Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Sexual grievance industry: Innocent young men have a greater responsibility to end rape than young women

It is politically correct in the extreme to preach that innocent young men bear a greater responsibility for ending rape than young women.  The proof is in the messages given to young men and young women when it comes to rape, and a repulsive new ad campaign merely underscores it.

Young men are taught that there is a dotted-line that connects traditional masculinity and rape.  This, of course, is as ridiculous as it is infuriating.  Yet, listen to what Catherine Pierce, of the Office of Violence Against Women in the U.S. Dept. of Justice, said:  "How do we encourage all men to take steps to stop sexual violence when they see it? Jackson Katz, who is one of the most thoughtful and thought-provoking minds on this issue, dedicates an entire chapter in his book 'The Macho Paradox' to the issue of bystanders. He writes: 'If we want to dramatically increase the number of men who make men’s violence against women a priority, it is not useful to engage them as perpetrators or potential perpetrators. Instead, it makes sense to enlist them as empowered bystanders who can do something to confront abusive peers, or who can help to create a climate in male peer culture that discourages [some] men’s attitudes and behaviors.'"

We could do multiple posts on these notions, but it suffices to say that rape is the product of a criminal mind, not a guy acting out traditional notions of masculinity. For example, while I am opposed to porn for other reasons, studies show that rape declines when porn use increases. How many women's advocates would encourage passing out copies of "Playboy" to high school boys in an effort to curb rape? Look: there is no evidence for a "rape continuum" any more than there is for a "murder continuum."  Yet innocent young men are told they must police their peers -- the vast majority of whom are also not criminals -- to be more respectful of women, and in some stardust wishfulness of the feminist sexual grievance industry, this is supposed to reduce rape.

In any event, compare that message with what young women are told about rape:  young women need not alter their behavior in the least to avoid being raped. It is perfectly acceptable for them to drink to unconsciousness in the company of men they don't know, even if this increases the statistical likelihood that they will be raped, because to counsel that they exercise even a modicum of common sense in that circumstance is "victim blaming."  Women shouldn't need to alter their behavior; men need to stop raping.

Example: the new "Don't be that guy" ad campaign in Edmonton is using blunt and crude words and images to tell males 18-24 years-old not to rape women who drink to excess. The picture above is an example. The rationale for the ads is this: "Typically, sexual assault awareness campaigns target potential victims by urging women to restrict their behavior. Research is telling us that targeting the behavior of victims is not only ineffective, but also contributes to how much they blame themselves after the assault. That’s why our campaign is targeting potential offenders – they are the ones responsible for the assault and responsible for stopping it." http://www.sexualassaultvoices.com/our-campaign.html

One such ad will be strategically placed atop urinals in men’s bathrooms in 26 bars around the city. That one reads: “Just because she’s drunk doesn’t mean she wants to fuck." 

The ads are being celebrated as another victory for female empowerment: "[A]t the very least, these ads set a precedent for holding men -- not women -- accountable for the crimes that men commit." http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/112837/graphic_antirape_ad_targets_men  Sounds like the writer believes men, as a class, are responsible for what a tiny percentage of criminals do, doesn't it? 

No sane and rational person would object to an ad campaign that reduces rape.  But tell me, will a young rapist have an epiphany while standing at the urinal: "She really doesn't want to fuck me?  Shit!  So I guess I shouldn't stick my penis in her!"

My bet is the ads will do more harm than goood.  For starters, they fail to address the elephant in the room: why should she be considered a "victim" when a young couple drinks to mutual excess -- which is common -- and then mutually decides, in their mutually reduced state of consciousness, to have sex?  In that scenario, he's every bit as much a "victim" as she is. (And, no, I don't think they both should be charged with rape: the mutuality of their stupidity cancels out whatever shared criminality exists.)  Women and men frequently drink to lower their inhibitions precisely so they will engage in intercourse.  To pretend otherwise is to toss eons of accumulated knowledge about gender relations onto a scrapheap of politicized indifference.  But that's really the whole game of the persons who dominate the public discourse about rape, isn't it?

By not addressing that issue, the ads are encouraging every young woman who wakes up with semen on her leg to assume "I've been raped!" when, in fact, she might have been the instigator, or at least equally responsible.  Once again, we think we are empowering our daughters by telling them they are powerless. My fear is that these ads will engender more false rape claims.

Beyond that, the ads perpetuate the wicked double-standard that innocent young men have a greater responsibility for ending rape than innocent young women.

Here's the bottom line: rapists are responsible for rape. Period.  Not innocent young men. Innocent young men collectively have essentially no ability to end rape.  Holding young men who do not rape responsible to stop rape, while encouraging young women to consciously put themselves in situations where rape, and misunderstandings about whether rape occurred, are far more likely to occur, is asymmetrical gender blaming.

The real goal of these ads is to foment a little rape hysteria and to remind people that date rape is a significant problem, even if the evidence doesn't support it, thus justifying the existence of the paid sexual grievance industry.

You know, business as usual.

44 comments:

Anonymous said...

Very well done. The goal of this ad campaign is preserve women's status as perpetual victims.

Robert O'Hara said...

We live in a society where all men are targets of a massive witch hunt. This hunt has been going on for some time now and this article clearly illustrates its insidiousness. To suggest to all men between the age of 18 to 24 that they and all of their fellow men are responsible for rape and as such should police themselves is to promote a Gestapo like paradigm. But that is exactly what those in the sexual grievance industry want!
I lived in Baltimore for a time, a violent town with lots of crime and a huge heroin addiction problem. I had bought an expensive gift for a relative and parked my car outside my home with the gift in full view in the back seat. I had the intention of going upstairs, changing into some nicer clothes and shoot back down to my car so I could go to a holiday party. Upon my return to the car there was a black man who had just smashed my rear window and was extracting the gift. Naturally I yelled at him and gave chase. I caught up to him and forced an altercation-which is what I wanted- and he produced a knife forcing me to abandon the gift.
When I called the police to report the incident I actually got a ticket for leaving valuable property in full site and was admonished heavily by the officer that chasing after a criminal I such a situation was an incredibly dangerous thing to do. “You have lived around here for how many years now Mr. O’Hara? Seriously, you know how bad the junkies are and you left that thing in the back seat? I have no problems giving you this ticket and I got to tell you that what you did was careless and stupid.” He was right.
I can only imagine what would happen to me if I were to go to the neighborhood bar afterwards and told one of my many black friends that hung out there: “hey if only you –‘insert plural form of N-word explicative here’- would get your –‘insert other fecal reference explicative here’- together this wouldn’t happen.” Surely I would have gotten my ass kicked and rightfully so as that would have made me a reprehensible bigot. The fact that that guy stole my stuff had nothing to do with the fact that he was black, but rather that he was a criminal. But the word bigot for some reason does not apply to anyone in the sexual grievance industry when it comes to demonizing all men for what a miniscule number of monsters do.

Archivist said...

Robert, a brilliant comment. Thanks for the perfect analogy.

Uno Hu said...

Roberrt O'Hara said it all about as well as it could be said.

I would further add to the discussion about "men stopping rape", why should I, if it's not my mother, sister, or gf being raped? Society sets behavioral expectations by the rules it adopts. As long as (1) the perp could sue me for the level of force that I used to stop him, if he felt it was inappropriate, (2) the erstwhile victim could also sue me if she alleged that some action that I took increased her physical injury or mental anguish or (3) a bystander could sue me if he/she was injured as a result of my attempt to intervene . . . I will either walk or watch, but certainly not insert myself into a confrontation that amounts to a wager of life, health, freedom, or wealth and on which I can AT BEST, break even.

Anonymous said...

Putting aside that most rape claims are pure fiction, the ad pictured misrepresents what campus feminists call "date rape" -- sex with a woman who is awake and gives every outward sign of being a willing participant, including saying "yes", but was "too drunk to consent". Never mind extremely few people want to have sex with an unconscious person, or don't know that would be wrong.

