by Connie Chastain*
When I step out of my house, get behind the wheel of my little S-10 pickup and drive a mile or so to Winn-Dixie, or to the next county to visit my kinfolk, or most anywhere, for that matter, the first thing that pops into my mind is not, "Gee, I hope I don't get raped while I'm out." That's particularly true if it's daytime.
When it's night, I'm apt to be a bit more cautious, aware of the possibilities of mischief abroad. Scripture says wicked people (that would be women as well as men) love the darkness of night because it hides their evildoing. So I don't take chances. No giving rides to people I don't know. No stopping to help someone with a flat tire. I'll call for roadside assistance, but I won't stop myself. I can't change a tire, anyway, so I'd be no help.
My caution, though, can't be chalked up to "rape culture." I know that if I'm waylaid in the dark, it's more likely that I'll be robbed by some crazed druggie wanting money for a fix than by a calculating rapist.
But isn't that what I'm supposed to be afraid of? Isn't that what "Take Back the Night" and claims of "rape culture" are all about? Women victimized by legions of rapists skulking in the nighttime shadows?
On the "History" page of the website for Take Back the Night Foundation, a paragraph describes how a woman walking down a dark, empty street is terrified by the shadows until she reaches her destination. We're supposed to come away with a sense of what a tragedy it is that women feel anxious when they walk alone at night.
In that case, it makes sense to me to not walk alone at night unless you must. Drive, baby. Call a cab. Get someone you trust to walk with you. Or stay in until it's daytime.
And remember; men are victims of nighttime mischief, as well. Women don't have a corner on victimhood. But where are all the organizations, rallies and websites, not to mention legislation, aimed at protecting men who are victims of nighttime crime? Why do only women deserve this attention?
And is it just me, or does everyone who visits the Take Back the Night website notice the big blue "donate now" button at the top of every page?
Frankly, judging by personal observation, my town is just full of women who are also not afraid. They drive alone, shop alone, ferry kids around, they work, play, worship without living in fear of rape. It would seem that the campaign to make women fearful -- and that's what all this "rape culture" baloney is about -- isn't working too well.
The attempt to instill fear of rape in women is really an attempt to instill in them the fear of men. And that must be disappointing for the radical feminists trying drive a wedge between the sexes and fundamentally alter the way human beings relate. The majority of women, even those who've come under feminist influence without consciously embracing it, don't see "rape" and "men" as synonyms.
What they--what we--see is that it is men who protect us, who partner with us to share our homes, our fortunes, our lives, our families. The are not our victimizers. They are our fathers, our sons, our husbands, our brothers, and it will be a cold day in hell before feminism will succeed in making me fear the wonderful men in my life who love me and see to my well-eing.
It is largely because of them--and the legions of men I don't know who live decently and virtuously, who protect and provide, who do the right thing because they are men of honor and conscience--that I am not afraid.
*Connie is a regular contributor to FRS. Her principal blog is http://conniechastain.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
39 comments:
Beautifully said, Connie.
You hit the nail on the head on so many points.
The problem is not rape, it's drugs and poverty. Yet the sexual grievance industry wants women to believe their lives are in danger whenever a man or boy is around them.
It is our sons who need to take back the night more than our daughters. It is beyond dispute that innocent men are more vulnerable to the criminals than innocent women. Check out a source feminists could not dispute, J. Friedman, J. Valenti (she, of "Feministing" fame), "Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape" (2008) at 23: "Men are 150 percent more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than women are. . . . . Men are more likely to be victimized by a stranger (63 percent of violent victimizations) . . . ."
We would do well to focus our efforts on the real problem -- and it's largely drugs and poverty -- and ditch the victim fetish.
P.S. Look at the post right below this one -- a feminist law professor nails it. It is so refreshing to hear a feminist who exercises common sense and realizes that the victimization of our daughters is no more worthy of protection than the victimization of our sons.
Take Back The Night has little to do with violent crime in bad neighborhoods. They focus their efforts on college campuses, especially more on prestigious universities, which are the safest places on earth. Their goal is political indoctrination, not crime prevention.
Anon, they would have us believe that college campuses are a hotbed of hypermasculine rape activity. I can barely type that without laughing. The fact is, the main problem on campus is kids drinking (acc. to Newsweek, the girls are drinking more than the boys). See, they both drink and they both have sex, and HE'S a rapist? Puh-lease! The reason Heather MacDonald had to write a giant piece debunking the dangers on campus ("Campus Rape Myth") is precisely because of these lies. And her piece was met with a vicious angry reaction from the sexual grievance community.
