Courtesy Is Now ‘Rape Culture’

http://theothermccain.com/2016/01/13/courtesy-is-now-rape-culture/

 

In an astounding leap of feminist logic, Berkeley law student Courtney Fraser condemns chivalry as “benevolent sexism,” blaming “sexual violence against women” on “the perpetuation of rape culture, which normalizes this violence.” Of course, “the age of chivalry is gone,” asEdmund Burke observed in 1790, but feminists are fiercely determined to eradicate whatever vestiges of the “unbought grace of life” yet remain. Men’s obligation of courtesy toward women is patriarchal oppression, and any sense a man may have of a duty to protect women against insult or injury must be abolished, Ms. Fraser insists:

“[R]ape culture, or the complex of images and ideologies
in society that normalize sexual violence,
depends on chivalry for its existence. More precisely,
it depends on the attendant ideologies that place women
on a pedestal and strip them of agency in the process.”

This assertion is perhaps as startling to most readers in the 21st century as it would have been to Edmund Burke more than 200 years ago, but this is where feminist ideology must inevitably lead. The pursuit of radical “equality” requires lunatic madness, and everyone who climbs aboard the feminist bandwagon must understand that the movement’s ultimate destination is Bedlam.

What is perhaps most interesting in Ms. Fraser’s argument is her sources. Her first cited source is Susan Griffin, whose 1971 article “Rape: The All-American Crime” was first published in the radical journal Ramparts. A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, Griffin portrayed rape as a political crime — a manifestation of women’s oppression under the sexist regime of male supremacy — and asserted that “rape and the fear of rape are a daily part of every woman’s consciousness.” To support her claim that “forcible rape is the most frequently committed violent crime in America today,” Griffin engaged in what has since become a well-known feminist tactic, statistical creativity:

In 1968, 31,060 rapes were reported. According to the FBI and independent criminologists, however, to approach accuracy this figure must be multiplied by a factor of ten to compensate for the fact that most rapes are not reported; when thesecompensatory mathematics are used, there are more rapes committed than aggravated assaults and homicides.

 

The use of this kind of “compensatory mathematics” to exaggerate the prevalence of rape is necessary to the feminist project of blaming all men for “violence against women.” Feminists employ a deceptive rhetoric thatgeneralizes responsibility, so that wrongdoing is always blamed on a collective group (males) rather than on the individual. While this collectivist worldview amounts to an unjust accusation against law-abiding males, it also simultaneously empowers feminists to assert their authority to speak as victims of collective oppression.

“Women are an oppressed class. . . .
“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All men have oppressed women.”
— Redstockings, 1969

Feminism divides humanity into two groups — men (the oppressors) and women (the oppressed) — and thereby establishes a double-standard wherein no woman is ever responsible for her failures or disappointments, and everything men say or do is condemned as tainted by “male supremacy.” A critical student of feminist discourse notices their use of jargon terms (“sexism,” “misogyny,” “objectification,” “patriarchy,” etc.) all of which are more or less interchangeable synonyms, pejorative ways of labeling the ordinary behavior of normal men. Any man who admires a woman’s beauty is a sexist who has objectified her with themale gaze, according to feminist ideology, so that men are subject to denunciation merely for looking at women.

A key function of this rhetoric is to allow extraordinary privileged women to assert that they are actually victims of oppression. We are not surprised to learn, for example, that Courtney Fraser is an alumna of Reed College (annual tuition, $47,760) and that at this elite private college in Oregon, Ms. Fraser majored in linguistics and wrote her senior thesis on the “Construction of Gender in Instant Messaging.” Learning how to pursue social justice is a very expensive endeavor, and the secret ingredient of feminist ideology is Daddy’s money.

Among the sources cited in Ms. Fraser’s anti-chivalry treatise, in addition to Susan Griffin (from Rape: The Politics of Consciousness, 1978), are Sandra Lee Bartky (from The Politics of Women’s Bodies: Sexuality, Appearance, and Behavior, a Women’s Studies textbook edited by Rose Weitz and Samantha Kwan) and bell hooks’ notorious anti-male treatise deceptively titled Feminism Is for Everybody. Ms. Fraser also cites such eminent “Second Wave” feminists as Shulamith Firestone (The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution, 1970), Susan Brownmiller (Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, 1975), Andrea Dworkin (Pornography: Men Possessing Women, 1981) and Catharine MacKinnon’s 1989 Toward a Feminist Theory of the State.

However, the work most often cited by Ms. Fraser is Judith Butler’s 2004 book Undoing Gender. Professor Butler is the leading proponent of feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binarywithin the heterosexual matrix — and one gathers that Ms. Fraser’s plan to end “rape culture” is simply to eliminate all differences between men and women. She contends (p. 141) that “gender norms, and the rigid binary division of gender, must be broken down if the rates at which rape is committed and acquitted are to decrease.” Ms. Fraser claims (p. 190) that Professor Butler’s writing on butch/femme lesbian roles “presents a compelling argument that identities that queer the gender or sexuality paradigm have the potential, if legitimized, to undermine  the hegemony of the normative status quo.” In a footnote (p. 145), Ms. Fraser laments “cultural narratives and stereotypes . . . based largely on heteronormative and cisgender categories and relationships,” and she finally concludes (p. 203):

Feminist advocates should seek to shape the law to accommodate and protect those with nonnormative genders and sexualities — not only as an end in itself, but as a means of delegitimizing the gender-based norms that support rape culture through destabilizing gender in the first instance.

Feminism Is Queer, as Professor Mimi Marinucci says, and Ms. Fraser’s insistence that “gender-based norms . . . support rape culture” reflects the anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology now taught in university Women’s Studies programs. Feminism promotes an attitude of sexual paranoia (“Fear and Loathing of the Penis”) which reflects a belief that heterosexual intercourse is so inherently harmful that no woman should ever consent to participate in it. Feminists argue that “heterosexuality as an institution and an ideology is a cornerstone of male supremacy” (to quote Professor Charlotte Bunch), that “men have forced women into heterosexuality in order to exploit them” (to quote Professor Celia Kitzinger), that “patriarchal domination” is based on “the coercive power of compulsory heterosexuality” (to quote Professor Stevi Jackson) and, to quote a popular Women’s Studies textbook by Oregon State University professors Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee, “Heterosexism is maintained by the illusion that heterosexuality is the norm.”

 

In the 21st century, it would be considered an insult to accuse a feminist of heterosexuality. One notes the use of first-person plural pronouns in a2013 comment Courtney Fraser wrote at an Oregon newspaper’s websitein support of same-sex marriage, as well as Ms. Fraser’s use of the phrase “us queer folks” in a blog post about the 2013 Windsor decision. We may take this as signifying Ms. Fraser’s refusal to participate in “the normative status quo” of “heteronormative and cisgender categories and relationships.” While her non-participation in heterosexuality is entirely her own private choice, however, who is Courtney Fraser to present herself as an authority fit to pass judgment on the choices of those who doparticipate in heterosexuality? That is to say, why must the rest of us be lectured in this manner by a law school student who proclaims that chivalry is the cause of “rape culture,” which Ms. Fraser proposes to eliminate by “destabilizing gender”? And speaking of insane feminists obsessed with rape, Alexandra Brodsky (Yale Law, Class of 2016) is angry at Democrat Bernie Sanders for saying this:

“Rape and assault is rape and assault. Whether it takes place on campus or on a dark street. And if a student rapes a fellow student, that has got to be understood to be a very serious crime. It has got to get outside of the school and have a police investigation. And that has to take place. Too many schools are seeing this as well it’s a student issue, let’s deal with it. I disagree with that. It is a crime and it has to be treated as a serious crime. And you are seeing now the real horror of many women who have been assaulted or raped, sitting in a classroom alongside somebody who raped them.Rape is a very, very serious crime and it has to be prosecuted. It has to be dealt with.”

