Somewhere On the Web. . .

. . . I posted the following bit. It was on a reader comment thread, on an article. And the article mentioned Jackson Katz, and it talked about the responsibility of men to stop being "silent" and whatnot. The lack of word-crafting skill among the various commenters was painfully on display -- which was too bad, since I richly appreciated what some of them were saying, and I yearned to open a prose madrassa so I could teach them how to say it better!

But anyway, just for shits-n-giggles, I belted out THIS:

A few points that ought to be self-evident:

1. The Duke defendants are, and always have been, INNOCENT. They were never proven guilty, and that means that they are INNOCENT in the eyes of the law. Don't forget, the law says "innocent until proven guilty."

2. Other than NOT RAPING ANYBODY, or calling the police in the rare event that you think a rape is occurring or about to occur, there is absolutely NOTHING to be done "about" rape. Ideologically-based moral crusades directed against men collectively are absolutely worthless, because "men collectively" do not commit rape -- only rapists commit rape, and they do this one rapist at a time. Anti-rape crusades focused abstractly upon the male population serve only one purpose: to provide a cheap emotional orgasm for the screaming hordes of hysterical man-hating harpies who infest the world like household vermin.

3. Most rapists understandably do not seek publicity for their crimes. Hence, witnesses are not often present, which makes corroboration difficult. In practice this means that many if not most rape cases are effectively UNPROSECUTABLE unless you lower the standard of evidence so far that the mere unsupported word of the plaintiff carries enough weight to secure a conviction. But that would mean that no man is safe from perjured testimony by a woman. On that account, I believe that the majority of rape cases ought to be thrown out of court - because the prosecution lacks sufficient grounds of evidence.

Permit me to add that I concur wholeheartedly with the feminist precept that we should never, never, ever "blame the victim". It's virtually a no-brainer. If a woman gets raped, who rapes her? Does she rape herself? Of course not! We as individuals are responsible for the choices that we personally make, and for the actions that we personally commit, and it was the rapist who personally chose to commit the action of rape. Therefore, I blame the rapist for putting into action his choice to commit rape. That is, I hold him personally responsible for his actions, and his choices.

I do NOT hold him personally responsible for her actions, and her choices. For example, I do not hold the rapist personally responsible for her choice to appear at that particular party, her choice to dress in a sexually provocative manner, her choice to get "stinko", her choice to venture into the back hallway or backyard of that particular house, her choice to be in that particular social milieu, her choice to run with that particular "fast crowd" when she could have freely chosen to consort with a better class of people, and so on. In sum, the entire karmic funnel in which she voluntarily placed herself and which accelerated the logic of events toward a particular climax -- for all of that, the rapist bears no personal responsibilty whatsoever! None.

So you see, I am not blaming the victim. I am merely holding her responsible for her own actions and her own choices. Would you care to inform me that she did not in fact DO any of these things? Well in fact she did, and therefore she is in fact responsible. I hold her responsible for these things because I cannot LOGICALLY hold anybody ELSE responsible for them.....CAN I?

CAN I ??