The Thinking 
Housewife
 

Rape Truths and Falsehoods, Cont.

August 3, 2010

 

THERE HAVE been many important comments added today, including Alan Roebuck’s response to the argument that the culture war has been lost and ongoing additions to the debate about the men’s rights movement. I recommend all of the discussions posted since yesterday. The continuing discussion of false rape allegations and jury nullification is important. In that entry, Jesse Powell writes:

By no means is the time for debate over, it has only just begun! I see my giving actual statistics on how many women are raped per year and how many men are in prison for rape has gotten under MRA skins. The reason why I brought up those facts is because it seemed to me there was a lot of hyperbole being thrown around about the system viciously going after large numbers of men indiscriminately and I wanted to bring the conversation back into some kind of reality by showing that the number of men in prison compared to the number of rapes that occur is not so large and may even be smaller than it should be. Basically, what 200,000 women being raped a year and 170,000 men in prison for rape means is that the average punishment inflicted upon a man for raping a woman is about 10 months in jail. Is this too high? My inclination is to say it is too low. There may not be any way to improve this potential injustice against women but it does illustrate the point that the hyperbole being thrown around about unjust and extreme victimization of men for no good reason is not supported by the facts.

Sure, you can say the women lie to the surveyors and say they were raped when they weren’t. Also, a fact MRAs conveniently ignore, is that it is just as possible that women fail to report rapes to the surveyors that did occur. The good thing about using the National Crime Victimization Survey as a source is that the women have no incentive to lie to the surveyor one way or another. In the study I cited by Kanin the women who lied about rape always had one motivation or another to do so. The woman gains no benefit by lying to the surveyor and so surveys should be one of the most reliable ways to gain accurate information. Read More »

 

The Inevitable Extreme Born of Feminism

August 3, 2010

 

STEPHEN writes in this entry about false rape accusations:

While Paul Elam’s suggested response [of jury nullification] is easily recognized as being over-the-top, to simply dismiss it without considering why he would suggest it is matter of ignoring the elephant in the room.

Elam’s idea, while I (mostly) disagree with it, did not simply spring from the mind of some deranged misogynist. It was born of a growing frustration. It is a symptom of the continuing systemic disenfranchisement of men in this society, wherein men are increasingly seen as evil sexual predators, allowing for the suspension their rights in favor of “protecting” their female victims and where women are increasingly seen as victims, again allowing for the suspension of the rights of men so as to favor women. Read More »

 

Feminism, the Men’s Movement and Radical Autonomy

August 3, 2010

 

JOSH writes:

I’ve been a long time reader of Lawrence Auster and have had the pleasure of lurking your site for six months or so after he made your writing known to me.

At root of both the “feminist” movement and its modern mirror, the men’s rights movements, is radical homosexuality (devout dykism), i.e., radical sexual autonomy. Radical sexual autonomy is the biological “goal” of liberalism and the easiest way for a “default elite” to stay in power after convincing a populace to deny Supremacy. A populace in a state of anti-Supremacy and willing to embrace homosexuality is a self-annihilating populace. Read More »

 

Full War or Culture War

August 3, 2010

 

ASHER writes:

There is a sophisticated line of reasoning I’ve been exploring for a few years involving the notions of legitimacy and demarcation of authority, both moral and legal. Moral authority is inextricable from cultural interpretation and imposition and different cultures impose different moral schemes. Legal authority interacts with moral authority and they continuously interact to shape and conform to each other for the the long-term. Moral claims are only legitimately asserted where the claimants have standing to assert authority, which only exists where all parties co-exist within the same moral universe. 

The problem with the Manhattan Declaration (discussed here last week)  is that it is attempting to impose where it no longer has any moral authority, and this is because the West has decisively split into two distinct moral universes, the leftist and the Christian. The Left seceded from the Western Christian moral universe many, many decades ago. Alan Roebuck call your office. Read More »