to debate my intellectual points on their merits. It's just a matter of going along with the crowd and attempting to police any kind of diversion from the mainstream narrative through name calling.
In one of your previous comments, you said you intended to provoke many responses.
I am well aware that there is a cottage industry in the internet media for some to engage in anti-intellectual "provocative" discussion about issues simply in order to get an article more hits because it helps to sell ads. On the other hand, this is a serious issue, and to blatantly cheapen a serious issue in this manner is disgusting.
"Damian -- I would say the vocal feminists I know are also by far, the most active supporters of other women like women in oppressive countries and minority women in ours. I'm not sure why you believe women asking for equality in the workplace and standing up against rape culture for a more respectful society, somehow means that they do not want that for all women.
Kimski's disingenuous concerns about "male rape victims (by females)" and your conspiracy theories about rape being a way for corporations to control universities (never have I known a rape victim with corporate ties) are pretty wacko."
It's not wacko at all. Furthermore, in your effort to discredit my argument -- and why would you want to? -- you misquote me and argue that you have never known a rape victim with corporate ties.
How about rapists with corporate and mafia ties? Sufficiently strong enough so they commit rape on campus, they force a college to intimidate a vulnerable victim in manners that could hurt a college's reputation, and they use their financial donations to feminist and various rape advocacy organizations as well as their ties to the media to ensure that the same college/university is protected against bad publicity for these actions it was forced into, all in return for complying with a large corporation's wishes regarding the rigging and controlling of research so it is done in a way to ensure maximum profitability of same corporation's products?
This is a legitimate concern I am raising here -- and not for no reason.
"Damian this comment: "There is something good that can come out of experience, no matter how distressing and unpleasant." -- is disappointing to read.
Rape = never a positive learning opportunity for the victim. Rather it creates sadness, fear, powerlessness, and a feeling of insignificance. Victims of repeat rape or molestation have described how their souls are "murdered" or "killed." For a one-time victims of rape, it takes a chip of their soul away.
Good men could spare their lectures on women to "smarten up to avoid the 1% of male rapists" (I think it's about 4%), but rather can stand against their rapists friends."
Rape = never a positive learning experience you say -- but, hold on one moment. You can have your own beliefs, yes, but not your own set of facts. The truth is, the story told in this article is ambiguous enough so we don't know exactly what occurred, but I will say that absent any date rape drug in this girl's system and premeditated ill intent, if she had only had one or two drinks and wasn't too severely intoxicated (as some versions of this story hold), it's really hard to describe it as rape but, more accurately, it can look like a typical social situation (the type that happens often) where people get corralled through social pressure into doing things they don't want to do and then regretting it later.
It happens a lot, and rape is not the only situation it happens in. I also feel that our culture is heavily influenced by puritanical values the religious right is responsible for, which holds all sex not occurring under conditions of holy matrimony to be suspect, and some of these values are being used to confuse issues regarding rape. Some people want to turn premarital sex into rape in a misguided attempt to push uber conservative values in through the back door.
Either women are to be protected, meaning not allowed to mix with men in the first place in conditions that are uncontrolled, or else women should be allowed to take some amount of risks in the dating scene. However, the assumption that a hook up culture can successfully be controlled through after-the-fact tribunals whereby a victim lodges a complaint and then the legal system adjudicates it is naive at best.
I note that most or all commentaries about rape simply refuse to even face this issue square on, and most individuals -- especially feminist women -- who want to debate the issue of rape are insisting on focusing on debating only what sort of behaviors should be considered decent/indecent and therefore legal/illegal. All the while sidestepping the issue of how much a corrupt criminal justice system can be trusted to legislate gentlemanly behavior and decency.
The truth is, it can't be -- and that's precisely why definitions of crimes and standards of proof always have been high in the past. The inability to trust the criminal justice system means other means need to be employed to enforce standards of decency and decorum in the dating world other than incarceration or the threat of incarceration, all moderated by a system made most corrupt by our misguided war on drugs.
In theory it's fine to argue for certain standards of decorum males are to follow in the dating world. In practice, it is naive at best to assume that all responsibility for imposing and enforcing such standards of decorum and decency should be placed on a mafia controlled criminal justice system. If the criminal justice system is to be granted such an enormous amount of power, shouldn't we be having a conversation about how such corrupting policies as the war on drugs should be ended first?
Discussing abstractly "how males should behave towards women" is fine and dandy up until the time you start effectively arguing that all power to determine violations of proper behavior should rest with the mafia.
All Comments »
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation