[Warning: Amanda Marcotte Article] "If anti-feminists believe false rape accusations"
11-12-2014, 04:20 PM
Link: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/if-an...hemselves/
I have to say that it is amusing, and is providing some good troll fodder, that Amanda Manjaw Marcunt, of the infamous Duke Lacrosse false rape hysteria, is now writing about false rape accusations and how they are supposedly super duper rare and basically mean nothing in the grand scheme of how much rape is supposedly perpetrated against fat western skanks.
The article, in case you don't want to click or troll the comment sections:
I have to say that it is amusing, and is providing some good troll fodder, that Amanda Manjaw Marcunt, of the infamous Duke Lacrosse false rape hysteria, is now writing about false rape accusations and how they are supposedly super duper rare and basically mean nothing in the grand scheme of how much rape is supposedly perpetrated against fat western skanks.
The article, in case you don't want to click or troll the comment sections:
Quote:Quote:
aving read, sadly, a shocking number of people who engage in rape apology, one of the weirdest things about it is how the same person can simultaneously argue 1) that rape isn’t real but is simply women getting revenge because they didn’t get a post-one-night-stand phone call and 2) that women only have themselves to blame if they’re victimized because they partied/willingly had sex/wore something slutty. This seems like a contradiction to me because if women aren’t actually under real threat of rape, why would they have to take precautions? If rape isn’t a thing that happens, then there’s no reason to be careful.
But the contradiction really goes deeper than that, I realized upon reading about Lincoln University president Robert R. Jennings’s lecture to young women about their supposedly awful behavior around men. Jennings was trotting out the usual rape-isn’t-real-but-it’s-on-women-to-stop-the-thing-we-don’t-call-rape contradictory argument, but his argument really drove home how nonsensical it all is. As our own David Edwards reports:
“Men treat you — treat women — the way women allow us to treat them,” he explains. “When it comes time to make that final decision, we’re going to go down the hall and marry that girl with the long dress on.”
“And let me tell you why I know I’m right about it,” Jennings continued. “I’m right about it because we had on this campus last semester, three cases of young women, who after having done whatever they did with the young men, and then it didn’t turn out the way they wanted it to turn out, guess what they did? They then went to Public Safety and said, ‘He raped me.’”
He went on to explain how terrible it is for the male victims of what he believed to be a widespread form of female predation:
“When you allege that somebody did something of that nature to you, you go to jail. I don’t care how close they are to finishing the degree, their whole life changes overnight,” he said. “Why am I saying all this, ladies? I’m saying this because, first and foremost, don’t put yourself in a situation that would cause you to be trying to explain something that really needs no explanation had you not put yourself in that situation.”
So, on one hand, he argues that many women are malicious sexual predators who deliberately lie about being raped to punish men they have sex with for not wanting to marry them. But then he turns around and argues that women should avoid casual sex to… protect themselves? From what? Their own predatory nature? Is he suggesting that women cannot stop themselves from angrily filing false charges if they touch some dick and then don’t get a phone call after?
It’s weird is all, to combine the argument that women are sexual predators with the argument that women need to protect themselves from rape. If you think the onus is on would-be victims to protect themselves, then the logical argument, if you’re a false-rape-truther, is to tell men to avoid drinking too much or having casual sex, because that’s the best protection against vindictive false accusers. The fact that the same people who think the onus is on women to protect themselves from rape refuse to put the same onus on men to protect themselves from what rape apologists believe is a common form of sexual predation—the false rape charge—is quite telling indeed. This isn’t actually about preventing crime, but about using the threat of ruined reputations and sexual violence to scare women into behaving sexually how you want them to.
Of course, the advice is dumb either way, to be very clear. Only about 5-6 percent of men are sexual predators and female predators who attack with a false rape charge are a misogynist myth, which is why the same men who claim to live in mortal terror of such women never actually amend their behavior to protect themselves in the same way women constantly guard against rape, because they know full well that the false rape allegation is like getting struck by lightening while a shark attacks you. Risk assessment being what it is, people aren’t going to stop screwing around because of a risk that rates from “5%” to “nothing”.
But if you do live in a fantasy world where the onus to stop victimization is on the would-be victims and you also believe women are sexual predators who sleep with men consensually and false-accuse for the hell of it, then you really need to stop lecturing women about safety and start lecturing men.
Women these days think they can shop for a man like they shop for a purse or a pair of shoes. Sorry ladies. It doesn't work that way.
Women are like sandwiches. All men love sandwiches. That's a given. But sandwiches are only good when they're fresh. Nobody wants a day old sandwich. The bread is all soggy and the meat is spoiled.
-Parlay44 @ http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-35074.html