If rape is one of the worst things that can happen to a woman, and young women honestly believed drinking leads to rape, they wouldn't drink so much.

Anonymous said...

"I actually got a ticket for leaving valuable property in full site"

While I applaud your comment, that still sounds like a ridiculous backwards-ass law.

Anonymous said...

Rape hysteria has been blown way out of proportion to reality, False rape accusations are now an epidemic, and the sexual grievance Gender feminists have become superpowers on campuses around the US, because of it.

Archivist said...

Uno, I think most men -- and including supporters of this site -- would probably react in a protective manner if we saw a woman being raped.

With that said, I must say that when college activists insist that young men be "part of the solution" to end rape, but those same activists have precisely zero concern for men who are falsely accused, well, I can understand why a lot of folks would opt NOT to be part of their "solution."

How about this for a novel idea: we all work to help rape victims and we all work to insure no one is falsely accused? Sadly, the haters who think we are rape "denialists" feel that the two can't be done -- that if someone dares to help the falsely accused, they are hurting rape victims.

Archivist said...

"It’s a lonely job, working the phones at a college rape crisis center. Day after day, you wait for the casualties to show up from the alleged campus rape epidemic—but no one calls. Could this mean that the crisis is overblown? No: it means, according to the campus sexual-assault industry, that the abuse of coeds is worse than anyone had ever imagined. It means that consultants and counselors need more funding to persuade student rape victims to break the silence of their suffering."

Read it -- right now, in case you never have. It's "must" reading:
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html

Anonymous said...

JUST BECAUSE SHE'S SAYING YES...

DOESN'T MEAN SHE WON'T CHANGE HER MIND LATER.

sex with consent = could mean sexual assault later on

DON'T BE THAT GUY EITHER.

namae nanka said...

the canard about changing behavior is everywhere, it's men again who should change their behavior lest a woman gets offended. And to change their responses when a woman says something lest she feels unfairly criticized.

And if drinking is such a big factor in the rape of women, simply ban drinking for women. Rather save them this way, like you do the same for under-age children in order to protect them from its deleterious behavior, but they'd rather ban four loko.

Meadester said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Meadester said...

"I actually got a ticket for leaving valuable property in full site"

While I applaud your comment, that still sounds like a ridiculous backwards-ass law.


Agreed. I would further say that chasing after the crook might have made sense in another jurisdiction. Some place more gun-friendly - or in other words less hostile to the idea that ordinary people have a right to self-defense - than Maryland.

gwallan said...

Katz...
it makes sense to enlist them as empowered bystanders who can do something to confront abusive peers, or who can help to create a climate in male peer culture that discourages [some] men’s attitudes and behaviors

Extraordinary.

"confront"? "attitudes and behaviors"?

Men AND boys are required to act as thought police and muscle on the part of any random woman?

Anonymous said...

The solution to this is not to reason with these people, they're insane. The solution is to fight fire with fire.

We could just as easily make anti-child abuse posters and put them in women's gyms and spas that say "Just because he's too young to say you're hurting him, doesn't mean you're not abusing him. Hitting or screaming at a child=abuse".

Make an "Only women can stop child abuse campaign" and see how they like being sterotyped by what some sick freaks in their gender do,and maybe help children too.

They're not really concerned about rape victims, they're just picking one area where the stats seem to be on their side in order to attack men.We don't actually know how many men are raped because most men don't even consider a woman forcing themselves on them rape. They don't report it. No man is going to say "Please stop sucking my penis or I'll call the police.",even if he doesn't want it, he would fear being called gay for refusing.

But yeah, we can do this too, and we should. What other choice do we have? They are assaulting us at every turn. We should take the gloves off.

Anonymous said...

Putting such posters above urinals may cause serious psychological damage to men while they are busy using their members. The posters could be placed elsewhere.

The current poster placement can reasonably be considered sexual harassment of men.

Anonymous said...

Very well put Robert!


Did anyone notice there is not a man in the picture?

Anonymous said...

