What ‘Rape Culture’ Really Means: Your Male Heterosexuality Is Problematic

http://theothermccain.com/2015/10/27/what-rape-culture-really-means-your-male-heterosexuality-is-problematic/

 

“[T]he curse of having been born a heterosexual male . . . meant being consumed by desires that one couldn’t act on or even admit without running the risk of becoming an objectifier or a stalker or a harasser or some other creature of the darkness.”
— Scott Aaronson, Dec. 14, 2014

The Internet erupted in controversy last year over “Comment 171,” in which MIT Professor Scott Aaronson responded to a discussion of “sexual harassment” by describing the sexual fears he experienced as a nerdy Ivy League student in the late 1990s. Professor Aaronson’s specialty is computer science, but in describing how he was driven to suicidal despair by the terroristic campus crusade against “harassment,” he performed award-worthy work as a psychologist or sociologist, exposing to the world what goes on inside the mind of a socially awkward heterosexual male when confronted by feminism’s pre-emptive accusations of wrongdoing. Because he is a male, and because he is attracted to females, such a student is made to feel as if his interest in the opposite sex is a shameful secret that he must be careful never to reveal.

If by any word or gesture he signifies his attraction to a female — or if he even makes a joke that discloses his heterosexuality in a general way — the male student could be accused of “harassment.” When your parents are spending big bucks to send you to an elite school like Cornell University (annual tuition $49,116), the possibility that you could be accused of “harassment” must be a frightening thing, and the risk of a “sexual assault” accusation is the Nightmare Scenario From Hell.

Feminist rhetoric defines both “harassment” and “sexual assault” in terms of experiences that the female deems “unwelcome” or “unwanted.” If a college boy thinks a girl is cute and starts talking to her with the hope that she might reciprocate his interest, his conversation could be considered “harassment” if she dislikes him. Read enough feminist blogs, and you see countless variations of this theme, The Clueless Unattractive Male Who Won’t Take a Hint. His behavior is offensive — “creepy” or “stalkerish” — because (a) he likes her, (b) she doesn’t like him, yet (c) he dares to speak to her without permission, and (d) he doesn’t seem to notice her signals of disinterest. We can easily imagine how a sensitive and intelligent young man like Scott Aaronson circa 1997, being lectured about harassment and rape in a freshman orientation session, must have been stricken with fear upon learning how loathsome his heterosexual orientation made him in the eyes of his fellow students.

How dare this disgusting nerd find women sexually attractive?

 

“All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. Men’s world is like a vast prison or concentration camp for women. This isn’t a metaphor, it’s reality. Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men.”
— Radical Wind, August 2013

 

In describing feminism’s characteristic anti-male/anti-heterosexual paranoia as “Fear and Loathing of the Penis,” I do not mean merely to make a hyperbolic joke, but rather to call attention to the strange and savage hostility toward normal male behavior that is the fundamental basis of feminist theory. My original guide to this was Professor Daphne Patai’s 1998 book Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism. Until I read Professor Patai’s book, I had no idea how far feminists had gone in their demonization of heterosexuality, especially in the context of “harassment” charges in academia. During my own youth, we understood “sexual harassment” in the sense of the quid pro quo, in which a male authority figure — an employer, a supervisor, or a teacher — expected females to provide him with sex in exchange for favorable treatment. Everyone understood this kind of harassment to be a wrongful abuse of power. The professor was hired to teach English, not to seduce his students, and the manager was hired to run a restaurant, not to have sex with waitresses. While sex between co-workers might be entirely consensual, everyone understood the problems that could arise in a situation where a female employee was having sex with her male supervisor. Because that kind of quid pro quo harassment was widely understood to be wrong, most people didn’t pay much attention when the definition of “harassment” was expanded to include behaviors that were nothing like the (clearly wrongful) quid pro quo. The feminist legal theorists who pushed this expanded definition of “harassment” — now construed as meaning damned near anything a man did that any woman decided was “unwelcome” or “unwanted” and “offensive” or “sexist” — created a workplace environment where everyday interactions between male and female employees could become the basis of a federal discrimination lawsuit unless males were always strictly and formally professional in their behavior. An easygoing, informal workplace atmosphere — men joking around with their female colleagues in the way they would joke with their male colleagues — was a recipe for disaster, if any woman ever got her feelings hurt, or believed that she was in any way discriminated against in her employment.

