Conservatives toss out a bunch of self-contradicting arguments about rape

Periodically, conservatives like to take a break from 'splaining to women that men are the greatest thing ever and if we don't get married right now our lives will be wasted to instruct women that men are vile, brutal beasts and if they violently assault us, it is our fault for being around them just as surely as it's your fault for getting mauled if you climb in the tiger's cage. This may seem like a contradiction, of course, but it is not, because the consistent thread here is that everything a woman could possibly do is wrong, because she was stupid enough to be female.

National Review writers are enjoying the dog piling of an alleged rape victim who, whether she is telling the truth or not, has some serious mental health problems that make dog piling her de facto sociopathic behavior. Media Matters has the story. It's another sign that the mainstream conservative movement is toying with the idea of going full-blown "men's rights". This means, irritatingly, embracing a contradiction that drives me up the wall: Denying the existence of acquaintance rape on one hand while telling victims they brought it on themselves on the other hand. Really, you should be forced to pick a line of bullshit. Either deny that rape is a serious problem, in which case women have nothing to worry about. Or scold women to stay away from men, which requires believing rape happens. You can't have it both ways.

But nope, these asshole think they get to have it both ways. John Fund says out of one side of his mouth that the "statistics that one out of five campus women has been sexually assaulted" have been "inflated". (He offers no evidence outside of assertion.) Okay, if you believe that rape isn't a real problem and that the risk of it is low, then you should tell women that they can party with men and fuck around to their heart's content, assured that the rapes they hear about are just lying bitches trying to get "revenge against men who had been unfaithful", right? Nope, Fund still thinks that telling women to stay at home, avoid parties, and avoid sex is little more than warm "fatherly advice".  But why? If rape isn't really a problem, then what danger are you telling women to avoid when you instruct them to avoid parties and sex? Fatherly advice in the relatively rape-less world that conservatives say we live in would be, "Hey, have fun, ladies. There's no real danger there."

Jonah Goldberg explains how women brought rape on ourselves by rejecting male authority: "Take away the notion that men should be protective of women and they will — surprise! — be less protective of women." Don't want to be treated like you're someone's property, women! Too bad! Your choices are being property or being raped, because men are going to control and dominate you somehow. 

Of course, in the very same piece, Goldberg admits that rape rates have been going down over the past four decades, not coincidentally as feminism has been on the rise. His hypothesis is that, if women reject male authority, er, protection, men will start raping more. But reality shows that actually, as feminism has grown and more women are becoming more independent, rape is going down, demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that his neat little be-owned-or-be-raped hypothesis is completely false. I realize conservatives are anti-science, but this is getting ridiculous. He tries to salvage it by suggesting reporting rates are down---for which he blames feminists---but unsurprisingly, his hateful spewing has zero evidence for it.

He tries to make himself out to be the good guy by saying, "I constantly hear that instead of lecturing women about their behavior we should teach men not to rape. I totally, completely, 100 percent agree that we should teach men not to rape. The problem is we do that. A lot. Maybe we should do it more."

I disagree. What I see is that whenever a man is accused of rape, no matter how likely he is to be guilty, people rush up to defend him, to shame the accusers and, in some cases, to give him standing ovations. Even if it becomes excruciatingly clear that they're guilty, they can expect people to hand-wring about how terrible all this must be for them. That is the opposite of teaching men not to rape. That is teaching rapists that, if they get caught, they should expect widespread support and even adoration. No wonder so many straight up demand just as much when their number comes up.

I realize rape apologist nonsense is contradictory, flailing, and idiotic by design---it's meant to exhaust and exasperate people making anti-rape arguments to the point where they give up. But what else can I do but continue to point this out and say, no, we are not going to give up? This is too serious an issue to give up on.

Here are the facts, which need to be repeated forever and ever and ever until they finally sink in. Most men are not rapists. Most men want their sex partners to want them back, whereas rapists get off on the fact that the victim doesn't want sex. Therefore it's irrational to blame women for getting raped and not assuming, as Goldberg says we should, "that some drunk men will do bad things". In fact, most won't. The notion that women should abandon fun, dating, partying, and the opportunity to meet future boyfriends and even husbands to avoid what amounts to 5 percent of men is either just really bad risk/reward analysis or, more likely, just people using the threat of rape to try to force women to do what they already wanted us to do, which is sit at home knitting while men have the monopoly on enjoying their youth. 

The reason the rape rate is so high is not because a lot of men rape, but because the 5 percent that do it like to do it a lot. They end up raping different women, an average of 5-6 per rapist. That's why, while there's only a 5 percent chance the man you're talking to at a party is a rapist, over time, women end up having a 20 percent chance of being assaulted. However, it's illogical to think that the solution to this problem is to remove women, who are 50 percent of the population.What makes much more sense, mathematically speaking, is to remove rapists. 5% vs. 50%. This should be a no-brainer when it comes to who gets to stay and who has to go. The only reason the 5 percent are routinely privileged over the 50 percent is because they're men. But that's unfair, especially when you realize these aren't even good men, but, you know, rapists.

The math is rock solid. That's why rape apologists spout so much derailing bullshit, because they know if anyone actually pays attention, we'll see they don't have a case.