"They're not really concerned about rape victims, they're just picking one area where the stats seem to be on their side in order to attack men."

Although the stats are bullshit, that is true. Feminists are not really concerned about rape. They picked rape because it is such an emotionally charged issue. And in spite of their claims about an imaginary "rape culture", it is something that is universally despised.

Robert O'Hara said...

"Agreed. I would further say that chasing after the crook might have made sense in another jurisdiction. Some place more gun-friendly - or in other words less hostile to the idea that ordinary people have a right to self-defense - than Maryland."

OF COURSE!!!

I live in Northern Virginia now and it is a world of difference. We do not have anywhere near the same amount of crime that Maryland does and there is no doubt in my mind that it is because of the gun laws. But this is a debate for another forum. Nice to see you again Meadester.

Anonymous said...

SACRAMENTO (CBS13) — A local man is facing charges of violating a restraining order after flipping the bird to his wife, according to authorities.

Paul Bechtel gave the rude gesture to his soon-to-be-ex-wife Rebecca during a recent appearance in a Sacramento County family court, but although the sentiment didn’t surprise her, she said the end result did.

“He went up, talked to the bailiff, turned around and flipped me off,” Rebecca said. “And was arrested.”

Deputies placed him in cuffs for violating a restraining order against him that called for no communication with Rebecca. Giving someone the finger, authorities said, is a form of communication.

The gesture also qualifies as harassment, Sheriff’s Department spokesman Tim Curran said.

“One would consider flipping the bird as harassing somebody, and that’s what the judge believed and he was charged accordingly,” Curran said.

Rebecca said it’s not the first time her husband has raised his middle finger at her since they filed for divorce, but it was the first time he did it in court.

“[He’s] very angry. Angry at the world,” she said.

Anonymous said...

To borrow from a prior post:

Storytellers from the women's movement and beyond reclaimed the heroine and her grandmother from male-dominated literary tradition, recasting the women as brave and resourceful, turning Red Riding
Hood into the physical or sexual aggressor"
- quoting Catherine Orenstein.


This is confusing.

Innocent Men are EXPECTED to stop rape, and are accountable for rape, but not rape by big bad wolves?

Why are these story tellers from the feminist's movement not rewriting the drunken bimbo rape story into a "I wisely drank in moderation and protected myself from harm" story?

How about a "I was a smart cookie, not a stupid drunken bimbo" ending to the story?

The truth is, there ARE guys who will take advantage of a drunken woman.

You CHOOSE to be stupid or you CHOOSE to be smart.

There should be a poster of a drunk guy staggering down a dark alley with $100.00 bills hanging out of his pockets saying "Just because I can't say "Don't rob me" doesn't mean I want you to."

Anonymous said...

A better tag line for that poster would be "This is how False Rape Accusations get started"

Anonymous said...

Nov 26, 2010 9:20:00 AM

Unbelievable.

Feminists insists that women are every bit as strong and capable as men. And maybe that is true...

So why would they need protection from hand gestures of all things?

Archivist said...

Anon at 9:40: That's as astute a comment as I've ever seen here or on any blog. You are speaking on a level so far above the typical grunts and groans and murmers of the sexual assault industry that I doubt many of their representatives will have the slightest idea what you've said. But you've hit the nail on the head. It was brilliant! I will turn this into its own post.

Elly said...

"Why are these story tellers from the feminist's movement not rewriting the drunken bimbo rape story into:

'I wisely drank in moderation and protected myself from harm' story?

or, 'I was a smart cookie, not a stupid drunken bimbo' ending to the story?"

And then you added, "The truth is, there ARE guys who will take advantage of a drunken woman."

I totally understand where you're coming from. In reality, I agree with everything you said --- women need to protect themselves.

But how many young innocent girls are aware, that when they go off to college, there's an undercurrent in the greek culture. I'm sure I don't need to explain what that undercurrent is.

I hope you will consider my opinion along with the rest, thanks.

Anonymous said...