What’s wrong with that? Well, campus rape is a “civil rights issue,” Ms. Brodsky says: “To treat gender violence as only a crime is to give up on the project of campus sex equality.” This is why Ms. Brodsky and other feminists demand the use of campus Title IX proceedings — where accused students are denied due-process rights that would be guaranteed to any common criminal in a court of law — to punish males based upon the mere accusation of sexual misconduct. More than 100 male students have filed lawsuits against universities, claiming they were falsely accused and unjustly punished in these campus kangaroo courts.

 

Ms. Brodsky and her feminist comrades have used a non-existent “rape epidemic” to incite a climate of sexual hysteria, which has resulted in male students being expelled from universities because of accusations that are not only unsubstantiated, but actually contradicted by evidence and testimony. The kind of “campus equality” Ms. Brodsky advocates turns out to mean that heterosexuality is effectively criminalized on college campuses, because no male student can ever be certain that the girl who says “yes” tonight won’t change her mind tomorrow and accuse him of rape (because “regret equals rape”).

 

Feminism is a totalitarian movement that promotes anti-male hate propaganda in law, in politics, in media and especially in education. No honest person could support such a movement, which is why “feminist” has become a synonym for liar.

What Women’s Studies Teaches

 

http://theothermccain.com/2016/01/15/womens-studies-feminist-industrial-complex/

 

Toni Airaksinen (@Toni_Airaksinen on Twitter) attends elite Barnard College, but she is on scholarship and comes from a blue-collar Midwestern background, which probably accounts for both her common sense and extraordinary courage:

As a student at Barnard College, one of the few women’s colleges in America, identifying as a feminist is de rigueur. Just like lamenting the cost of tuition or complaining about dining hall food, feminist ideology is a hallmark of the conversations here. Yet, I adamantly shun the contemporary feminist movement that sweeps liberal arts campuses like mine, and you should too. . . .
Contemporary feminism inculcates adherents into a cult of victimhood and exquisite vulnerability — it panders to women’s traumas and teaches them that they have been victimized solely because they are female. Women’s only sin? Living in a world dominated by the patriarchy. . . .

Here I will interrupt Ms. Airaksinen to call attention to the fact that (a) she is saying what any intelligent observer of contemporary feminism knows to be true, and yet (b) she is one of the very few young women who is willing to speak this truth. Feminist hegemony in academia — not just at Barnard, but pervading our institutions of higher education — exercises a frightening power to intimidate its critics into silence, as George Lawlor discovered at England’s Warwick University.

Here I will interrupt Ms. Airaksinen to call attention to the fact that (a) she is saying what any intelligent observer of contemporary feminism knows to be true, and yet (b) she is one of the very few young women who is willing to speak this truth. Feminist hegemony in academia — not just at Barnard, but pervading our institutions of higher education — exercises a frightening power to intimidate its critics into silence, as George Lawlor discovered at England’s Warwick University.

Even where self-identified feminists are a minority, these True Believers are very vocal and active, and the radical mob will use terroristic tactics to smear and harass anyone who dares to stand up against them. The same dynamic typifies the gay-rights movement or any other progressive “social justice” cause. If you have read Tom Wolfe’s Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak-Catchers, or Destructive Generation by Peter Collier and David Horowitz, you understand how these movements always become radicalized. But now let’s return to Ms. Airaksinen’s personal account of campus feminism:

My indoctrination into the feminist orthodoxy began when I was 15 and still in high-school, while taking classes at Cleveland State University. I signed up for Women’s Studies courses, and after reading books written by feminist luminaries like Gloria Steinem, I was hooked.
In one year, I took three Women’s Studies classes. My professors taught me that, because I was a woman, I was victimized and oppressed. Prior to enrolling, I did not see myself that way. Students were told that we are supposed to be angry. Rage was a “normal” reaction. To dismantle the systems of oppression, confrontation was required. For me, and many of my peers, these classes made us feel heady with righteousness. . . .

