I haven't seen so much straw man since Dorothy met up with Ray Bolger on the way to Emerald City.
But give the she-devil her due. Harding's tactic is actually ingenious. She derisively posits things that are true as supposed evidence of a massive lie, and she dismisses them so off-handedly that the uninitiated will assume she must know what the hell she's talking about (this, of course, is supported by the view that every feminist is an authority on rape, even though she isn't, and that every feminist has had all manner of profound life experience that has somehow completely eluded the rest of us).
Let's shoot down her assertions in quick order:
"She wanted it."
I never knew what that meant, did you? "She wants it." Hmm. Is it supposed to mean that a rape victim "wants" to be raped? Which, of course, begs the question, if someone wants to be raped, is it really "rape"?
Let's be honest: virtually no one walking around in 2011 says this about a woman who's been raped. Unfortunately, it can aptly be said about a hell of a lot of women who have lied about being raped. But we're not supposed to talk about them.
"If she didn’t want it, then he didn’t know he didn’t have consent -- it was all a big misunderstanding."
When you say we should be "skeptical" of this claim, Ms. Harding, do you mean we should be "skeptical" of the forty-nine percent of the women that your high priestess, Mary Koss, says were sexually assaulted but who actually labeled the experience a "miscommunication"? A full 73 percent of the women whom Koss characterized as rape victims said that they hadn’t been raped.
Hmm. That's a problem, isn't it? I mean, if the women who were "raped" didn't know they were being raped, how on earth do we assume their "rapists" knew they were raping them? (Of course, why let that little conundrum get in the way of a good feminist victim fetish?) But thankfully, those women had Mary Koss to tell them they were "victims" because they might have gone through their entire lives not knowing it. See, Koss, and now Kate Harding, know better than most women. Ignore, for a moment, that this is a most un-feminist sentiment. As Heather MacDonald said, "ignoring women’s own interpretations of their experiences [is] supposedly the most grievous sin in the feminist political code." Kind of like how we're supposed to believe every woman who claims she was raped, but to disbelieve every woman who recants her rape claim.
Seriously, Ms. Harding, you're not really so stupid that you don't know miscommunication is a major problem? I mean, you're not, are you? Alcohol-induced misunderstandings are the elephant in the room that most folks just don't care to discuss. The fact that Ms. Harding doesn't seem to know that is not surprising. In my experience, the typical feminist doesn't have the first clue that "consent" has nothing whatsoever to do with an accuser's subjective or secret desires, whims, or beliefs, as opposed to her outward manifestations of willingness to engage in sexual relations. The typical feminist doesn't think there is any such thing as "miscommunication" because rape occurs whenever the woman says it occurs, even if it's hours, days, weeks, months, or years after the fact. Which kind of tells you everything you need to know about the typical feminist.
"Afterwards, she didn’t behave like I think a victim should."
This is among my favorites.
Cite any behavior -- she reported right away/she waited forty years/she was excitable/she was calm/she laughed/she cried/her narrative was evasive/her narrative was painstakingly detailed -- any and all of it is evidence of rape. How dare anyone assert that even the behavior of an obvious liar might possibly suggest dishonesty. The only thing that matters is that a claim of rape has been made -- its timing, the accuser's demeanor, the far-fetchedness of her claim -- you see, none of that matters. And your misogynistic notions of how a rape victim should act are utterly worthless, of course, compared to a feminist's (because, again, every feminist has had all manner of profound life experience that has somehow completely eluded the rest of us).
Make sense to you? Me neither.
I remember the wise jurist I once worked for asking a "rape victim" advocate in open court why evidence of post-traumatic stress syndrome should be admissible for rape cases and not, for example, for robbery cases when someone has had a gun pointed at his head. The non-answer the judge received spoke volumes about the arrogance of the sexual grievance industry.
“She’s just mad and trying to punish him."