A series of high-profile cases in the 1990s — the Clarence Thomas hearings, the “Tailhook” scandal and the Bill Clinton impeachmentimbroglio — brought widespread attention to the issue of sexual harassment, so that everyone began to interpret workplace interaction between men and women in a new way. As more and more women succumbed to the feminist sexual paranoia that Professor Patai dubbedHeterophobia, suddenly “harassment” was everywhere, and it was amid this climate of pervasive sexual fear that Scott Aaronson attended Cornell University in the 1990s:

Here’s the thing: I spent my formative years — basically, from the age of 12 until my mid-20s — feeling not “entitled,” not “privileged,” but terrified. I was terrified that one of my female classmates would somehow find out that I sexually desired her, and that the instant she did, I would be scorned, laughed at, called a creep and a weirdo, maybe even expelled from school or sent to prison. And furthermore, that the people who did these things to me would somehow be morally right to do them — even if I couldn’t understand how.
You can call that my personal psychological problem if you want, but it was strongly reinforced by everything I picked up from my environment: to take one example, the sexual-assault prevention workshops we had to attend regularly as undergrads, with their endless lists of all the forms of human interaction that “might be” sexual harassment or assault, and their refusal, ever, to specify anything that definitely wouldn’t be sexual harassment or assault. I left each of those workshops with enough fresh paranoia and self-hatred to last me through another year.

 

You should read the whole thing, if you didn’t read Comment 171 when it went viral last year. Professor Aaronson’s very personal account of his experiences was quite risky. As he said, he was “giving up a privacy that I won’t regain for as long as I live, opening myself to ridicule” and, predictably, feminists began dogpiling him with mockery. I have described how feminism enables deliberate cruelty, rationalizing the sadistic impulses of women who are afflicted with a hateful desire to inflict punitive revenge on males, and the way Professor Aaronson was mocked by feminists (including the execrable Laurie Penny and the hideous Miriam Mogilevsky) was certainly proof enough of that.

Feminists are very bad people — dishonest, selfish and cruel — and only a fool would ever trust them. Every word they speak or write is a deception, because they will never admit the vile hatred that motivates their anti-male politics. In Comment 171, Professor Aaronson made a statement I heartily endorse:

 

I’ve read at least a dozen feminist books, of which my favorite was Andrea Dworkin’s Intercourse (I like howls of anguish much more than bureaucratic boilerplate, so in some sense, the more radical the feminist, the better I can relate).

 

Indeed, the shrieking lesbian rage of Andrea Dworkin is vastly preferable to the Foucauldian academese of Judith Butler, as far as getting to the actual point of feminist theory. Feminists do not like men, feminists do not like sex, and feminists especially do not like sex with men. Why? Because men enjoy having sex with women, and anything that men enjoy is wrong, because they are men. Feminism is a movement dedicated to depriving men of pleasure. Anything that brings a smile to a man’s face must be oppressive to women. This spiteful campaign to eradicate every potential source of male happiness is what has inspired the “campus rape epidemic” hysteria. Nowhere does feminist power more nearly approach totalitarianism than at American colleges and universities, where women are 57% of the students, and every male on campus knows he could be expelled if any female classmate ever accuses him of wrongdoing.

If you believe what feminists say (in other words, if you are a goddamned helpless fool), then you must believe that the only reason any boy goes to college is because he wants to rape the girls who go to college. Every male student on campus is a suspected rapist, and every female student on campus is his would-be victim. The absence of actual evidence to prove this feminist claim (“The Campus Rape Shortage”) is explained away by the assertion that female students don’t report being raped because they are afraid no one will believe them. (Circular logic is circular; the conclusion and the premise of a feminist argument are always the same thing, except when they are completely contradictory, but logic is an oppressive tool of the patriarchy.) Statistics showing that the rate of sexual assault has declined, and that female college students are less likely to be raped than non-college women of the same age, raise the question of why feminists have devoted so much effort to portraying the 21st-century campus as a Rape Factory, an assembly line staffed by violent misogynists engaged in the production of sexual victims.

Once we understand that (a) the vast majority of male college students are not rapists, and (b) the vast majority of rapists and rape victims are not college students, we realize feminist discourse about “rape culture” represents an effort to demonize male college students as “privileged.” The eagerness with which feminists leapt onto the 2006 Duke lacrosse team rape hoax and the 2014 University of Virginia rape hoax betrays the real motive behind this crusade. In both of those cases, the falsely accused males were white and belonged to campus organizations where membership conferred high status. To be a varsity lacrosse player at Duke (annual tuition $49,341) is to occupy a very lofty position in the hierarchies of “male privilege” that are targets of feminist criticism. Likewise, the members of Phi Kappa Psi at the University of Virginia are quite likely beneficiaries of the kind of upper-middle-class privilege that feminists condemn as the essence of oppression.

