Friday, February 6, 2015

The sexual grievance industry's rape lie du jour

This one comes up more and more lately: whenever something happens to cast doubt on the veracity of a high profile rape accuser, the feminists resort to the sexual grievance industry playbook and trot out the "perfect victim" canard.  They do it all the time.

For example, feminist pundits complain that mattress carrier Emma Sulkowicz's story is being questioned, and that women who cry rape in general aren't believed, because they are not "perfect" rape victims.

This is more straw man than we've seen since Ray Bolger met up with Dorothy on the Yellow Brick Road. When feminists say that society demands a "perfect" rape victim, what they mean is that women who cry "rape" must be believed at all costs, even if their stories have more holes than Titanic. If anyone dares to suggest that the evidence might mot support the accuser's story, regardless of the legitimacy of the suggestion, or if anyone raises even the possibility that the accused might be innocent, that person is guilty of misogyny, rape apology, victim blaming, and of insisting that rape victims be "perfect." It's the same old feminist name calling designed to end the discussion.

Someone who goes by the name Andrea Grimes wrote this jaw-dropping insanity: "We must stop looking for that perfect case; we must stop trying to appease those who would demand it. We must believe survivors. We must trust their stories."

In other words, we must stop trying to "appease" those who would demand evidence, due process, and fairness for allegations that destroy the lives of the accused. You know, "believe the women" and all that stuff from the 70s. The accusation is its own conviction.

The lunacy at work here is self-evident.

The real question for the feminists is this: is it possible for the accused to ever be sufficiently "perfect" so that his story is worthy of belief? Or is he guilty by reason of penis? The questions scarcely survive their statement.

Lest anyone forget, Emma Sulkowicz sent the following messages to her "rapist" after the alleged rape but, still, the feminists think we're women-haters if we dare even to mention it:
". . . I want to see yoyououoyou"

“I love you Paul. Where are you?!?!?!?!”

". . . we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr"
It could be that Emma Sulkowicz is not lying -- we don't know. It is well to note that America's leading campus anti-rape advocate, Brett Sokolow, says that male students are often accused of sexual assault when charges are not appropriate. In "case-after-case . . . sincere victims believe something has happened to them that evidence shows absolutely did not . . .." And: "We see complainants who genuinely believe they have been assaulted, despite overwhelming proof that it did not happen." Mr. Sokolow suggested that "mental health issues" play a part in these sorts of accusations.

"Mental health issues?" Hmm. All I can say is that, in this case, the woman does walk around campus carrying a mattress . . ..  Just sayin'.

Cathy Young wrote this: "Yes, of course victims deal with trauma in different, often startling ways. However, 'no perfect victim' doesn’t mean that anything an alleged rape victim says or does, no matter how it defies common sense, reason and human experience, must be rationalized as 'that’s what some victims do!' in deference to the commandment, 'Believe the survivor.'"

The principal moral and intellectual failure of feminists who advocate about rape is the unconscionable rush to judgment whenever any rape accusation is lodged. They do it all the time in a variety of different ways, including the imaginary bellyache that society insists rape victims be "perfect." If you want to see some frightening recent examples of the feminist rush to judgment when it comes to rape, take a look at this (but not on an empty stomach).