Um, yeah. Right. That's a real far-fetched reason, isn't it? Ha ha. Like these recent cases we've reported on here: the young woman who had her boyfriend arrested for rape because he took too long to buy cigarettes. Or, remember the women who didn't want to pay cab fares, so they accused innocent cab drivers -- working class nobodys -- of rape, just to hurt them? How about the girl who wanted to get back at her teen ex-boyfriend: her rape lie not only got him arrested and convicted, but two of his friends as well. Or the woman who wanted to get back at her ex-boyfriend for breaking it off, so she falsely accused him of rape, and candidly admitted: "I just wanted him to be hurt because of what he’d done." Or the women who called the police and falsely claimed her ex was having sex with a minor. Or the young woman who told a rape lie about her young ex-boyfriend "because she wanted him to feel extreme pain."
Remember them, Ms. Harding? Of course you don't.
Then there was the woman who sent a man to prison for five years because she was bored. And the woman out for revenge after a road rage incident. And the woman who tried to destroy the life of a man she didn't even know because he wouldn't give her a beer. And the maid who accused her employer of rape because she didn't like her workload. And the girl who accused a man of rape for throwing a flower at her. And the woman who falsely accused her lover of rape because he had the bad manners to go speak with a roommate after having sex instead of staying with her. And the woman who caused three men to be interrogated for rapes they didn't commit, all because she wanted a day off from work.
Some women need no excuse at all. An 18-year-year-old boy was hauled out of class and arrested on a random false rape claim by a girl he'd never met. He was jailed for a month. Oh, and let's not forget the serial false accusers. Can't forget them.
So, yeah, Ms. Harding. That's really a far-fetched claim you cited there. Yep. You are one persuasive feminist, you are.
__________________
And we could go on and on, but you get the point. The fact is, no group on earth is more adept at inventing straw men than the sexual grievance industry. Their insistence has taken on the qualities of a cult with people like Kate Harding repeating their chants with mindless zombie-like repetition. Except they sprinkle it with the "f" word every couple of sentences. You know, to show us how empowered and angry they are.
23 comments:
Great one.
Off-topic:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343404/Police-millions-innocent-people-file-dial-999-report-crime.html
New Gender / raunch feminists are foul mouthed, vulgar, and raunchy.
That article she wrote is nearly incoherent.
I really hate articles like that. They are almost as bad as Amanda Hess.
The ramblings of a loony.
Here's one on Yahoo news, another win for the Innocence Project:
"Texan declared innocent after 30 years in prison"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110104/ap_on_re_us/us_dna_exoneration_texas
P.S.
"I haven't seen so much straw man since Dorothy met up with Ray Bolger on the way to Emerald City."
Now, was that a secret message aimed at me?
:)
"I haven't seen so much straw man since Dorothy met up with Ray Bolger on the way to Emerald City."
Thanks for pulling back the curtain.
"I mean, if the women who were "raped" didn't know they were being raped, how on earth do we assume their "rapists" knew they were raping them?"
But that's exactly the party line, isn't it? I've seen numerous blog posts, comments here and other places, and even a number of "academic" papers, all claiming that the big problem on college campuses is that these men don't know that it's rape. And as you pointed out, most of the women didn't know either.
Yet, neither do the feminists. They demand dominating the discourse on rape, without any idea what rape is.
Feminists have often completely ignored the legal, as well as any common sense, definition of rape in order to generate bogus statistics. Although why the DOJ publishes their misleading numbers is beyond me, because I can't imagine what criminal justice has to do with "rapes" that aren't even crimes.
Tori Amos is probably the most famous "rape victim" in the world. She had a hit song about it, and co-founded RAINN. According to her own story, for which there is no record, her assailant allegedly held her at knife-point and made her sing songs, but did not try to have sex with her.
Recently, there has been much noise about Lizzy Seeberg, a psychiatric patient who sadly committed suicide. Putting aside that the police found evidence that contradicted her story, even if we were to accept her word as gospel, her complaint was that she was making out with some football player when he touched her breasts without her permission. That's it. But that didn't stop dozens of blogs and news articles, and even an online petition, calling it "rape".
Feminists cannot and will not do anything about actual rape because they can't even be trusted to use the word correctly in normal conversation. Nor do they care. Their goal is distort and obfuscate the issue, exploiting rape and rape victims, in order to further their political agenda. Perhaps police and public officials would have a clearer understanding of the situation, and be much more effective in solving the problems that might exist, if feminists didn't insist on muddying the waters with their incessant hogwash. For solutions to work they need to be based on fact, not fiction. We need laws and public policy that are based on pragmatism and principle, not ivory-tower ideology.
