Thursday, June 19, 2014

Feminist Logic: Rape Culture Again

Feminists are like other liberals, only more so. They replace boring old oppressive male "logic" with emotion. And instead of syllogisms, they employ slogans. And of course, like all liberals, they have their own cute vocabulary, a ladies' Newspeak if you will, that obfuscates rather than elucidates. One of their favorite terms is "rape culture." More on that spectacular manifestation of ditziness HERE. That last link will take you to a reprint of a post on "Teaching Men Not To Rape," a beautiful deconstruction of the whole "rape culture" nonsense by Larry Correia. Well, Larry has gotten feedback from that post, and the feedback seems to prove indeed that feminists and their gelded male-ish enablers are probably the most irrational people on the planet. If they were any more dysfunctional, they'd forget to breathe and we'd be rid of them. But no such luck.

I have found, on the net, that if you disagree with a feminist in any way whatsoever, you are a supporter of rape culture, and a justifier of rape. Recently, some Christian guy made the point that if there was no God, he couldn't see how you could make a case for rape, or anything else, being wrong. He was trying to condemn atheism as an unhealthy philosophy that could justify rape. But the feminists descended on him like the harpies they are and said he was justifying rape.  Elsewhere, a liberal Facebook friend of mine who teaches college girls self-defense was surprised to learn that, according to feminists, he was actually blaming the victim by teaching girls how to defend themselves against rape. Now, if you can make any sense out of that one, you, too, can be a feminist.

Well, I don't want to reproduce Larry Correia's whole post here, so I invite you over to his blog HERE, to find out the latest antics of the bizarre feminist cabal who has apparently taken SFWA over. Do go read it there and you can be the judge. And for you old-time SF fans, there's also some disturbing stuff about Marion Zimmer Bradley that I almost wish I hadn't learned about.

And read a related piece by Vox Day HERE.
-------
Quibcag: That's the Pacific Ocean, of course, and Lum Invader of Urusei Yatsura (うる星やつら) just happens to be there in front of it.

4 comments:

  1. "Don't teach women self-defence, teach men not to be rapists" was the feminist response to the beauty queen who was a black belt. So, rapists being criminals we can rephrase the principle; don't take precautions against crime, teach men not to be criminals. Therefore it is logical to go on holidays without securing your house because we should teach men not to be burglars.
    What these idiots don't realise is that criminals don't care about wishful thinking and rights; they are predators and will attack someone if they think they can get away with it. Stupid women who take no responsibilty for their own safety are swimming in crocodile-infested waters.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi,
    As I understand, you are putting forth two arguments, which you see as opposing:

    1-:
    Rapists are out there; it’s a fact! Women should learn to defend themselves, as every living being has a natural right to self-defence.

    2-:
    Women should not NEED to have to defend themselves, since rape is the product of “rape cultures”, and cultures are created and can thus be rebuilt.

    You seem to be confused as to what feminists mean by “rape cultures”. “Rape cultures" are enforced paradigms that sexual desire and needs are biologically male and ONLY male, that male sexuality is marked by the need to dominate, whereas women are biologically-geared passive recipients. These rape-promoting ideologies manifest themselves under different forms in different societies, for example:

    -women should cover up so that males other than the one they're allotted to by marriage don't *get* tempted by them, in which case these males would be excused, since they can't help themselves but rape (ie, blaming the victim: if women don't want to be raped by men, they should be/make themselves invisible; the responsibility is theirs, since men are natural-born rapists… and proud!)

    Or…
    -cultures where women's bodies exist only to please the male sexual gaze, and therefore should be maintained *uncovered*, as seen for example in most pornographical material, and even mainstream movies that still mostly only present objectified female characters, where the actresses are chosen based on how closely they match proposed ideals of female desirability; as with pornography, these characters have no other purpose than to attract a male audience through sexual desire; in terms of plot, they have no aspirations/needs of their own, no moral/intellectual growth arc... they're just there for the male audience to gawk at their bodies. The difference being that this is not sold as pornography, but as stories more or less reflecting on real life.
    On the other hand, the heterosexual female audience’s pleasure to oogle desirable male actors is still not acknowledged in most movies today, though the money brought in by such recent phenomenons as hordes of teenage girls buying repeated tickets for Twilight might rattle some financially-driven priorities.

    In both cases (as represented most glaringly today by Islamic theocracies vs. The West), little girls are brought up -to various degrees- to think that their personal worth is tied up to their sexual use by men. They are morally degraded, are discouraged to pursue intellectual/physical growth for their own sakes (by physical, I mean sports, at least those that don’t flatter their feminine curves… ), and perceived as individually disposable. Little boys grow up to think that their own personal worth goes hand in hand with what *studs* they prove to be, as based on how many of these disposable b!tches they can pawn.

    Both cases promote rape as they completely deny the existence of active female sexuality, of the intrinsic worth of all humans irrespective of their sex, and of women’s individual worth based on their own aspirations and actions.

    There are varying degrees of "rape culture": from literally cutting out women's own genitals, so as to physically enforce the cultural denial of their sexual needs, to making offhand comments about women and men being biologically different, with the underlying purpose that one remains superior to the other, and that therefore one has a right to dominate the other.

    The feminists you disagree with argue that, since there are varying degrees of rape-cultures, it is possible to eliminate them altogether, and thereby to eliminate rape.

    To maintain that the answer to rape is simply to teach girls to defend themselves is to refuse to acknowledge cultural contributors that can and should be changed. Yes, rapists exist, however, besides possible cases of real psychiatrical disorders, they are not born, but made.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In the end, I think we can all agree:

    YES, rape cultures, in all their manifestations, still exist and must be fought.
    NO, hurtful ideas will not be eradicated overnight so, YES, women should learn self-defense.

    EVERYONE should learn self-defense, and not just to protect themselves from rape. There are still plenty of people out there, mostly men, but also some women, who think that physical violence is the short and effective way to get what you want, and that the consequences on the other person don't matter.

    We have a long history of evolution behind us that has contributed to the roots of these rape/violence cultures, but we still have a long road and plenty possibilities ahead, where we, as increasingly self-aware life-forms, can inquire into not just how things are, but how they came to be, and become active participants and forgers of our own future evolution, cultural and biological alike.

    P.S. Please be honest with yourself about the fact that, when you call feminists and their "gelded male-ish” supporters, "the most irrational people on the planet”, "harpies", lacking in logic and “if they were anymore dysfunctional, they’d forget to breathe”, YOU are the one making irrational, emotionally-driven “cutsey” generalizations.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What can men do in the face of such reckless idiocy?

    ReplyDelete