Again, I will interrupt Ms. Airaksinen (because I’m a patriarchalmansplainer like that) to remind you how my Sex Trouble series has highlighted the Feminist-Industrial Complex of Women’s Studies programs. Some 90,000 U.S. students annually undergo the “indoctrination into the feminist orthodoxy” Ms. Airaksinen describes, and anyone who examines Women’s Studies textbooks (e.g., Feminist Frontiers, edited by three lesbian professors) understands how these courses teach young women that they are “victimized and oppressed” and that they “are supposed to be angry” about these “systems of oppression.” It’s not just the elite schools, either. Cleveland State has a Women’s Studies department that offers both a major and minor in studying “the role of gender in shaping human societies of the past and the present.” This interdisciplinary program includes such courses as “Psychology of Women” (PSY 255), “Race, Class and Gender” (SOC 201), “Sociology of Gender” (SOC 317), “Gender Issues in Literature” (ENG 363), “American Sexual Communities and Politics” (HIS 327), “Class, Gender and Sexuality in China” (HIS 381), and “Women and the Goddess in Asian Religions” (REL 363). The department’s interim director, Professor Mary Ellen Waithe, is editor of the 4-volume series A History of Women Philosophers. In 2010, Professor Waithe’s salary was $88,567, whereas median household income in Cleveland is $26,217. So the Women’s Studies director is paid more than three times the annual income of the average Cleveland family and runs a program that teaches college girls to view themselves as victims of “systems of oppression.”

Nice work, if you can get it.

Toni Airaksinen became disillusioned with Women’s Studies at Cleveland State, but found an even worse climate at Barnard College:

I did not set out to attend a women’s college. However, as a first-generation student from a welfare household, I was on the hunt for colleges with generous financial aid. Barnard fit the bill. I brushed off my prior uncomfortable entanglements with feminism (or “social justice,” the more inclusive term), and gave it another chance at Barnard. However, not only did the same paradigms manifest themselves that I saw in my classes at Cleveland State, in fact, it was worse. The overarching narrative of victimhood and vulnerability pervaded itself through all parts of campus life, from the school newspaper to the conversations I had with other students.
My first week, for example, I was warned never to go to “East Campus” — the Columbia University residence hall where “all the rapists live.” [It is important to note that Barnard and Columbia share a campus and have intertwined academics] Men were all potential rapists, especially Columbia men. When I brought up the fact that I was probably more likely to be assaulted while in my urban home neighborhood than on the pristine Columbia campus to a friend, I was told I was definitely wrong. “Columbia protects rapists,” and “rapists live here,” I was told. My rebuttals and questions fell on deaf ears.

This deliberate slander — the insistence that every male student should be feared as a rapist, and that university administrators “protect” these sexual predators — has become so widely accepted among young feminists that Toni Airaksinen’s skepticism could result in her being labeled a “rape truther,” to use Amanda Marcotte’s term. Yet it is impossible to believe that girls at Barnard College are in more danger from male students at Columbia (annual tuition $51,008) than fromrandom dudes on the streets of New York City, where there were 348 murders in 2015. Perhaps some Women’s Studies majors at Barnard should research the question, who is raping whom in New York City?

 

The fifth and final suspect in the horrific gang rape of a Brooklyn teen was nabbed at school Tuesday — while two of his accused pals claimed the girl was having sex with her dad before they got there and that she gave them consent, law enforcement sources said.
Two of the suspects — Shaquell Cooper and Ethan Phillip, both 15 — grinned as they were being hauled off to court to face charges Tuesday.
Cooper, Phillip and two alleged cohorts — Denzel Murray, 14, and Onandi Brown, 17, of Brooklyn — were charged as adults with rape, forcible compulsion, criminal sex act and sex abuse.
The fifth suspect, Travis Beckford, 17, was taken into custody at Samuel J. Tilden High School at about 11?a.m. Tuesday, according to authorities. Police filed the same charges against him, and he too was expected to be prosecuted as an adult, sources said.
Two of the teens admitted to cops that they had sex with the 18-year-old girl after finding her drunk in the Osborn Playground in Brownsville at about 9 p.m. last Thursday, but they insist it was consensual, sources said.

