The moral touchstone of modern feminism is that society subtly promotes a state of 'rape culture.' It is claimed that 'rape culture' is a deeply-sown seed of hatred and callousness towards the victims of sexual violence that is in fact the cause and driver of the overall oppression of women as a gender. Thus, modern feminists have taken up the mantle of dismantling this devilish apparatus by campaigning for awareness of their theory, and by 'teaching men not to rape'.
By crediting themselves with being the opposition to violence against women (a task performed by local communities, police, medical staff and the justice system), 'social justice' advocates have hijacked discussion over how society handles sexual assault, turning it into a pet cause for their own social signalling. In this article I will attempt to decipher the motivation and logic behind this theory and its impact on the wider culture.
From our friends at HuffPo:
Rape culture is a culture in which dominant cultural ideologies, media images, social practices, and societal institutions support and condone sexual abuse by normalizing, trivializing and eroticizing male violence against women and blaming victims for their own abuse.
This latest fabrication is perhaps the most provocative and attention grabbing feminist claim. Most men don't care much for female representation on corporate boards, the equal division of household labor, 'reproductive' rights or 'sexism in the media'. But we all have or have had women in our lives, and concern for their safety is a natural, healthy and moral instinct.
At the heart of the campaign to 'end' violence against women is the statistic that 'one in five' women will be a victim of rape. Christina Hoff Sommers has shed light on the unscrupulous use of data in this 'fact' and some of the other feminist myths that will not die. By putting together these 'facts' that include the 'pay gap,' the 'glass ceiling,' 'casual misogyny,' and 'the patriarchy,' the feminist narrative posits that women are an oppressed class in all societies at every level. Women are defined not by their individuality, ethnicity or class, but by their victim status in a Leninist struggle.
An understanding of 'Gender Feminism' helps to explain that basis of the modern feminist worldview. Steven Pinker writes:
Gender feminism is an empirical doctrine committed to three claims about human nature. The first is that the differences between men and women have nothing to do with biology but are socially constructed in their entirety. The second is that humans possess a single social motive – power – and that social life can be understood only in terms of how it is exercised. The third is that human interactions arise not from the motives of people dealing with each other as individuals but from the motives of groups dealing with other groups – in this case, the male gender dominating the female gender.
One need not draw a long bow to see Marxist doctrine re-ordered. Just replace the proletariat with the woman, and proceed accordingly. If Marx was right about anything, it was the ability of people to perform mental gymnastics to arrive at preposterous conclusions that remove agency and enable their righteous, murderous victimhood.
The power of social media to promote radical leftist 'gender creationism' temporarily created a veneer of its mainstream acceptance. Combined with the hedonistic 'hook-up culture' of the university campus (the perfect environment to find women damaged by casual sexual encounters) the feminist coven brewed a simmering pot of Marxist struggle, quests for justice and the evocation of the age old cry to protect 'women and children.'
Modern feminism drastically redefines what constitutes rape whilst simultaneously teaching girls that they are 'just like men' and there are no emotional or physical consequences for their behaviors. The fallout is predictable - scores of young women are seduced (pun not intended) by the promise of child-like freedom to engage in any and all behaviours, whilst entirely removing expectations of adult responsibility and the prospect for their emotional or physical harm.
The theory of 'Rape Culture' requires women to be free of agency to be able to function. If the sexes were truly equal, then wouldn't women commit violent sexual assault at the same rates as men? Is there something inherent and biological about men that makes them more likely to engage in violence and in particular, sexual violence?
Is it 'casual sexism' (the 'casual' belief that girls are weaker and less capable) that leads to rape? If this were true, then is this casual sexism based in reality? If women are equally smart and strong, wouldn't they be able to handle violent situations, or at least be aware of the danger male violence so as to avoid it?
The glaring irony is that this view of women as helpless victims is a mirrored in patriarchal religious traditions such as Islam and Mormonism, that design social structures and laws to protect women from exposure to the risk of harm from men - chaperones, early marriage, conservative dress codes and criminalising adultery all arise from this understanding. If we take this view (which I do not), then we should rightfully judge these traditions as superior to the libertine status quo, since they take action to prevent and punish harm to women, rather than allow these casualties to occur whilst wailing about injustice.