The higher a man’s socioeconomic status, the greater his exercise of male power, according to feminist theory, so that any success a man achieves (or any benefit he receives from his parents’ success) condemns him as an oppressor. If his parents worked hard to provide him with advantages, and if he made the most of his opportunities to excel in school, then the very fact that he is attending a prestigious university marks the male student as a living symbol of social injustice. His mere existence is oppressive to women, and if he adds to this indictment by being (a) white and (b) heterosexual, then anything that feminists can do to harm him is justified in the name of “equality.” The male student branded a rapist and expelled from college now is one less “privileged” male competing with women for high-status jobs in the future. The false accuser who destroys a young man’s educational opportunities today deprives him of career opportunities tomorrow. If campus activists can destroy enough young men this way, eventually the systematic process of destruction will bring about the Progressive Utopia of Gender Equality that feminists have been promising women for more than 40 years.

When we begin examining the “rape culture” discourse in detail, we are struck by how little it takes for a male student to be branded a perpetrator on the 21st-century campus. The “regret equals rape” case at Virginia’s Washington and Lee University and the John Doe lawsuit against Brown University are but two of the data points in an emerging pattern. If we can believe what the male plaintiffs allege in complaints like these, it is obvious that nothing like an actual rape was involved in the cases that resulted in their being punished in campus “Title IX” proceedings where they were deliberately deprived of due-process rights that would be accorded to any common criminal in a court of law.

We may contrast this obsession with accusing “privileged” male college students of rape with the way feminists habitually ignore news of violence against women committed by common criminals:

 

  • MIDLAND, Texas, Oct. 22: Aurelio Luna Sr., 55, was senteced to life in prison without the possibility of parole after a jury found him guilty of continuous sexual assault of a child. Luna committed multiple acts of sexual assault against a female family member over a period of at least two years. The girl’s mother contacted the Midland Police Department after she found text messages regarding the abuse.
  • OMAHA, Neb., Oct. 23: Reginald Briggs, 31, was charged with first-degree murder in the death of Teresa Longo. Police say Briggs is a pimp and that Longo was one of his prostitutes. Longo’s body was fund Oct. 2. An autopsy showed she was killed by a single gunshot wound to the back of her head. Briggs reportedly bragged about killing her, and another one of his prostitutes told police she went with Briggs to dispose of the shotgun he used to murder Longo on Sept. 17.
  • MILWAUKEE, Wisc., Oct. 27: Jose Ferreira Jr., 50, was charged with the murder of a seventh-grader more than 30 years ago. Carrie Ann Jopek disappeared in March 1982. According to prosecutors, Ferreira and Jopek were at a party at a house when he pushed her down the steps into the basement. The fall broke her neck, killing her. Ferreira, who reportedly believed the girl was only unconscious, had sex with her corpse. He then buried Jopek’s body under a neighbor’s porch, according to prosecutors. When he recently told his wife about the 1982 murder, she turned him in to police.
  • NEW BRITAIN, Conn., Oct. 26: Luis Velez, 43, was sentenced to 40 years in prison after pleading guilty to murdering his wife, Johana Gallego, 33. She and Velez had been married less than a year when he strangled her to death. He had previously been convicted of another killing in Puerto Rico.
  • ST. LOUIS, Mo., Oct. 23: Keith L. Ivy, 41, is charged with kidnapping after police say he and an accomplice abducted Ivy’s ex-girlfriend from her workplace. Ivy, who had been recently released from prison in Georgia and was also on probation for a separate drug conviction, allegedly told the ex-girlfriend they were “going to die tonight.” She managed to escape.
  • SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y., Oct. 26: Justin Suarez, 27, was arrested on 34 charges, after police say he raped his ex-girlfriend twice, stalked her, threatened her with a sledgehammer and shot a dog to death in front of her. “He told her that if she told anyone, he would kill her, too,” the district attorney said.
  • WACO, Texas, Oct. 22: Emmanuel Emil Bailey of Ft. Smith, Ark., faces trial on federal charges connected to an interstate child sex trafficking ring. Bailey is charged with transporting persons for prostitution and other violations of the Mann Act. Bailey was among more than 40 suspects arrested during an Internet prostitution sting orchestrated by the McLennan County Sheriff’s Office.

