Thursday, December 23, 2010

Feminists are more dangerous than Assange and McCain combined

So, yesterday I put up a piece about fact that Julian Assange stands accused of rape (based on the loosest possible interpretation of the word), and yet RSM of The Other McCain is the one on trial. In my opinion, it's actually more of a witch hunt, but be that as it may...

I was so pissed by the feminazi responses to his posts (and the comments on their blogs) that I didn't really address the original statements that stirred up the trouble. McCain has "walked it back" a bit since his first remarks... but should he have?

I don't think so, anyway.

He's simply saying that:


"If you tumble into a random hook-up with no prior knowledge of the guy’s reputation and he turns out to be a selfish brute whose standard modus operandi is repulsive, dangerous or painful, in what sense are you a victim of anything except your own stupidity?"


Some activities carry inherent risk. Among them, getting into a private (even if not sexual), secluded situation with a near stranger. Sure, you have the right... But it is wise? Is it safe?

You have the right to live in a trailer in Texas. Odds are, you won't get sucked into a tornado. But, c'mon... you've seen The Weather Channel just like the rest of us -- unless your cable was out due to your "house" being stuck in a tree, that is. Your right to do something doesn't take away the risks, which you should plan for accordingly.

You have the right to scuba dive with -- and hand-feed -- sharks. But again, c'mon... you've seen Jaws. You probably won't be devoured even as you drown. But since Peta has been as yet unsuccessful in their effort to make sharks vegan, the possibility exists and should be accounted for.

So sure... You have the right to tumble into the sheets with someone you picked up on brief acquaintance. You probably haven't just locked yourself into an apartment with Ted Bundy's apprentice. Or a serial rapist. Or a raging case of herpes. But the risk is there. Period. And, as above, it should be accounted for in your plans.

If you don't know someone, you don't know what they're capable of. And if you put your safety and health in the hands of someone you don't know, you can't predict the outcome.

The feminists do not want to accept this as fact. They would cry out that women have the right to behave as men -- to sleep with whomever they please, in whatever situation they please. Their disgust with McCain is based on his assertions that such behaviors expose women to risk and possible abuse/exploitation. (Which is completely correct.) The problem with the feminist mindset on this is that it does not take into account basic biological facts.

Men are, in general, larger and stronger than women.

Instead of reminding women of this -- and teaching them to take their risks with this basic thought in mind -- they want to emasculate men so that women are safe to act without thinking and, therefore, without consequence. Women are now equal to men in all ways but biological, but instead of accepting what evolution has produced and encouraging women to plan accordingly, the feminists want to push that inconvenient issue aside and put everyone on a level field. Since they demand women should be able to act without consideration -- and they can't negate the risks by making women bigger and stronger -- they try another tactic:

The pussification of the American male. Feminism has brought about a generation of waxed, moisturized metrosexual men who aren't afraid to cry -- but who would be worthless to protect you from a mugger. (Funny, though... when it comes to "hookups" these soft, smooth, fashionable men are often thrown over in favor of "bad boys", further proving that at a base biological level, most women still desire actual men.)

So, if feminists can't acknowledge the possible risks in stranger hookups, where do they see danger? The following quote is from Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape, edited by Jaclyn Friedman and Jessica Valenti, and is lifted from McCain's post:


“While right-wing groups certainly don’t come out in support of rape, they do promote an extremist ideology that enables rape and promotes a culture where sexual assault is tacitly accepted. The supposedly ‘pro-family’ marital structure, in which sex is exchanged for support and the woman’s identity is absorbed into her husband’s, reinforces the idea of women as property and as simple accoutrements to a man’s more fully realized existence.”

Never mind the idea that pro-family equals pro-rape. McCain addressed that. These advocates of "female sexual power" are under the impression that married women use sexual favors as a means to support themselves. Or rather, not themselves, because their selves are absorbed into the self of the husband.

Is there a single married woman in America that doesn't find this idea offensive? In a good marriage, sex isn't exchanged for anything. It's shared. Either these feminists are not married, or they don't know what happens in a good marriage. In their world, a loving husband is far more dangerous and sinister than some stranger picked up in a bar.

While the feminists rant about McCain and his (accurate) statements, they're actually guilty of doing more harm to women than all the McCains, Assanges and even Bundys of the world. By teaching women -- especially younger generations -- that the right to do something automatically makes it safe, they are creating a culture of carelessness... and all the danger that entails.

They want to equate McCain's remarks with the old "she was wearing a miniskirt so she was asking for it" nonsense. That's not what he said. I read his remarks more like this:


If you walk around the zoo wearing a blindfold and accidentally stumble into the lion's cage, perhaps you'd have been safer with your eyes uncovered and your brain turned on. Since you can't make the lion not prefer the taste of flesh, it's in your best interest to see where the cage is and walk around it.

Makes more sense than trying to make a sissy out of the lion so you can walk where you damn please.