No, they don't care about the place where the crime is being committed -- the inner city -- because that would force them to face the failures of Democrat Party policis, especially the decision to diminish the role of the father in childrens' lives. That effort (the Great Society's "man out of the house" rule) has caused more social pathologies, more crime, than anything else.
"It is so refreshing to hear a feminist who exercises common sense..."
Not to be overly cynical, but imho, the only reason she and some other feminists are defending Al Gore is because he is a liberal icon.
"No, they don't care about the place where the crime is being committed -- the inner city -- because that would force them to face the failures of Democrat Party policies..."
Imho, it is more because poor less-educated women aren't very good prospects. They want to enlist young women who are not only impressionable, but extremely privileged.
ANon, I think she's evolved over the years: http://www.slate.com/id/2090196 That's not to say she's the voice of clarity. But, let's be honest, if you get a statement like this from a feminist, it carries far more weight than from someone like me. It would be much easier, and more "feminist," to defend Gore narrowly, citing the merits -- for example, citing the accuser's apparent lust for money to tell her story, etc. But no, Estrich took a much broader approach, and went right to the heart of the false rape problem: it's he said/she said, no one will ever know, and I'd hate to see this happen to my son. She's smart enough to know she doesn't have to do that to defend this particular male. So even if it's in some sense politically motivated, she said exactly the right thing, I think. And I will be citing this from hereon.
I do think that having a son is often an important factor in keeping feminists balanced. Unless you are a raving lunatic (and, yes, some of them are), the thought of your son being falsely accused is very painful.
Anon at 8:15: yeah, good point. They know that their ethereal gospel of oppression of women would fall on deaf ears in the inner city, where the women face REAL problems, not imaginary gender subjugation.
"On the "History" page of the website for Take Back the Night Foundation, a paragraph describes how a woman walking down a dark, empty street is terrified by the shadows until she reaches her destination. We're supposed to come away with a sense of what a tragedy it is that women feel anxious when they walk alone at night."
Hollywood helped perpetuate "fear of the night" hysteria in some women.
Great article Connie !
"Anon at 8:15: yeah, good point. They know that their ethereal gospel of oppression of women would fall on deaf ears in the inner city, where the women face REAL problems, not imaginary gender subjugation."
Yes, and they know those inner-city women are unlikely to ever get fancy degrees, or become people of influence in society.
Yep, only women are fearful of walking in dark, dangerous places.
Right.
And, see, because I have a penis, I am fearless. Absolutely fearless.
Even though I know I have a much greater chance of being assaulted or shot, it is a tremedous relief to me that I won't be raped, which is far, far worse than having my head bashed in.
It must be terrible to be a female to know that even though they are less likely to be killed or assaulted than I am, there is an extremely remote chance some male might put his penis in her. And that will destroy her life much worse than being killed.
Yep. I'm so thankful I have a dick!
"On the feminist scale of offensive behavior, a liberal man groping a masseuse just doesn't carry the same level of transgression as a conservative judge insulting a female law professor."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/als_masseuse_and_the_feminists.html
Feminists have a special problem with conservative judges, don't they?
Female attorneys have no problem commiserating with one another about the time thirty years ago when some elderly male judge called one of them "Mrs."; then they march into family law court and gladly exploit the inherent biases against men to screw some poor guy out of his children, his life savings, and his sanity, and they don't see the inconsistency.
No, they don't care about the place where the crime is being committed -- the inner city -- because that would force them to face the failures of Democrat Party policis, especially the decision to diminish the role of the father in childrens' lives. That effort (the Great Society's "man out of the house" rule) has caused more social pathologies, more crime, than anything else
Amen! The liberals want to keep the poor poor so they can control them, get their liberal progressive agendas accepted and passed. Remove men from homes, encourage women to have babies and keep them on the books. It's easier to control them if you are paying their bills.
cbgirl
By any measure the war on poverty has failed. We have created a cistern of perpetual poverty, dependency, and hopelessness. It is America's great shame. So, yes, it's much easier to concoct a fairy tale of rampant rape on college campuses than deal with far more important issues.
Connie: keep up the great work!
Archivist:
"Female attorneys have no problem commiserating with one another about the time thirty years ago when some elderly male judge called one of them "Mrs."; then they march into family law court and gladly exploit the inherent biases against men to screw some poor guy out of his children, his life savings, and his sanity, and they don't see the inconsistency."