 

You will never find Jaclyn Friedman or Jessica Valenti or Amanda Marcotte discussing cases like that, because none of the men accused in those cases are “privileged” white male college students. The reason feminists ignore crimes committed by perps like Emmanuel Bailey,Aurelio LunaKeith Ivy, and Justin Suarez is very similar to the reason that feminists never call attention to any crime committed by a woman or a gay man. The hierarchies of privilege determine who is an oppressordeserving condemnation and who is a victim deserving sympathy. A black pimp who murders a prostitute, a Hispanic pedophile who rapes a teenager, female teachers having sex with their students — none of these crimes are of interest to a feminist, because publicizing such crimes does not help promote the “social justice” worldview in which the “privileged” white heterosexual male is the epitome of evil.

If you have a son attending college, or if you have a teenage son who is about to finish high school, he must be warned. Every feminist seeks to destroy him, and therefore every woman he encounters on a college campus is his enemy. No female he meets can be trusted, because all college women are being actively encouraged to accuse male students of rape. Anything your son says to a woman on campus can be interpreted as “harassment,” and any active expression of heterosexual interest puts your son at risk of an accusation of “sexual assault.” The only way a male student can safely attend college in the 21st century is to avoid any contact with female students on campus.

Warn your sons, America. It would be best, if possible, for your son to consider a field of employment that does not require a college education. Let him become a truck driver or a carpenter, rather than subjecting him to the risk of being falsely accused of rape by college feminists.

 

Wake up, America! It’s 2015! The only reason any girl goes to college nowadays is to seize her opportunity for advancing the feminist cause of “gender equality” by accusing a boy of rape.

Feminism is a movement that seeks to eliminate “male privilege” by preventing men from having any opportunity for success. Because feminists now exercise unlimited authority at American colleges and universities, a young man seeking success in life should contemplate how best to pursue a career path that permits him to avoid attending college, where his presence on campus is considered offensive by the monstrous man-hating fanatics who call themselves feminists.

Academia is now so tightly controlled by radical ideologues that it would be better for your child to have no education at all, rather than to be corrupted by 21st-century “higher education.” Millions of young minds are being permanently warped by the godless perverts who have seized power on campus and are using that power to destroy our civilization.

Dann them all. Damn them all to Hell.

(Incidentally, Scott Aaronson said his purpose in writing Comment 171 was to ensure “no one will ever again be able to question the depth of my feminist ideals.” Some people just never learn . . .)

Whining Feminists Want To Limit Free Speech On Popular App

Carmen Rios communications coordinator of the Feminist Majority Foundation ” Is it Women’s History and Theory, or is the program really Lesbo Recruitment 101″?

 

 

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/28/whining-feminists-want-to-limit-free-speech-on-popular-app/

A slew of feminist groups have been stirring up controversy with popular college app called Yik Yak, claiming the totally anonymous posts found on the app breed an environment of racism, sexism and cyber bullying.

Yik Yak is a free mobile app for college campuses and surrounding areas which lets users post anonymous messages when on or near their campus. Users can also designate their school location as their “herd,” which lets users view and post to their college’s board no matter where they are.

Fox reported on Wednesday that several feminist groups sent a letter last week to the U.S. Department of Education for Civil Rights asking for more censorship on the already privately monitored app.

Radical groups like National LGBTQ Task Force, Feminist Majority Foundation, and the National Organization for Women demanded in the letter that college administrators should start monitoring and regulating the anonymous comments posted. The feminists claimed in the letter that some posters bully other users with comments that are motivated by sexism or racism, and need to be stopped by campus bureaucrats.

But Fox News reported this monitoring could be unconstitutional.

 

“The speech to which this letter objects includes a great deal of speech protected under the First Amendment,” UCLA School of Law Professor Eugene Volokh told Fox News. The professor later added, “The breadth of the restriction just shows how little concern this coalition has for free speech rights.”

The College Fix reported that this is not the first time groups and universities have spoken out against Yik Yak. Saint Louis University banned the app last week, restricting the college’s Wi-Fi network to run the app. SLU bureaucrats claimed the restriction was justified on the premise that the app violated the school’s “appropriate use” policy.

Initially launched in 2013, the app has grown to have a presence on over 1,600 college campuses, with many college students using it as a message board.

In a similar case of stringent monitoring, another app called Peeple received harsh criticism earlier this month after its launch. Critics said that the app perpetuates hateful language, and this criticism even prompted a delayed release date.

Peeple is a spin-off of the Yelp app, but designed for people to rate one another.

One of the app’s co-founders, Julia Codray, shot down critics’ claims, however, and told The Washington Post, “As two empathetic female entrepreneurs in the tech space, we want to spread love and positivity…We want to operate with thoughtfulness.”

