Tuesday, June 10, 2014

What cause is worth demanding women be victims?

So... this seems to be a thing.  I'd assume it couldn't be a thing, only a strange aberration, a case of "tweeting before thinking"... but I'm not sure.

The "thing" is Ms. USA... she's apparently pro-rape. She answered a question about rape in a pro-rapey sort of way.  So, is this a "thing" or just a couple of accidental tweets, like when you've eaten beans and aren't paying attention and they just sort of sneak out there and make a stink way way out of proportion?

In any case... this is the horrible horrible pro-rapey answer given by the woman who eventually wins Ms. USA.


She just makes the one statement, I think that the video repeats it a few time... so once she says it you can stop... there really isn't something more pro-rapey coming at the end.

Ace of Spades HQ had this *promptly* and included one of the offended tweets.  Larry Correia has a very nice run down of all (all?) of them.   A sample:

’I'm sorry, but women shouldn’t need to take self defense classes to protect themselves from rape #MissUSA— 
Peter Simon (@PeterSimon12) June 09, 2014


Now, Larry Correia is the guy to go to if you want a direct answer to how dumb this is.  Plus, he's got the chops, as they say, to have an opinion about it since he's dedicated a considerable part of his life to teaching self-defense... even if he thinks that a gun is probably a better choice than 12 years of study in Tae Kwon Do. He's also entertaining, so go read that.

What I am more interested in is just how these accidental stinky little tweets were released out into the world?  What cause, or what philosophy, is so important that it's necessary to portray black as white and up as down?  Why is it so important that women BE victims?

The "teach men not to rape" thing is silly, but it's rather ubiquitous.  Sure that would be nice to teach rapists not to rape, but it's impossible short of a conversion by the blood of Jesus... while locked up in prison... and it hardly takes a rocket scientist to figure that out. So what's going on?

I think that it's in defense of a definition of rape that has no meaning but has a great deal of political power.  I think that the political power is more important to the cause of the "teach men not to rape" crowd than empowering individual women to defend themselves or to be safe.

The power involved rests on the doctrine that all men are rapists and that any unwelcome or regretted sex is rape.  Because if you define it that way, yes, men can be taught that sex with a drunk chick who strips naked and shouts "come and get me big boy" is actually rape.  Why can he be taught this?  Because he is not a rapist, and never was a rapist.  But never mind that, the assault on "rape culture" and the power acquired by the cause would crumble to dust if anyone admitted that the only men who are rapists are the ones who are rapists... just as only the murderers are murderers and only the thieves are thieves.

But if everything, absolutely everything, rests on the ability to insist that bad decisions on the woman's part is equal to rape on the man's part, and that saying no and then letting yourself be persuaded is him raping you, and well... dang... you sure don't want someone saying, "Well, why didn't you punch him in the nose?"  Because that's victim shaming and suggesting that the victim deserved what she got.  Therefore it's vitally necessary that no woman ever defend herself, nor so much as suggest that a woman should defend herself.

And so we end up here, wondering if this is a "thing" or if it was just a handful of silly persons having a brain fart.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home