When I called the police to report the incident I actually got a ticket for leaving valuable property in full site

Are you serious? I guess next people will get tickets for leaving valuable property (the car) in full sight lol

Anonymous said...

But how many young innocent girls are aware, that when they go off to college

Innocent? At 18 and especially in this day and age lol

Now, at 16 when I entered Uni and coming from an all male prep school I was somewhat innocent about college aged girls. I can only be thankful that it was long ago and before this current insanity because many of the things I did as a bumbling teenager may be reinterpreted today as "crimes". There was no such thing as "harassment" or "stalking" and if a female drank too much and had sex then she would blame herself if she thought it was a mistake. In fact, it's unlikely that she'd even mention it to her friends because she'd get the reputation of being a slut.

Elly said...

"In fact, it's unlikely that she'd even mention it to her friends because she'd get the reputation of being a slut."

You're exactly right. Those were the good old days when you could blame the woman no matter what. Thanks for pointing that out.

Anonymous said...

Elly, you don't claim you were raped in college, do you?

Anonymous said...

Elly is Georgia Girl and should be banned permanently.

Elly said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Archivist said...

Elly, find another outlet to talk about how rampant rape is. We serve a different purpose here, so consider yourself banned.

Anonymous said...

Hi Elly!

Hey Elly, go f*** yourself!

Teressa said...

Interesting take on an interesting topic.

Mostly, it leaves me with the burning desire to know if you'd like to do away with laws that punish those who are mugged/beaten/attempted murder/etc, simply because the burden of the action does not (in your mind) actually lie on the person who did, in fact, commit the action?

And if you don't believe one can always be held responsible for what they do, could you please leave your full address in a comment? The holidays are coming up, you see, and thieving just sounds so much nicer than having to spend my own money for gifts.

(Failing that, perhaps just your full name and social security number, if you are a US resident? Same line of thinking, really - if I'm not held responsible, then I really see no reason why I shouldn't steal your identity.)

Thank you for helping to make my holidays an easier experience! I'll be checking back!

Archivist said...

Teressa, go back to Feministing or whatever other black hole you crawled out of. We have a fair number of rape victims who support our work at this site because we don't apologize for rapists and because unlike the sexual grievance industry (I suspect you are a card carrying member), we believe in doing something to actually put a stop to rape, not merely punishing an entire gender for being born male.

You need to learn how to read before you post here.

Anonymous said...

Elly said...
"In fact, it's unlikely that she'd even mention it to her friends because she'd get the reputation of being a slut."

You're exactly right. Those were the good old days when you could blame the woman no matter what. Thanks for pointing that out.
+++++++++

Uh, Elly. The friends who would have regarded her as a slut were presumably other WOMEN.

Not just "Us".

Back in the "good old days" women were expected to be responsible for their own behavior, as well as maintaining a good reputation.

Nowdays, the sisterhood is attempting to strong arm everyone into believing women are NOT responsible for slutty behavior.

The question is, "How's that workin' out for ya?"

You can spend the rest of your life crying and complaining about "Greeks", or you can counsel "young innocent" girls how to avoid a lifetime of pain and regret by taking minimal precautions.

To innocent young men and women alike, I would beg of them never to trust strangers. I'm not saying dislike or distrust strangers.

I'm just saying don't put the future course of your life in the hands of someone you know nothing about.

You could end up being raped. You could end up with a deadly disease. You could end up with a false accusation or in prison, you could end up paying child support for the next two decades and having your child raised by an evil person who hates you.

Because "young and innocent" applies to BOTH genders, and BOTH genders have a LOT to lose.

Anzu said...

The feminist notion that women are powerless when it comes to sex is very offensive not only to women but to men as well.

I don't need some self-righteous feminist to treat me like a child simply because I am female.

I thought sexual equality meant accountability for both sexes. Looks like Feminism is treating women like we're not smart enough to give consent.

Feminism is a joke. Being equal means having equal responsibility and accountability. No wonder there are women who reject feminism it's a farce.

Anonymous said...

I still would like to know how you define rape. Because you can only be sure a crime hasn't been when you understand what that crime is.