If we accept a biological basis for male over-representation in cases of sexual violence, then we must dismiss most feminist theory. The claim that disparity in achievements and choices between the sexes are solely the result of oppressive institutions and cultural attitudes is the foundation of modern feminism. Is there a normative case to somehow make the sexes 'equal' in preferences and achievements? Would feminists imagine equality of poverty, equality of life expectancy and equality of incarceration rates to be a part of their ideal? The struggle for their earthly utopia, in spite of science, statistics and common sense can never be achieved, yet they believe that they are moral in railing against reality, in trying to 'fix' humanity to fit their conception of fairness.
If we deny biological difference (nature), then this disparity must be entirely attributable to how we raise boys (nurture) and a legal system that is less discouraging of male-on-female violence than female-on-male violence. Boys must be taught to rape if it is not innate; therefore it must be parents, teachers and community leaders who are promoting and encouraging boys to discover their 'inner rapist', whilst simultaneously teaching girls the opposite. Should this logic also apply to the unequal gender representation in other areas of crime such as armed robbery, murder and fraud? This conspiracy's application to the justice system is equally absurd.
All that was needed to bolster their narrative was a few high profile brutal rapes. Unfortunately, certain members of 'vibrant' communities are 'off-limits' in their struggle due to the constraints of Intersectionality, severely limiting the availability of suitable cases. An old-fashioned white frat-boy gang rape was the only acceptable form that wouldn't upset the liberal apple-cart. When they found their evidence for this epidemic at UVA and Duke, the establishment was so desperate to ride the tidal wave of progressive-clickbait and howling outrage, they forgot to check whether any of it was true.
The next phase of struggle is the suspension of the presumption of innocence for cases of sexual assault, as the young woman in the video advocates, in the name of stopping 'victim-blaming.' It is the same routine run by the left in calling for the heads of Zimmerman and Wilson as a kind of sacrifice at the altar of tribal justice. It is doubtful they will be successful and they know this. It is a cover for their rent seeking, and promotes the fiction that American women (or Blacks in the other case) are oppressed, so as to justify more 'social programs', affirmative action, women's charities and jobs for professional feminists.
The other central flaw in case for 'Rape Culture' is its new definition of 'affirmative consent' as a black-and-white, somewhat autistic interpretation of how sexual contact actually occurs. Crucially, the concept of consent is blurry. The 'new rapist' is not of the 'man in the bushes' variety, but the average male engaged in the escalation of sexual contact to a level that the girl may not feel comfortable with. Rape can be committed in this way, however to categorize interpersonal communication used in proceeding to different levels of sexual contact as a 'yes' or 'no' question belies either willful ignorance or complete lack of experience.
As Alex McNabb pointed out in an earlier article, the 'can I proceed m'lady?' rulebook is patently absurd. How do men bed women? Women often put up initial resistance at the early stages to sexual contact that they do in fact consent to and desire. This may be due to several factors including sexual morality and social shame and their desire to control their own position of power in a relationship. It is clear that this re-definition is not actually about protecting girls, but rather demonising male sexuality and consensual sex in a Puritan twist.
Allow me to emphasise that I am not an MRA, PUA or any other acronym related to the various forms of male-feminism that consider women to be replaceable. Identifying as being on the 'boys' team' is the mirror of feminist/LBGTBBQWTF 'ally' cuckoldry. The real solution to dealing with rape is the same as it has always been: a well-resourced criminal justice system, use of the latest forensic technology to establish evidence for the trial, upright conduct that greatly diminishes negligent risk and a sense of responsibility towards oneself and others - the opposite of 'my body, my choice'. In seeking to profit from the victims of violent assault whilst shifting resources away from initiatives that would actually help prevent and punish instances of rape, modern feminists are modern woman's greatest adversary.
This article originally appeared at http://alternative-right.blogspot.com