Anyway, this:

Firstly, I’m really sick of this idea that one can put “there’s no excuse for rape” in front of any statement, and that will magically make it non-victim-blaming.

I saw so much of this with Angie Zapata. People would say “there’s no excuse for murder, but she was deceiving him…” and expected a pass on that, too. Victim blaming is such a predictable activity. :(

Misogynists say feminists paint all men as rapists.

But the misogynists are actually the ones doing this, because in their rape-apologism, they paint “rape as an all-but-autonomic response to a vulnerable woman” (quoting SunlessNick’s excellent take-down).

So obvious, but never saw it before. Thanks you two!

Thanks to Sunless Nick for… - Cara

You’re welcome; if that’s the appropriate response to something so horrible.

The juxtaposition between his comment, and the comment immediately preceding his (by Emma), is heartbreaking. - Kira

There’s an earlier comment from an Emma too, a different Emma I believe. I was going to summarise it, but I think I should quote her; she says, “The comments agreeing with peter make me so sad as a young girl. I see now all men want to rape me and are waiting for the moment to do this. This makes me never want to date or marry. Men are all just potential monsters.”

Which is also heartbreaking. No doubt Hitchens and his kind would blame this perception on feminism, but they are the ones who teach it. They are the ones who remove male choice and conscience from the narrative, treating rape as an all-but-autonomic response to a vulnerable woman.

——

I buy expensive security for my car and my house so as to protect them best from thieves. Sure I’d like to think I could leave my front door open and the ignition keys in but if my house was burgled and my car stolen then I’d deserve less sympathy than my neighbour who took better care. (Tony)

Would be as willing to equate vandalism and castration as you are theft and rape?

Peter actually compared it to a drunk woman “walking out in front of a car and getting hit”. She was at least partly cuppable as she was drunk. Even though she is still the victim. (Paul Jones)

He made both comparisons, driver and pedestrian. But neither is on the mark – rape is a crime with malicious intent – the accurate comparison would be a drunk woman who is less able to get out the way of a driver who mounts and AIMS their car at her.*

there are far too many reasons why a woman might cry rape (especially in this hysterical age) that to ruin a mans life at the onset of a possible case by revealing only his name to the press (Michael Savell)

The conviction rate for rape in the UK is about 6%. In the meantime, a woman who accuses a man of rape has a 100% chance of getting treatment that accompanies no other crime: she’ll be blamed, she’ll be lectured on what she did wrong and what else she coulda shoulda woulda done, she’ll have her every sexual choice before or after the alleged crime dissected, she’ll be told he couldn’t have meant it because he’s just not really like that, she’ll be told it’s not that serious really and can’t she just let it go for the good of all, she’ll be questioned for her determination to ruin a man’s life for what was really just one little mistake; and that’s from the people who believe her and think they’re on her side.

I find it hard to credit there being an epidemic of women who would put themselves through that for a 6% chance of convicting a guy, just because they’re angry with him or afraid of being called sluts; they’ll be called sluts anyway.

Likewise, I find it hard to credit the notion of “censorship” from the Left, from feminists, or the so-called PC brigade, or anyone else, because almost every single article on the subject of rape is like this.

——

* I didn’t invent this. That was a commentator on another forum, whose name I cannot recall unfortunately, and whose comment I can’t find right now.