There's no inconsistency. It would be inconsistent if they were striving for equality, but they are striving for female supremacy, so it is consistent.
Archivist: to beat poverty you need patriarchy. But our system is designed to get dad out of the house and reduce him to serfdom. No wonder so many poor kids turn to gangs.
Brilliant and insightful piece,I salute you,madam.
It's funny isn't it, that some women perceive a need to be afraid to go out in public and are safer in private, when men have to fear being alone with a woman in private, but can feel safer in public where there are lots of witnesses.
I work in a facility of all women and I am not permitted to be anywhere alone with one of them (allegedly for my own protection). Even if the company didn't mandate this, I would.
I was once accused by a woman I never met by had been trying to locate as part of my work (previous job). I was only able to keep my job and avoid arrest because during the timeframe she gave, I could prove I was nearly 3000 miles away. There was, of course, no evidence other than her word, but everyone believed her until I was told of the date the alleged incident occurred.
Did her allegations against you read like a 10 year-old special ed schoolgirl trying to write a Harlequin novel? She should have gone after Al Gore.
my LATEST pet peeve are these broadview, (formerly brinks) security tv ads, which portray men, once again, as potential rapist/ killers just to sell b.s home security systems.
exploiting womens (irrational) fears.
me no likee!
saturday night live, a few months back, ripped on these tv ads.
i'm quite sure it's on youtube.
MUST POST LINK.
Now that I think of it, your situation reminds me of what happened to Tucker Carlson, and to that guy from the band Poison. Both of them were also accused by women they'd never met.
So was David Letterman, as I recall. Wonderful society we're living in!
OT - I just found something hilarious. Has science discussed A CURE FOR FEMINISM?
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/02/the-anti-lesbian-drug.html
Genetic engineers, move over: the latest scheme for creating children to a parent’s specifications requires no DNA tinkering, but merely giving mom a steroid while she’s pregnant, and presto—no chance that her daughters will be lesbians or (worse?) ‘uppity.’
(or a false accusing bitch, I presume. But I disgress.)
New has indeed argued that prenatal androgens can affect a woman’s sexual orientation, her interest in becoming a mother and housewife, her interest in traditionally masculine careers, and—in childhood—whether she plays with dolls or trucks. I have written before on the many problems with research on such gender differences, and a book that Harvard University Press will publish in September, called Brain Storm: Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences, argues that studies claiming to find innate, sex-based brain differences are seriously flawed.
***
So if you give a pregnant woman the right steroid, her daughter will grow up to be a feminine woman who likes men, wants to have children and in general is not a psychopath bent on destroying the male race.
I'm posting this with my tongue in my cheek, of course, as well as a grain of salt.
Sure is a pleasant thought, though!
Anonymous said...
Brilliant and insightful piece,I salute you,madam.
Jul 2, 2010 4:57:00 PM
Correction;" Brilliant and insightful piece,I salute you,madame."
A madam is a woman who runs a house of prostitution.
RADAR ALERT: NPR Gives Raped Males The Unworthy Victim Treatment
http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20100629.php
NPR would never drag their heels if this were happening to women or girls.
"A madam is a woman who runs a house of prostitution."
It was a typo.
If anybody cares, here is what they're saying on Feministing about the use of "the anti-lesbian drug" to treat "ambiguous genitalia" (basically, a fetus being born with a vagina that sort of looks like a dick):
***
This is about using a treatment that is untested, likely to be harmful and has no medical benefit. The only benefit, argued below, is that the child might not have to undergo surgeries. Surgeries which are not medically indicated to begin with, but instead are used to mask the natural gender diversity that exists in our bodies. These surgeries are a way to alter the person, rather than have them deal with a society which falsely believes that the gender binary is a bright line. Or rather, have their parents deal with it as children.
***
"The gender diversity that exists in our bodies." Look, I'm all for diversity, tolerance, blah blah blah, but would it be okay if we all either had either a man's equipment or a woman's? Is ANY gender differentiation acceptable to a feminist?
I mean, God forbid that we start birthing girls who might grow up to love and nurture men, instead of being gender-obsessed tomboys who have false rape accuser's backs.
Also, I think the feministas missed the whole part about how this drug CAN INDEED prevent lesbianism and other masculine traits in girls.
