As Real as Rape: How Bad Journalism Advances Feminism’s Anti-Male Agenda
“Campus activism about rape provides a means of disseminating the core message of feminist ideology, i.e., that men are evil and dangerous and that male sexuality is inherently violent and oppressive to women.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Aug. 10, 2014
Glenn Reynolds demolished the phony “college rape epidemic” meme in his USA Today column Monday, and little remains but dimly glowing cinders of smoldering lies amid the cold ashes of Rolling Stone‘s incinerated fraternity gang-rape tale.
Christina Hoff Sommers, who spent months trying to get journalists to stop using the phony “1-in-5″ statistic, notes that the authors of the study from which that statistic was derived say that it is “inappropriate to use the number as a baseline” for the prevalence of rape at colleges. If you read between the lines of their careful caveats, and if you know anything about how surveys can be biased, you realize how asking college women multiple questions about “unwanted” sexual behavior could produce a lot of “false positive” responses.
When you collect survey answers about “unwanted” kissing and touching, or even attempted kissing and touching, and make such a survey the basis of claims about the prevalence of rape — a violent felony — what you are doing is not journalism, it’s propaganda.
“Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.”
— Rush Limbaugh
Although I hesitate to say that Rolling Stone story was entirely a hoax, Sabrina Rubin Erdely and her editors have utterly discredited themselves and, in the process, exposed both the falsehood of feminist rhetoric and the reckless irresponsibility of liberal media. Eric Owens at the Daily Caller recounts eight separate rape hoaxes at colleges and universities, including the bizarre 2013 case of a transvestite student at UC-Santa Cruz who placed a Craigslist ad seeking someone to beat “her” up so “she” could claim to be a victim.
Why did Erdely commit career suicide? Writing at Slate, Hanna Rosin provides the likely answer: Erdely hoped her wildly implausible 9,000-word, agenda-driven excuse for journalism would emphasize “the larger theme of a university culture and social scene indifferent even to the most brutalized victims of rape.”
That is to say, Erdely believed the hype — feminists claim that many rapes on campus go unreported because victims are afraid to report these crimes to “indifferent” college officials — and she set out to find a story that would prove feminists are right.
Stipulate that what is usually called “date rape” happens far too frequently on campus. Young people — mostly teenagers, 18 or 19 years old — get drunk out of their minds and, under such circumstances, boys have sex with girls who are not in a condition to resist. Unless universities are willing to crack down on underage drinking, however, there are limits to what can be done to prevent these incidents from occurring, and it is notoriously difficult to prosecute a rape charge in the typical “he said, she said” situation where this happens.
Bad journalism does not improve this kind of problem, and bad journalism seems rampant nowadays. Jessica Pressler of New York magazine reported a story last week about a teenager, Stuyvesant High senior Mohammed Islam, who said he made $72 million as an investor.
Fake rape. Fake teen millionaire. To-may-to, to-mah-to.
What is the feminist agenda on university campuses? To demonize men, to stigmatize heterosexuality and to promote lesbianism. This agenda has been made explicit by radical theorists whose works are foundational to the anti-male/anti-heterosexual doctrines taught in Women’s Studies courses at nearly every college and university in America.
“That some men rape provides a sufficient threat to keep all women in a constant state of intimidation, forever conscious of the knowledge that the biological tool must be held in awe, for it may turn to weapon with sudden swiftness born of harmful intent. . . . Rather than society’s aberrants or ‘spoilers of purity,’ men who commit rape have served in effect as front-line masculine shock troops, terrorist guerrillas in the longest sustained battle the world has ever known.”
— Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape (1975)
“A lesbian society pragmatically reveals that the division from men of which women have been the object is a political one . . .
“[O]ur survival demands that we contribute all our strength to the destruction of the class of women within which men appropriate women. This can be accomplished only by the destruction of heterosexuality as a social system which is based on the oppression of women by men and which produces the doctrine of the difference between the sexes to justify this oppression.”
— Monique Wittig, “One Is Not Born a Woman” (1981)
“Fucking is a large part of how females are kept subordinated to males. It is a ritual enactment of that subordination which constantly reaffirms the fact of subordination and habituates both men and women to it, both in body and in imagination. . . . A great deal of f**king is also presumed to preserve and maintain women’s belief in their own essential heterosexuality, which in turn (for women as not for men) connects with and reinforces female hetero-eroticism, that is, man-loving in women. It is very important to the maintenance of male-supremacy that men f**k women, a lot. So it is required; it is compulsory.”
— Marilyn Frye, The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory (1983)
“Radical feminists have examined the institution of heterosexuality, the social construction of desire and the links between rape and ‘consensual’ sex. These analyses question the existence of ‘truly chosen’ and ‘egalitarian’ heterosexual relations by focusing on the compulsory enforcement of heterosexuality; they are suspicious of appeals to some ‘authentic female sexuality,’ hidden deep within ourselves and uncontaminated by the rule of heteropatriarchy.”
— Jenny Kitzinger, “Sexual Violence and Compulsory Heterosexuality,” in Heterosexuality: A Feminism & Psychology Reader, edited by Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger (1993)
“Why is much of men’s aggression against women sexual in nature? . . .
“If the superiority of the penis over the vagina is being established through male sexual violence against females, then males benefit from this violence in their everyday interactions with females if they remind females that they, males, have a penis, and the women have a vagina. The more frequently females (and males) are reminded of the dominance over the vagina, the more rewards all men reap from some men’s sexual violence against women. . . .
“By compulsively sexualizing their interactions with females, males remind both themselves and females that males are dominant.”
— Dee Graham, Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives (1994)
“Far from being ‘natural,’ phallic sexuality is a moral and political activity. . . . Men’s sexual behaviour is not caused by hormonal dictates. It is because the penis serves the ideological function of symbolizing ‘human’ status that it is so heavily charged with erotic energy, and not because it is driven by testosterone. Men must keep using it because they need to keep proving that they exist, that their ‘humanity’ is inextricably entwined with penis-possession; women must be constantly used by it to prove that men exist, that the sum total of a man is his penis. . . . Anything and everything must be subordinated to penile activity if men are to be what phallic ideology requires them to be.”
— Denise Thompson, Radical Feminism Today (2001)
If you know what feminists actually believe — the anti-male hate propaganda taught to the tens of thousands of college girls who sign up for Women’s Studies classes annually — it is not surprising that rape hysteria is being promoted as a way of popularizing the characteristic attitude of radical feminists: Fear and Loathing of the Penis.
Does anyone suppose that Rolling Stone would be interested in reporting that Feminist Frontiers, the most widely assigned anthology of feminist literature, is edited by three lesbian professors? Do you think Sabrina Rubin Erdely might follow up on the (perhaps-not-entirely-coincidental) fact that Carmen Rios, communications coordinator for the Feminist Majority Foundation, describes herself as a “raging lesbian feminist” and referred to Women’s Studies programs as “Lesbo Recruitment 101″? Does Rolling Stone editor William Dana, who was so eager to publish unverified gang-rape claims against a University of Virginia fraternity, think his magazine’s readers might like to know why Women’s Studies professors condemn Disney cartoons as “heteronormative”?
No, those vicious swine won’t pay anyone to report the truth about feminism, because they don’t want anyone to know the truth.
The only people who will pay me to report the truth are my readers who hit the freaking tip jar. It’s almost Christmas, you know.
First published at TheOtherMcCain.com
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.