Feminist claims that women never lie and men always lie where rape is concerned:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2011/01/thing-is-rapists-lie.html
There actually are behaviors consistent with being raped. They like to claim like there aren't, but there are.
Most SANE nurses will tell you that rape victims are withdrawn, quiet, shy away from most if not all human contact. Getting information out of them is often difficult.
This obviously doesn't account for every single possible actual victim, and the list of behavior is rather large, but to claim that EVERYTHING is proof of rape is clearly amusing.
Either way. It's not like the rape culture feminists actually care about rape victims.
Part 1 of 4
A second post I made at http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2011/01/thing-is-rapists-lie.html in reply to a rant by "Scott Madin" who said:
"
Scott Madin 5 hours ago
• Jesus fucking christ. All this bullshit better stop right now. Anyone who doesn't understand that nocontributor to or regular commenter at this blog is making absolute claims about Assange's guilt — thus rendering "but how do you know he's not innocent?!?" comments both woefully ignorant and obnoxiously misplaced — that no one is claiming every single rape accusation is true, or whetherthese specific allegations are actually true or not is not remotely the point, should really either stay quiet and read more (probably starting with the conveniently linked comment policy and Feminism 101 sections, reading and understanding which in full are a requirement of commenting privileges at this blog) for a while, or just move the fuck on.
The point here, as anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of how rape culture works should easily be able to see, is that every time people leap to discredit allegations (by saying, "oh, but I heard she worked for the CIA," or "oh, but it was just a broken condom," or "oh, but she didn't go to the police right away," or "oh, but she hosted a party the next day," or, or, or...) or rape or sexual assault, or to defend the accused person — whether it's Julian Assange, Ben Roethlisberger, Brett Favre, Kobe Bryant, a mutual friend, a family friend, a family member — publicly (by saying "oh, but he's such a nice guy," or "oh, but he's doing important work for the people," or "oh, but he's rich and famous," or, or, or...), that reinforces existing rape-culture narratives that the only "real" rape is violent stranger rape, and it sends to all survivors the message "you will not be believed. don't bother telling anyone, they'll only make excuses for your rapist and attack you. what happened to you doesn't 'count'. it doesn't matter. you don't matter."
That's how rape culture works.
Stop fucking trying to feed it here, of all goddamn places, or your asses are just gone."
--continued--
Part 2 of 4
anonimos_non 0 minutes ago in reply to Scott Madin
• As for me, I'm just trying to fuel rational thought. You want to ban people for that? Ok. There's no rape apologia in fair and just treatment for children, adolescents, adults, men, and women. One thing is for certain: I don't know everything nor do I claim to know everything. If I did, I would have no reason to post or to share ideas.
There is a wonderful article by Toril Moi, Professor of Literature and Romance Studies at Duke University on "Discussion or Aggression? Arrogance and Despair in Graduate School" which I think is appropriate for everyone who comments and posts here to read:
http://gradschool.duke.edu/gsa/publications/prescription/discussion_or_aggression.php
It says the following:
"Among graduate students there is often a feeling of depression, as if out of humiliation, or a feeling of disappointment, as if out of arrogance. There is also, sometimes, a feeling of elation, which can arise out of narcissistic triumph but also out of delight at the discovery and mastery of new insights. In the struggle to make a brilliant impression, to persuade everyone else that you are the smartest person around, some people will inevitably end up feeling despondent and others elated. Cultural sociologists inspired by the late Pierre Bourdieu would speak about the struggle for symbolic capital in graduate school, the relentless fight to become “consecrated” as one of the legitimate heirs to institutional power and glory. A psychoanalyst would point out that this makes graduate school an institutional environment in which most of its members are particularly vulnerable to intense experiences of transference, countertransference, projection, and identification.
