In the world of fantasy writer and all-around hateful shithead Vox Day, women who are raped when they’re too drunk to consent should just suck it up, because reporting their rapes would be akin to someone calling police when they can’t remember where they’ve parked their car.
In a blog post today, Vox approvingly quotes a retiring British judge under fire for telling a newspaper that “the rape conviction statistics will not improve until women stop getting so drunk.” (This is the same judge who recently gave a teacher convicted of possessing a massive library of child porn a suspended sentence, saying that she couldn’t “criticise you for being a teacher who’s attracted to children.”)
Vox offers his take:
Perhaps women would be slower to put themselves in positions where they can be raped with impunity if they understood that they will not be taken at their word simply because they cry rape. It’s ridiculous. Can you imagine any other purported crime being investigated, much less prosecuted, on similarly vague grounds?
He follows this with an imaginary conversation between a young woman and the police in which she reports that her car is stolen because she can’t remember where she parked it.
It’s not really quite as hilarious as Vox imagines it to be.
PRO TIP: One way you can tell that forgetting where you parked your car is not actually much like rape is that no one actually calls police when they forget where they parked their car, while people do indeed report rapes, despite knowing that they will be grilled and second-guessed and called a “slut” and possibly mocked on the internet by assholes like Vox Day.
In the comments, one fellow suggests that feminists should have their right to vote taken away from them:
Feminists love to conflate the difference between saying that a drunk woman’s testimony is insufficient to establish a conviction of rape in a he/she said situation and the mythical attitude “she’s drunk so she’s asking for it even if she’s passed out on the floor.” They don’t understand that this is primary evidence for the fact that feminists should never be allowed to vote, because they’re (deliberately) too stupid to grasp the fundamental principles of civil society, or that alcohol affects men’s inhibitions as well as women’s.
Vox and his readers do indeed live in a fantasy land.
UPDATE: It’s a Vox Day twofer today! On his other blog today, Vox quotes a Daily Mail story claiming that the horrifying sexual abuse of 1400 children in Rotherham, England went unchecked in part because (as a report on the disaster notes) some social workers felt “nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist.”
Ignoring the fact that this is the self-serving claim of people who knowingly allowed this abuse to persist, and ignoring all of the other factors that contributed to this horrendous failure, Vox concludes that
the material costs of anti-racism are CONSIDERABLY worse than the material costs of racism …
Anti-racists not only actively celebrate predatory relationships, they regularly demonstrate that they have no problem whatsoever with child abuse, whether it occurs within the same race or is interracial. Moreover, what they falsely decry as “racism” is quite often nothing more than the exercise of the Constitutional right of free association. …
If you think that you possess the higher moral ground because you are anti-racist, think again. You are observably enabling widespread crime, particularly rape and child abuse, and are quite literally doing material harm to your own nation.
Astounding. Appalling. And just plain ridiculous.
Am I being misandrist by allowing male customers to flirt with me and not rewarding their supposed interest in me with sex?
(#NotAllMen by the way, the flirty male customer isn’t common, in case I made it sound that way).
“I’m a woman in STEM. Am I (a) a demonstration of how there’s nothing wrong with women’s representation in STEM fields or (b) kicking a man out of a STEM student position?”
Misha is clearly not ALPHA enough for MAN LOGIC. Speaking as a facial alpha at the hight of my morning… height, allow me to clarify. The correct answer is both (a) and (b). As a woman in the sciences, your life proves that women are not being excluded from the sciences. However, it does not prove that women can be any good at the sciences. If you want respect for your work in STEM, you must break into the admissions office, find out which male student they rejected so they could let you in, and track him to his lair.
You must then defeat him in a head to head test of improvised engineering. Yes, even if you’re a biologist. Should have thought it through before you picked the girly science. Victory will be awarded by a panel including the entire cast of Mythbusters, every republican member of the congressional science committee, and Simon Cowell. Should you win, you men then snatch his favorite video game right out of his hand, thus socially castrating him. If you mount your trophy game on the wall in your office, you are legally entitled to 76% or more of the respect shown to male students in your field.
However, you will not win. I know the man whose rightful place you stole; not in person, but by reputation. He was once nothing more than a facial alpha like myself, but exile to the omega zone has changed him. It is said that he found the hidden misters in Vale of Lost Milk Machines, and studied for centuries in that space outside of time where the year 1960 never came.
Are you afraid? You should be. Because if you’re not, how will I control you with my dread game?
If this is how they think, it’s no wonder that they can’t find a rational woman to date. Like attracts like, y’know.
English is an “easy” subject? HAHAHAHAHA. This English major says otherwise. The sheer amount of reading alone would be more pounds than he could lift. I’m guessing that Roosh couldn’t even get his sorry ass admitted to the crappiest community college.
Also, you have to have good writing skills and an ability to organize your thoughts and argue an intelligent point persuasively. There is no evidence yet that Roosh possesses any of those.
VD and his ilk seem seem to feel that the pain felt by *anyone else* at being tortured, enslaved, raped, or murdered is nothing compared to the pain felt by themselves at being told not to do or say something.
kittehs’ comment made me wonder… is an asshat what a shithead wears? Have we been over this and I missed it?
If these men go off campus to “escape feminist scrutiny” then the remedy is to extend the reach of the university’s watchful eye. If a non-college woman claims, whether a day later or a year later after the fact, that she was raped then she can go to the university as well as the police.
