Friday, January 30, 2015

re: Campus sexual assault

If I were a professional writer, I would write to you in my own words the same analysis you could have  found on any other website, by any other author, the same analysis you would see any where else. There  would be nothing original, I wouldn't be rocking anyone's boat, and it must pass journalistic muster.

If I wanted to become a professional writer, then I'd try to provide for you my own analysis.

But as it is, I'd really like to not waste anyone's time, so I will provide for you my own analysis.

A few months ago, I crossed a term in an article that I had not seen up to that point. "Slut-shaming".. This is a term in the phrase book of feminist organizations that have made university life an onslaught for man, and unleashed a castrating, matriarchal system in education.

I want to consider the intersection of rape and "slut-shaming" and what "slut-shaming" means for rape culture. It is said that 1 out of 4 women on a college campus are at risk and, indeed, will become a victim of rape or sexual assault at some point in their lives, or have been victimized already.

From reason and my intuition considering the numbers involved, I find this to be preposterous, and I believe "slut-shaming", or really the fear of it or its anticipation, serves to drive these numbers up.

Because women on college campuses more frequently engage in indiscriminate, casual sexual intercourse as  compared with women in the broaded population, women have manufactured this thing, "slut-shaming",  although I'm not even sure what to call it. The argument suggests women are conflicted with contradictory impulses via society to be overt sexual in appearance and appeal to this aspect of their being, while simultaneously being expected to remain chaste. Women engage in these casual sexual encounters but are subsequently inundated with shame, as society, despite hailing sexually liberated women, calls them sluts when they practice that ethic. She feels that she is a worthless slut.

Feminism provides the panacea: Women are told that a great number of consensual sexual encounters are  not consensual at all, rather they are coerced, and procured by fraud and deceit. The woman absolves  herself of the guilt of being a slut by accusing the male of rape. Not all women fabricate these lies. Many are led into believing they are true after being brainwashed by the feminist narrative. A few women can be coerced into believing they have been raped, just like witnesses can be coached into lying on the stands. (Or if you're a police officer, "testi-lying", which just means that the brass are willing to do what has to be done to make a case. It's part of the territory."

Some women, however, are lying, and know they are lying, and have plotted to concoct a lie. They even  delusively imagine that they are heroes in society. Because for every made-up accusation of rape, a feminist can simply say, there are five that go unreported. Or ten. It doesn't matter. Statistics aren't even a factor in feminism.

Case in point, the NRA produces a pro-gun crime series, where they record a story of how a law-abiding  citizen used a permitted firearm to sto an intruder or would-be robber, or sexual attack. There was a story reported on one episode about a deterred sexual attack. A woman had used a gun in self-defense. Very "sensitively", the NRA, despite being a right-wing organization invited a spokesmouth for a women's rights group to speak about the risks of being a woman in society, and without any critical evaluation either. The woman very clearly states that, In America, every 20 seconds a woman is raped or sexually assaulted. (I think it was 20 seconds, I may be off a little bit.) I thought about that a second, 86,400 seconds in a day, 365 days a year, that's according to my calculator, well over 1,500,000 rapes a year!) So again. Statistics, within feminism, are not useful unto themselves in being correct, rather they are useful in their ability to affect social change. Hey, social change is good if it means safer communities and greater respect for human dignity. In this case though, it means numbers must be invented, and exaggerated wildly out of proportion.

So, the rape numbers are drastically inflated merely because it makes women feel better about the casual trysts that they engage in.

As statistics are really only valuable in their ability to affect social change, one could fall back on presumptuous pontifications, such as, "We need to start a national conversation on the rape epidemic!"

But when Nancy Grace tried that several years ago (re: Duke case), that failed because it was discovered it the allegations were fabricated from whole cloth.

And when Rolling Stone tried that a few months ago, that one failed too because those allegations were  similarly fabricated, or possibly unsubstantiated, there's a lot of controversy about that.

So really one of two things must be true.


1) There is an actual rape epidemic and the media is inept to report it and law enforcement is inept to  prosecute it, or there are many rapists both in journalism and law enforcement, and they are working to  shield the true offenders and the true facts.


2) There really is no such crisis and the media has not been able to seize upon a nationally prominent case because rape IS such an uncommon event on college campuses that no legitimate instance can be provided. This would explain why when the media has sought opportunities to bring the issue to the public square, it has failed miserably when the accuser's lies were outed as fabrications.

I obviously do not believe media and law enforcement are colluding with rapists to hide their crimes and to deter their victims from seeking justice.

I must conclude that the true extent of rape is in some way exaggerated, perhaps to an insane degree even. That "slut-shaming", a fictional "rape culture", exaggerated statistics, and feminism are socially and politically useful tools for connected groups, and that much like old black civil rights activists would lose business if racism were entirely defeated, feminist groups would be similarly unnecessary if women were not being raped regularly. In fact, rape seems very good for their business and in fact, they seem to suggest if they had their way, there would be far more rapes in real life than there are now, when they report that the incidence of sexual assault is several times higher than it actually is!

(It's like this.. Why do women's groups report higher levels of rape? Wishful thinking? Do they wish rape was more prevalent? Because if deterring rape was satisfying to them, then it should be especially satisfying to realize your numbers were wrong and rapes are really only one-fourth as frequent as you originally thought! That would be something to celebrate! So it must be they wish rapes happened several times more often than they actually do, otherwise I can't make sense of it.)

Finally, if one quarter of women are either victims of prior assaults or can be expected to become victims of assault in the future, then it is certain a great number of the men we encounter in our lives, perhaps many of our acquaintances, friends, or family are actually rapists, and women deserve a huge amount of blame for failing to out these rapists and get them arrested, and for lacking the conviction to testify against them.

1 comment:

  1. I meant for my comment under Mark Driskoll to be here.