Connie Chastain, whose column is found in this space every Friday, is taking a well-deserved week off. So, I apologize in advance to our readers, to the blogosphere, and to the universe, because you're stuck with me today.
It has long been my suspicion that the self-righteous, snarky, screeching banshees who plop their lazy asses behind computer screens at our major dailies and insist that "masculinity" -- traditional notions of maleness -- needs to be redefined in order to reduce "rape," are not just out of step with the way most women think but are at least borderline psychotic. To illustrate this, consider two items, ripped right from today's news.
First, there's Redefining masulinity is key to stopping rape. The author is clearly one of the aforementioned screeching banshees. Read the inanity for yourself. Or better yet, skip it, because it's just more of the same old feminist cow dung they've been shoveling for decades: masculinity is terribly flawed, and rape is a manifestation of this flawed maleness, not, as I always stupidly assumed, a criminal mentality.
But read this part carefully: "Why these men believe it's ok to rape or sexually assault a woman or girl is bound up in conceptions of gender normativity and the imbalance of power between men and women that flows from such assumptions: Masculinity is associated with dominance and virility while femininity is deemed passive."
Get it? Dominance and virility are manifestations of a toxic masculinity -- the fabled (in reality, imaginary) "rape continuum" and "rape culture."
Now, compare that typical radical feminist tripe with the recent female college grad's "fuck list" which has gone, as they say, viral. In it, a young woman named Karen Owen rates her sexual encounters with a number of male college athletes, complete with names, photos, and penile descriptions. Be forewarned, the link we provide redacts the names and faces but not the penile descriptions.
It goes without saying that if a male had written the "fuck list," he'd be figuratively strung up by the balls across the blogosphere, especially by women. But since a young woman wrote it, there is a chorus of, you go, girlfriend! instead. This, you see, is female empowerment -- humiliating, in a most public way, specifically named young men who are barely more than boys. Nice. Remember, we can only have equality when we hold women to a lower standard than men. Right? I mean, right?
But that pernicious double standard is not the point of this post. We need to focus on something Ms. Owen wrote (and, no, it has nothing to do with length or girth).
Remember the comment in the feminist's anti-male piece about "dominance and virility"? One of Ms. Owen's "fuck list" criteria for rating the boys is the following: "Aggressiveness: points were given if the Subject displayed aggressive behavior and an alpha-male mentality of assuming control of the given situation; points were deducted severely if they simply lay there or did not act assertively."
Read it again: ". . . points were deducted severely" for passivity.
Now, tell me, which piece is more representative of the thinking of women, the feminist's or Ms. Owens'?
Here's the dirty little secret those feminist writers can't stand to admit: the vast majority of women want men to be dominant, virile, and aggressive -- in short, they want men to act like men. Men oblige, because it improves their mating chances -- period, end of story.
Moreover, the vast majority of women know that dominance and virility and aggressiveness have nothing to do with rape. Rape is the product of a criminal mind, not garden-variety maleness.
And here's the dirtiest little secret of all: most of those feminist writers who slam maleness when ostensibly writing about rape aren't opposed to rape nearly as much as they are to men.