CBS’s “Supergirl”: In your face with antifeminism

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mega-featured/cbss-supergirl-in-your-face-with-antifeminism/

 

 

October 28, 2015 By  6 Comments

 

Explicitly, thematically and in subtext, the pilot episode of the CBS network’s primetime show Supergirlaims to drive a kryptonite dagger into the heart of feminism. And then, twist the blade.

While another new CBS show, Limitless, is quite subtle about portraying men’s family relationships in a respectful and caring light, and dismisses feminist innovations like sexual harassment training as meaningless business annoyances, Supergirl has a big “fuck you” to feminists in almost every scene.

The positive vision of men in Limitless makes you feel better about being a man, regardless of what your flaws are – I like it a lot in a quiet way. If you are an MRA familiar with the work of Karen Straughan (GirlWritesWhat) or any other FeMRA Supergirl will have you cheering.

It starts with the name: teenager Kara Zor-El (played as an adult by Melissa Benoist), the cousin of Superman, was sent to Earth to be a caregiver to him as an infant. Supergirl cares for children! It is, in fact, her only mission objective.

Although she insists her first name is pronounced like Car-Eh, her boss Cat Grant (played with Thatcher-esque snark by actress Calista Flockhart) pronounces it “Care-ah,” as if to underline the caring, traditionally feminine nature of Supergirl.

When Cat coins the name “Supergirl” for the new hero in “National City” (leaving Metropolis to Superman), Kara objects that the term “girl” is anti-feminist, Cat turns in a cold rage to give her the dressing-down of her life:

Cat: Didn’t you say she was a hero? I’m the hero. I stuck a label on the side of this girl, I branded her. She will forever be linked to Catco, to the Tribune, to me. And what do you think is so bad about “Girl”? Huh? I’m a girl. And your boss, and powerful, and rich, and hot and smart. So if you perceive “Supergirl” as anything less than excellent, isn’t the real problem you? And if you’re so smart, Kara, could you please give me one reason why I shouldn’t fire you? [Emphasis added].

Label, brand, girl, boss, problem[atic]: somewhere, anti-feminist Maggie The Thatch is smiling. Cat got to the CEO chair without smashing any patriarchy or glass ceiling; she claims the title of strong GIRL and gives zero credit to feminism – she even stomps all over their code words. You go, grrl!

Indeed, Kara has lived in a feminist “safe space” since she arrived on Earth far too late to nursemaid Kal-El. The pilot opens with her decision to grow up, take responsibility, and explode out of her safe space and engage the world as an adult – something feminists are loath to do.

In an interview with Stephen Colbert, actress Melissa Benoist claimed that Supergirl was feminist because she was “for everyone.” Only the most newb, naïve feminists actually believe that: feminism is about advancing women as a class, not helping men get equality with women. Feminists eschew helping men or even individual women. Kara is depicted as boy-crazy and obsessed with clothes and dating apps. As a superhero she will help anyone in trouble, not just women. Feminists have to be screaming with agony at what a girl she is.

When it comes to her superhero costume, Kara rejects the skin-baring outfit of feminist icon Wonder Woman so beloved by feminist slut-walkers. After several misfires she hits the balance point between radfem dowdy and 3rd wave slutty, implicitly rejecting identifying with either group.

The only sop to Social Justice Warriors at all is the character of Jimmy Olsen, who has left his Norwegian ancestry behind and is now “James Olsen,” (Mehcad Brooks) token black dude. I suppose I should object that Olsen has appropriated African-American culture – or did an African-American character appropriate a name from Norwegian culture? – but the character is played as such a strong, smart, and solid male image that I like the character regardless of all that other crap. Of course, changing a major character’s skin color is an SJW trap: you’re racist if you don’t have any African-Americans in the cast, but if you include African-Americans, you’ve committed the crime of cultural appropriation, and you’re still racist. Since you lose either way, it is better to stop trying to please SJWs and just tell them to GTFO.

There is one clearly feminist character: the leader of the bad guy Kryptonians opposed to Supergirl is a woman who craves power and hates families – she thinks nothing about killing her own blood relatives if they get in her way. It is hard to get any more feminist than that without having a standing open appointment at an abortion clinic.

It is hard to project the future of this show – will they fall into a feminist morass and die like the originalSupergirl with Helen Slater did 30 years ago? (Helen Slater plays Supergirl’s adoptive mom in the new show – one more caregiver anti-feminist).

The pilot closes with one last costume adjustment – Supergirl’s cape is fashioned from Superman’s baby blanket. Once more, Superman saves the day – as a baby.

Use that for a chew toy, feminists.