Feminists: Snake Oil Saleswomyn

Well, I've certainly learned a lot in the last few days.

When I picked a name for this blog, I was trying to reflect what it is I wanted to write about. What "Makes My Brain Itch". By that, I meant the things I see or read or experience that stick in my head and buzz around in there, occasionally distracting me, but always sticking with me and demanding to be considered from one angle or another.

Well, feminism makes my brain itch. More than that, over the past week there've been moments I'm tempted to lay my head down beside the keyboard and pour a bottle of Drano in one ear. (Don't get your hopes up, I'm speaking metaphorically. Sorta.)

I've known for most of my adult life that I disagree with the basic tenets of feminism. That's because, to my mind, it's not about uplifting women to equal status but about knocking down men. When I saw a blogger I generally enjoy being set upon by feminists for remarks about the Assange rape accusations, I jumped in -- not because I'm a member of any RSM hallelujah choir, but because the attacks seemed unfair. (I've yet to meet a person I would consider a supporter of rape. It seemed, and still does, a disgusting remark to make about someone.)

Next thing I know, one of the feminists I linked is tweeting about me. (And, by the way, in case you didn't know... I'm an assface blogger. Are tolerant liberals sweet? And this from a blogger who prides herself on living "cruelty free"!) I wouldn't mind the tweet... if it wasn't bullshit. According to The Opinioness of the World:



Except I didn't write that. Nor did I imply such a thing. Go read what I wrote.

Getting an idea how they work yet? I am. Now.

An exchange with another feminist ended abruptly when I told her I don't believe in rape culture.

I don't believe in rape culture. Hadn't, in fact, heard of such a thing until I started following the tweets on #mooreandme #rapeinmedia and #rapeculture. But, in fairness, I went looking to learn more about it. (I was helped by this post at American Power, where Donald Douglas was apparently in a similar position. Interesting links... including this primer on Rape Culture 101.)

Turns out, the problem is me.

I once wrote about David Brooks, and his thoughts on the educated class versus the ignorant, uneducated yahoos like myself. Well, it turns out that the reason I can't grasp feminism - or rape culture - or patriarchal society - is also that I'm ignorant. That's right. Per Melissa McEwan:

"And just like how people who speak Arabic are better translators of Arabic than people who don't, people who have immersed themselves in the critical theories of gender are better translators of what is and is not sexism."

See that? I don't understand sexism because I didn't waste tens of thousands of my parents' dollars sitting through "Womyns' Studies" programs. Because I have not sufficiently immersed myself, I'm a piss-poor translator. Or something.

What horseshit.

I've been a living, breathing human being for several decades now. In that time, I've been an avid observer of my fellow humans. I'm pretty sure if I were actually living in a culture of oppression, I'd have noticed -- with or without a college degree.

And I'll tell ya something else: I don't need a college degree to know that twisting someone's words to portray them as saying something they didn't makes you a damn liar. (That's right, Opinioness. I'm talking to you.) I see now that it doesn't matter what Stacy McCain originally said. Why? Because it doesn't matter what I said. They misrepresent in an attempt to create a villain, because you can't have a victim without one.

These women have invested time and money into being taught to think like victims. But when you believe that the world is against you, when you buy into some cultural conspiracy to hold you back, you are creating a problem where there doesn't need to be one.

Assange himself, in a recent interview, said "I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism." I gotta say, from my reading the last few days, everything about feminism is starting to look like a hornets' nest. And I'm learning that if you bump that nest, they'll try to sting you. (Ask Moe Tkacik.)

I'm going to wrap this up by reiterating a previous statement:

There is nothing wrong with women making wise choices. I'm not trying to bring women down by saying that they should be smart enough to asses their situation, that's a compliment. I clearly have more faith in individual women than your average feminist. You will never succeed in making the world a harmless place, so there is no shame in being aware of and cautious about real dangers. I tweeted (to zero replies):

"Does being a feminist mean you have to check your brain at the door?! Just because you SHOULDN'T be raped doesn't mean you WON'T be! Think!"

I stand by that. The feminists can chirp all they want about a rape culture, but it's the culture of willful blindness that's more dangerous to women. They know that. It's why they're reduced to lies and misrepresentations. Feminists are snake oil saleswomyn, and what they're selling is victimhood.