In graduate school, then, it is easy to start believing that everyone else is smarter than you. That is a sign of loss of self-esteem and is bad for work. It is equally easy to start believing that you are obviously so much smarter than everyone else, including your professors. That is a sign of smugness and arrogance, and is actually also bad for work. Of course, these feelings often coexist in complicated ways. Perhaps my arrogance makes me despondent at being surrounded by so many people who fail to perceive my true worth, or perhaps I veer from one extreme to the other according to situation and mood.
Competitiveness, arrogance and depression are common human phenomena. They arise in people of every race, sex, and class. But such socio-psychological tendencies do not exist in a social and political vacuum. On the contrary, they tend to get mixed up with oppressive and unjust ideologies concerning gender, sexuality, race, and social class. When that happens, they are no longer just phenomena of anthropological interest, but political problems.
Many of us are used to discussing sexism, racism, homophobia, and class prejudice on general, ideological, social, and theoretical levels. On these levels, most people agree that discrimination and oppression are bad things. Unfortunately, it doesn’t follow that we suddenly understand how such ideologies operate in our own everyday lives. To realize how we may collaborate in the production of injustice in spite of our best intentions, it is necessary to study cases and situations from everyday life.
--continued--
Part 2 of 2
@Anonymous 5JAN2011 @1:01PM
I made a couple of posts in reply to the discussion there which got me banned.
I thought I would document them here for all to see:
Posted as a response on the site: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2011/01/thing-is-rapists-lie.html
Who benefits in the Assange case. Well, the accuser supposedly worked for the CIA http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy/2010/12/04/assanges-chief-accuser-has-her-own-history-with-us-funded-anti-castro-groups-one-of-which-has-cia-ties and one could hypothesize that the US government and others in positions of power are highly embarrassed by the wikileaks documents. IF the accuser was CIA or under the overt/covert employ of a government (and I'm saying IF) then she could have been ordered to make an outcry, to help said governments and others in power gain legal advantage. Assange is no angel to be sure and his sexual dalliances garners him no respect from me or those that I associate with nor do the women's accusations or his assertions obviate a need for a thorough investigation of his case. That being said, as I have said before in my deleted post, everyone lies -- but it is not up to me (or you) to determine Assange's assertions or those of the women in question: it is the court(s) and jury(ies) that must decide. To be fair, one doesn't need false accusations for the government to destroy an individual due to the complexity of federal and international law: http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Sincethemid80s/tabid/59/Default.aspx and
one need only look to Guantanamo Bay for those accused and held without trial. I want to protect Assange and his rights as much as I would want to protect anyone who has been devastated and destroyed by a very real and valid rape. Of course determination of Assange's guilt or innocence is not up to me, or you, or likely anyone else here. One can only hope, that with the number of eyes and varied opinions on the Assange case, justice will be served.
How disappointing to post a thoughtful comment that appears for a minute or two, only to be thrown out because of the gun trigger Nazi who runs this blog. I'm not referring to Steve.
It is strange that feminists, whose core argument seems to be that men and women are essentially capable of the same things, would argue that men are capable of doing something horrible (committing rape), while women are NOT capable of doing something horrible (making false accusations). Obviously, both activities are deplorable, but humans do deplorable things sometimes!
This is not about "claims that are used to discredit rape victims every day", it's one very specific case with a confusing and suspicious narrative and an alleged rapist who has many enemies with the means and the motivation to hire women for a sort of honeytrapping operation.
A blanket dismissal of all suspicion that this story could be fabricated is every bit as irresponsible as dismissing a credible rape accusation with a "she wanted it" or some such nonsense.
Jan 5, 2011 7:56:00 PM
While the implementation of the comment policy has room for improvement, many comments are deleted automatically by the blogger software. As frustrating as that is, there is absolutely no excuse to call anyone a "nazi".
"How disappointing to post a thoughtful comment that appears for a minute or two, only to be thrown out because of the gun trigger Nazi who runs this blog. I'm not referring to Steve."
I didn't delete it and I never even saw it.
I just saw this article, who said all men are capable of rape?
http://news.discovery.com/human/tears-women-men-libido-110106.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1
Jan 7, 2011 8:04:00 AM
I don't see where it says anything like that.
Post a Comment