Anonymous said...

"Back in the "good old days" women were expected to be responsible for their own behavior, as well as maintaining a good reputation."

Okay, that's good.
But tell me, WHAT were their "behaviors"?

And please tell me further, how did "nice" girls maintain their good reputations?

Anonymous said...

"I still would like to know how you define rape. Because you can only be sure a crime hasn't been when you understand what that crime is."

We don't define rape. We realize feminism has their OWN definition which is usually OUTSIDE of the law. We fully believe that many times the rape accusation by the woman is FALSE. That's what's this blog is about.

Go away.

Anonymous said...

Okay, that's good.
But tell me, WHAT were their "behaviors"?

It doesn't actually matter, as long as they took responsibility for them.

And please tell me further, how did "nice" girls maintain their good reputations?
Ah, so this is what the entirety of false rape accusations is all about.

Back then, women (and men) had no way to act like promiscuous drunkards and still maintain a hollier-than-thou reputation. Now, they have an out. I see. All it takes is to ruin a single male life, which is worth nothing apparently.

I still would like to know how you define rape. Because you can only be sure a crime hasn't been when you understand what that crime is.

How do you define rape?

-zarko

Archivist said...

"I still would like to know how you define rape. Because you can only be sure a crime hasn't been when you understand what that crime is."

Do what I do: check out the statutory definitions in the applicable state. That's the only definition of rape that matters.

But regardless of the state: if a woman willingly manifests assent to sex via her outward words or conduct, it is not rape. Whether she secretly "wanted" to have sex, or secretly did not "want" to have sex, is completely beside the point. The relevant inquiry focuses solely on her outward manifestations of assent.

Put more bluntly: a woman’s secret, undisclosed intentions, desires or whims, and her ex post facto, false and belated, after-the-fact hissy fits of regrets, are of no import; all that matters are her external, objective manifestations of assent at the time of the act. Consent is any manifestation of assent to enter into sexual relations. It can be expressed by conduct as well as words, and it can be shown from all the surrounding circumstances, including the parties' prior course of conduct.

The test is whether a reasonable person in the position of the male would understand that consent has been given. Some states credit the male's subjective good faith belief that consent was present even though such belief wasn't "reasonable."

Women agree to have sex all the time even though they are secretly conflicted about it, or even secretly don't want to. Despite all of feminism's twisting and pounding, that's not rape. By the same token, sometimes rape occurs even though the woman "really wanted" to have sex but said no for other reasons. To suggest that a male is permitted to ignore a woman's outward manifestations in the latter instance because he "knows" that she secretly "really wants it" is not reasonable, and feminists would be the last to accept that. Well, it has to work both ways.

Please understand, those aren't my rules, that's the law. Rape isn't determined by some free-floating, moving target of a woman's subjective and secret whim.

Get it?

Anonymous said...

"Consent is any manifestation of assent to enter into sexual relations. It can be expressed by conduct as well as words, and it can be shown from all the surrounding circumstances, including the parties' prior course of conduct."

What does this mean? Does it mean that if a woman agrees to go home and have sex with a man, but then changes her mind when she gets there, it's not rape if the man forces himself on her. Because she gave her consent earlier, she has no right to change her mind? I'm not trying to be sarcastic. That's a genuine question.

According to the law, rape is when when one person forces sex on another without his/her consent. Whether you've known the person an hour or been married to him/her for 50 years, when one person says "Stop" or "No," and the other person doesn't stop, it becomes rape. You could be in the middle of the act. It would still be rape, if one person wanted to stop, and the other didn't listen.

Archivist said...

Anon Dec. 6, I just saw your post -- long after the article appeared.

Trust me, I know what "consent" means, better than you. Consent can be withdrawn at any time, but course of performance is a legitimate practice for determining whether consent is present. Ever hear that term?

Thanks for the lecture. You are obviously an earnest feminist who thinks I MUST be a Neanderthal rape apologist since I dare to speak for the wrongly accused.

If you ever want to understand these concepts, please write.