 

My hunch is that the Brooklyn gang-rape victim was not a Barnard College student, nor are Shaquell Cooper, Ethan Phillip, Denzel Murray, Onandi Brown and Travis Beckford ever likely to be residents of Columbia University’s East Campus, where “all the rapists live.” One notices that feminists only seem to care about rape when it fits their preconceived ideological beliefs about the pervasive evil of white males who are allegedly “privileged” under “the systems of oppression.”

 

So-called “intersectional” feminism involves the idea that it is not merely sexism which feminists must target, but also other “systems of oppression” such as racism, capitalism, imperialism and, of course, homophobia. Feminism Is Queer, as Professor Mimi Marinucci says. A movement that is anti-male, anti-marriage and anti-motherhood must ultimately also be anti-heterosexual. Yet, despite the fact that many eminent feminist intellectuals have made this point explicitly — “heterosexuality as an institution and an ideology is a cornerstone of male supremacy,” to quote Professor Charlotte Bunch — any critic of feminism who calls attention to this will be denounced as a homophobe. When feminists make heterosexuality the target of a political attack, however, is no one allowed to say a word in defense of heterosexuality? Certainly, I enjoy it and many women seem to like it, too.

If 97.7% of Americans are heterosexual, must we remain silent while the 2.3% minority denounce us as perpetrators of oppression? We are not supposed to notice the extraordinary influence of radical lesbians in academic feminism, even though this is openly acknowledged within the movement, as I explain in Sex Trouble (pp. 109-120):

In 1980, Australian feminist Denise Thompson described how “countless numbers of lesbians” joined the feminist movement because it offered them “the possibility of a cultural community of women whose primary commitment was to other women rather than to men.” Furthermore, Thompson added, the rise of the feminist movement produced a “mass exodus of feminist women from the confining structures of heterosexuality” in such numbers as to raise questions about “the institution of heterosexuality in the consciousness of those feminists who, for whatever reason, chose not to change their sexual orientation.” And why shouldn’t this have been the expected result?
Women “changed their sexual/social orientation from men to women,” Thompson explained, “in response to the feminist political critique of their personal situations of social subordination.” If the personal is political (as feminists say) and if women’s relationships with men are “confining structures” of “social subordination,” why would any feminist be heterosexual?

 

Once we understand this, what is the most obvious logical inference we could make about the shrieking hysteria of campus feminists who havefalsely claimed that our nation’s universities are in the grip of a “rape epidemic”? If we know that there is no such epidemic — that rape is quite rare at Columbia University, no matter what her Barnard classmates tried to tell Toni Airaksinen — what could possibly explain these false assertions? Is it merely a coincidence that many campus feminists are lesbians who seek to inspire other female students to adopt an attitude of hatred, fear and resentment toward their male classmates?

 

“Don’t go over to East Campus,” lesbians at Barnard College tell the pretty freshman girl. “All those Columbia boys are rapists!”

This feminist propaganda requires the Barnard girl to believe that Columbia boys — brainiac nerds with 4.0 GPAs and near-perfect SAT scores — are insatiable sexual beasts. Pardon me for believing that former high school Science Club presidents and National Merit Scholar finalists are less prone to rape than Shaquell Cooper, Ethan Phillip, Denzel Murray, Onandi Brown and Travis Beckford

Feminists get angry whenever “women’s bodies are possessed by men,” and they also get angry when women don’t support feminism’s totalitarian movement to destroy civilization as we know it.