And speaking of diversity, why is it that the only lifestyle choice that is unacceptable to them is to be Ward and June Cleaver? Man, woman, hermaphrodite, a vagina that sort of looks like a cock,
having a horse's hind end and an eagle's chest, whatever -- any old thing out of the Mos Eisley cantina of human sexuality is perfectly and emphatically acceptable, but living a traditional lifestyle is bad, horrid, intolerable heresy that must be ABOLISHED AT ONCE, I say!
Because we all know that Ward Cleaver was secretly beating June with a shovel and fucking her in the ass during commercials. Forgot to add that last part.
(I do apologize for the vulgarity, but some thoughts cannot be completely expresed without it.)
"Mos Eisley cantina of human sexuality" - nice!
Does anybody have an opinion on the "anti-lesbian drug"? Is feminism really biologically rooted, with the feminists themselves being mistakes of nature -- or does the article overstate the biological influence on masculine tendencies in women?
I got into a conversation about this once. The lady I was talking to told me, as evidence that a "rape culture" exists all the precautions she took to avoid an assault, including her route to her car after work, her can of mace, her route home, walking to her home, (I don't know there was other stuff, but I've forgotten now) Anyway... after all that I just sorta looked at her and asked... "So, there's a rape culture because you're paranoid? What's that got to do with me?"
Anyway, the facts are clear. If anybody should "fear the night" It's men, but we don't seem to let it bother us, do we?
This is sick;
Barbara Kay: You’re male. You must be a pervert
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/02/barbara-kay-youre-male-you-must-be-a-pervert/
Read the following quote:
***
As for the issue of whether or not to continue to reproduce males, it doesn't follow that because the male, like disease, has always existed among us that he should continue to exist.
When genetic control is possible — and soon it will be — it goes without saying that we should produce only whole, complete beings, not physical defects of deficiencies, including emotional deficiencies, such as maleness. Just as the deliberate production of blind people would be highly immoral, so would be the deliberate production of emotional cripples.
—Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto[
***
Now, tell me: are we being unreasonable if we change it just slightly, given the new possibilities provided by the "anti-lesbian drug?"
***
As for the issue of whether or not to continue to reproduce lesbians, it doesn't follow that because the lesbian, like disease, has always existed among us that he should continue to exist.
When genetic control is possible — and soon it will be — it goes without saying that we should produce only whole, complete beings, not physical defects of deficiencies, including emotional deficiencies, such as lesbianism. Just as the deliberate production of blind people would be highly immoral, so would be the deliberate production of emotional cripples.
—Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto[(updated!!)
In the original quote, the author of the SCUM Manifesto is arguing that one half of the human species -- men -- are emotionally incomplete beings who should be eliminated because it would be cruel to allow a creature that is inferior to women to exist.
Doesn't it make a lot more sense to say that lesbianism should be eliminated instead, since (unlike male sexuality, half of the human species) lesbianism really is just a mistake of nature; an aberration having no survival value and causing sharp emotional deficiencies (male characteristics) in the child?
But of course, the feminists would compare us to the Nazis if we made such an argument -- even though we would just be offering the flipside of arguments that they have been making for decades.
"This is sick;
Barbara Kay: You’re male. You must be a pervert
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/02/barbara-kay-youre-male-you-must-be-a-pervert/"
In case anyone got the wrong end of the stick, this is a pro-male piece from Barbara Kay, commenting on BA's policy of assuming all adult males are pedophiles and thus not letting them sit next to children - a man recently won a case against them for this sexist discrimination.
Apparently Feministing even took up his cause - AFTER he had won. (We MRAs have been following it since about a year ago when he first complained.) Hilarious isn't it, that the grrrlz want to get on board solving the problems THEY caused in the first place.
For the times that count you can always count on Feministing. You can't lose with ambiguous genitals in your corner.
"Now, tell me: are we being unreasonable if we change it just slightly, given the new possibilities provided by the "anti-lesbian drug?"
***
As for the issue of whether or not to continue to reproduce lesbians, it doesn't follow that because the lesbian, like disease, has always existed among us that he should continue to exist.
When genetic control is possible — and soon it will be — it goes without saying that we should produce only whole, complete beings, not physical defects of deficiencies, including emotional deficiencies, such as lesbianism. Just as the deliberate production of blind people would be highly immoral, so would be the deliberate production of emotional cripples."
Males=49% of all humans
Lesbians=1-2% of all humans
Epic Fail
Post a Comment