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!

Assange accused of rape, but it's The Other McCain on trial

I may be the only person on the innerwebs who hasn't chimed in on Julian Assange and Wikileaks. I wasn't going to touch it, for reasons of my own. I've followed the coverage of the leaks, the accusations of sexual misconduct and the general blogging on the topic with my mouth shut, so to speak.

But the mini blog war over it, now... That's bringing up some opinions that, frankly, piss me off.

Today at The Other McCain, RSM has a piece in which he responds to an unnamed Republican communication strategist who has sent him some rather pointed (pointless?) questions. The guy is getting hammered on this topic by a number of bloggers and pundits.

Now, let me state right here that I don't agree with everything Stacy McCain writes. He's a social conservative, whereas my own leanings are libertarian. I'm not amused by his stance on the repeal of DADT : "So we now approach the day when uniformed service personnel — including ranking officers — will march in the Gay Pride Parade next to Dykes on Bikes and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence." I disagree with his theory as to why Kim Kardashian is unmarried: "Perhaps someone should share with Kim Kardashian that old-fashioned advice about “free milk and a cow.” (I'm inclined to think it's more that most men don't picture marrying some woman who got nailed on video tape - and all his friends have seen it...) Just two examples.

But I gotta say, on this Assange rape situation, I think he's right on the mark.

It’s a he-said/she-said situation, and how did Assange’s victims get themselves into that predicament? By hooking up with an asshole.

Actually, I think McCain's statements are almost mild. I'm going to go further, feminists and apologists be damned.

I think these women are probably full of shit.

Allow me to put on my fireproof suit and elaborate...

I went back and reread the Guardian piece about the police report and the actual accusations. I have several points that I find troublesome... but you want to know the number one problem I have with it?

Another friend told police that during the evening Miss A told her she had had "the worst sex ever" with Assange: "Not only had it been the world's worst screw, it had also been violent."

That's GOT to be the first time I've heard of a report of rape which included a value judgement on the quality of the sex.

Not only did he rape me, Your Honor, he sucked at it!

Rape is not sex. Rape is an act of dominance and violence. I find it impossible to believe that any woman who has been physically victimized in such a manner would equate it with sex, and then compare it to her other sexual experiences. It's certainly not SOP to ask rape victims whether they came, or whether their attacker was well hung. That little ditty bothers me more than the other tidbits...

Like this:

Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.

She didn't want to go along, but she'd already gone along so she went a little further. But now it's a problem. Got that?

Here's another:

She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no.

Bovine excrement. A condom is noticeable. Period.

OK, last one:

Assange's Swedish lawyers have since suggested that Miss W's text messages – which the Guardian has not seen – show that she was thinking of contacting Expressen and that one of her friends told her she should get money for her story. However, police statements by the friend offer a more innocent explanation: they say these text messages were exchanged several days after the women had made their complaint. They followed an inquiry from a foreign newspaper and were meant jokingly, the friend stated to police.

So the "victim" was joking about the possibility of turning a profit from being raped? Hmmmph.

If these portrayals by The Guardian are accurate, these women have zero credibility.

Stacy McCain doesn't need me to defend him. (Pity him if he does, as I'm not always reliable.) But the attacks against him are a little alarming. He's been called a misogynist and someone who supports rape - pretty heavy accusations for a guy who even keeps his "cheesecake" posts PG-13. It strikes me as unnecessary and unfair. He says his main point is this:

Promiscuity makes women vulnerable to exploitation, abuse and disease. This is not my opinion, but a statement of fact.

There is nothing offensive about that statement. It's plain truth. These attacks on McCain for making them are not only not helpful, they're harmful. While nobody sane blames the victim in a rape, political correctness must not demand that we can't admit there are risk factors and teach women to avoid them.

As for me, I'm also not implying that Assange's accusers asked for or deserved it.

I'm flat out stating that there's something fishy about the whole damn thing, and the reported behavior of these women calls their objectives and actions into question.

So.

Them's my thinks on it.

Fireproof suit off and back on the hanger. Let 'er rip.

-----------------
Updated 12/23: I'm not done. Read on.