____________
UPDATE 12/24: Welcome, readers of The Other McCain! A link from the man himself. Thanks!

While I'm not ungrateful, I'm a little puzzled that he chose to highlight this bit:


Makes My Brain Itch laments the “pussification” of American men. Actually, there’s something more complex at work.


It's the same line Tweeted by one of the feminists I wrote about above:


The Opinioness
…(@scratchermmbi) laments the "pussification" of men, thinks women & their risky behavior bring rape on themselves. #Mooreandme #rapeinmedia

I mentioned that as a side effect... and frankly, I thought it was the least of the points I was trying to make. I guess if that's what you took away from it, fine. I just didn't expect that line to be my thesis statement.


-And a belated thanks to Charles G. Hill at Dustbury, for the link. Welcome!

-------------------------
UPDATE 1/02/11: I see the feminists are popping in from the #mooreandme tag...

Well, since you're here -- and probably aren't going to like what you read anyway -- you may as well check out the rest of my posts on feminism here, here, and especially here. Cheers!

10 comments:

Chris Wysocki said...

This is sadly just another example of the complete lack of personal responsibility in our culture, fostered by a legal system which always seeks to lay blame on someone with deep pockets. Open any product today and you'll find pages and pages of "instructions for lawyers" - common sense written down to avoid getting sued.

So you drive drunk and it's the bar's fault for serving you.

Or you hit your thumb with a hammer and it's the hardware store's fault for not telling you to aim for the nail.

Or you hook up with that sweet talking guy and it can't possibly your own fault if he turns out to be an ax murderer.

ScratcherMMBI said...

Better watch those metaphors. I'm catching it on twitter for my Texas tornado comparison.

But I agree with you, and appreciate you chiming in, Wy.

$andra Murphy said...

I could really talk for hours on this subject. But I'm sorry, unless someone actually says 'Rape me.' then forget all debate because there is none.

If debating about the feminisation of men it is only because the spheres of what we consider masculine and feminine are based in a viewpoint still struggling to accept the twenty-first century.
There are only to defined things which make us one or the other and these are fundamentally the basic definition of what is biologically male and female.

Patriarchal views are for archaic settings.

If less people followed the publicity of set circumstances I wouldn't have to make comment on this.

The only reason there may be the ability to make examples of certain individuals is solely because our culture has started to consider publicity and the media as a worthy tart to use with which to take advantage/misuse/rape all of us!

Anonymous said...

wow this is a ridiculously dumb post. ever heard of the phenomenon of 'blaming the victim'? idiot.

ScratcherMMBI said...

@$andra Murphy

Thanks for your thoughts...

"forget all debate because there is none"

Unfortunately for progressives and feminists, we're still a country of free speech... Which means as long as there is disagreement there can and should be debate.

"a worthy tart to use with which to take advantage/misuse/rape all of us!"

A worthy tart with which to rape us?! Seriously?! How much tuition money did you waste in order to master the ability to make so little sense?

ScratcherMMBI said...

@Anon

Wow. What an eloquent and brilliantly worded rebuttal! Your mastery of persuasive language has led me to the right path! I've seen the light! All it took was having my idiocy pointed out by you! O joyous day!

Dumbass. I don't blame victims. Disconnect your brain from the hive mind and read the post.

$andra Murphy said...

If you quote, you really should read the whole sentence and quote me properly. My opinion is of course mine.

I guess I didn't word it plainly enough, so I shall leave the civilised debate you are attempting to create as I'm guessing you did not waste any tuition funding before it's commencement.

Read some philosophy and maybe check up on metaphors and oxymorons and perhaps it might make some sense.

The no nastiness requested of responders is, I suppose, only intended to be one way. I did not mean statutory rape - I meant something deeper by that.

It's always destined to be the death of the author!

ScratcherMMBI said...

@$andra

After you ask that I not engage you -- and I comply -- you come back here and comment again. Hmm.

I see that, as with many pseudointellectuals, not only are you more concerned with sounding smarter than others than with puttting across a clear, cogent argument for your position... you also want to shut out all opinions but your own.

In your second sentence, you said forget all debate. Then you ask me to not respond to you... fine. Now you're right back here to preach once again, while announcing (also again) that you don't actually want debate.

"The no nastiness requested of responders is, I suppose, only intended to be one way. I did not mean statutory rape - I meant something deeper by that"

You were speaking of statutory rape? You're correct. You certainly weren't clear enough.

"Read some philosophy and maybe check up on metaphors and oxymorons and perhaps it might make some sense."

Ah, yes... The old stand-by of the progressive community. I disagree with you, therefore I am ignorant.

thatmrgguy said...

Interesting article. I got here by a long and circuitous route. I read and posted on this issue through a recent RSM article which you linked in one of your other articles on this subject. I've hit so many links, I've since forgotten how I got here...in fact, it makes MY brain itch. Regardless, enjoyed reading your stuff and will add you to my blogroll.

Mike

ScratcherMMBI said...

@Mike -

Thanks for coming! :)

I'll bet following some of those posts back and forth was enough to make your brain itch, all right. (Someone gets the name! Hooray!)

Have added you to the blogroll.