@Orion
I see what you did there. Not only did you Mansplain©™®, you also Mantold, inundating pallygirl with a follow-up of unwanted Manvice. Touche.
However, you engaged with points a) and b), which is so totally NOT Alpha. pallygirl’s question is based on an invalid scenario (there are no women in STEM because ladybrains don’t do Real Science), so entertaining the notion by addressing those points in any way is indicative of, dare I say, a Beta mindset, pray tell and forsooth?
Seriously, the sheer amount of cognitive revamping you have to do to your own head in order to think like this is exhausting. Give it a go – I recommend a stiff chai latte and singing in a shower of kitties afterwards.
“So talk, if you need to confirm. And then you’ll be able to safely date on campus without having to worry that all educated females are entrapment succubae”
That is true and rational. But given the risk to a man’s future by just one accusation no matter how careful he was is enough for parents to tell their sons to just focus on studying and go elsewhere when seeking female company.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/fallout-from-campus-sexual-assault-hysteria-college-men-now-suspicious-of-women/article/2552346
Sorry for potential thread-appropriation – VD’s “alcohol affects men’s inhibitions as well as women’s” shitty rape apologetics require an even bigger kitty shower for all.
Tefo, I can’t help taking issue with the “But” in that there sentence…
Wow. That Washington Examiner Op-Ed piece is complete bullshit.
I can’t parse Vox Day’s argument. At all. It’s like a complete non-sequitur.
“But” then its only 100% assured if the man avoids the entire matter. Alcohol or no alcohol, there will be no misunderstandings and no confrontation with the campus ‘rulers.’ How is that not a win win for everyone?
@Tefo
How about if men don’t act like rapists? How about if they didn’t rely on ambiguity and the fact that nobody used the word no? How about if they didn’t have sex with drunk people? How about if they didn’t pressure other people to have sex, or isolate them from their friends, and get them into a threatening situation?
How about if guys said to prospective partners, who are sober, “I would really like to [participate in a particular sexual activity] with you,” and waiting for an affirmative “Wow, I would really like that, too,” before initiating sexual activities, down to and including kissing?
Because the notions that women routinely falsely accuse men of rape and that college campuses are “ruled” by feminist tribunals out to ruin men’s reputations are both entirely false.
Encouraging men to only date off-campus women won’t cut down on rape. Telling college women, “See, look, all this insistence on consent and telling men not to rape and women being believed when they report rape is just scaring men and driving them off campus! Aren’t you ashamed!” is simy another way to shame and silence women from speaking out about rape.
I really love how VD acts as if date rape is something you could get accused of just by looking at someone cross-eyed.
No, dude, it doesn’t work that way.
Guys can and should do all those things. It is very rational. The only absolute assurance for a man is to avoid all of that completely as it pertains to college women as that is where his greatest risk is. Certainly, college women can still find men willing to have sex with them so why would they complain about that?
You may as well have posted an article by JB. Great source.
Tefo, if a man is so frightened of being falsely accused of rape by a woman, he could just avoid women, and sex with women, completely.
That would be rational, would it not?
By your logic, college women should be avoiding the company of men at all costs because of the (greater) risk of being raped. Oddly enough, you don’t see people advocating this.
“another way to shame and silence women from speaking out about rape.”
That is given these college men too much credit. Its not some conspiracy to silence and shame college women. They probably do not care at all how college women feel about their detouring around them.
Don’t you know that any sentence starting, “but then,” needs to be formulated properly? Here, I’ll show you how:
“But then!! It’s only 100% assured…”
It works better with action dialogue, but the rule is always the same.
“They were safe – or so they thought. But then!! The gang of killer bees rounded the corner, blocking off their escape. The bees advanced menacingly, knives drawn, buzzing a chant of utter hatred.”
See? It works, but you’ve gotta know how to do it right.
All I see is you advocating that rapists go off-campus and rape non-college women.
The odds of a man who engages in enthusiastic consent being killed in a car accident are orders of magnitude greater than his being falsely accused of rape by a vindictive college woman. Unless you want to argue that death is a less serious consequence than a false rape accusation, you ought to be campaigning for men to stay out of cars and away from roads.
“college women should be avoiding the company of men”
No. If college men go off campus, why can’t women do the same?
This is what happens when you have institutions that are out of sync with social justice movements. They’ve finally learned that they’re doing something wrong, but they still haven’t figured out what it is. The institutional response to this is to try to create a policy that doesn’t cross the line–but since they have no fucking clue where the line is in the first place, the policy is ineffective at best, and tragic at worst. The policy often is derived from a conservative’s strawman version of the actual SJ position (for instance, thinking that being anti-racist somehow means never ever criticizing any PoC, ever–this is often the claim that white supremacists make about anti-racist movements).
A less galling example of the same phenomenon:
It’s against the Constitution in the U.S. for a school to advocate or show preferential treatment to one religious group over another. They can create content-neutral policies, however, that affect all students equally. But because of the hyperbole from the Religious Right that says that the 1st Amendment advocates are trying to ban religion from the public square entirely, some clueless school administrators will periodically screw it up and think that that’s what they’re supposed to do–so, for instance, they’ll ban personal book-covers printed with the Ten Commandments. This is then offered as ‘proof’ that atheists and religious minorities want to persecute Christians–even though in such cases, the ACLU and similar orgs invariably side with the Christians.