August 15, 2015 § 4 Comments
Nobody ignores the rape of women, nor did they ever historically. It is everywhere considered a heinous and serious crime and always has been.
The reason that men like Kevin and others don’t ignore rape is because they subscribe to the “one good man” myth that Karen Straughan has repeatedly explained. Kevin defers to women, meaning he accepts a female interpretation of masculinity. That’s why he believes that other men don’t take rape seriously while he does. When feminists disparage masculinity, Kevin agrees because it never occurs to him that those feminists are talking about him. It’s always other men who are the culprits.
Of course, the idea that “other” men are actually just like him and that the average guy thinks he’s the only one who takes rape seriously is the very mechanism through which women are pedestalized and through which traditional forms of “patriarchal” masculinity are perpetuated and imposed. After all, “other” men are horrible, backward, rapist monsters, so women naturally need Kevin and the proud few like him to protect them. It’s how tribal in groups and out groups of men are set against one another. Kevin will forever defend the damsels against the ever present but always hidden serial raping hoards of fedora wearing Emmanuel Goldsteins. Of what use would he be to women otherwise? If rape culture didn’t exist, Kevin would need to invent it. What good is a hero without a villain or a soldier without a war?
The evil doers are always sexual predators, menacers of women and children, and therefore the good guys appoint themselves the heroic protectors. It has always been this way and because this powerful political motivation is the primary means by which some men can be bound together in opposition to their imagined or real enemies, men have always taken rape seriously and always will. From where else does he derive the “protector” portion of the provider and protector tradcon masculine ideal? In what other way can his participation in a given power structure be justified ethically? Where is his motivation for that participation truly rooted if not here?
It is not a racial, national, or religious out group of evil doer men that Kevin believes hes protecting the damsels from, it’s the fedora wearing misogynist pickup artist traditional conservative rape apologist. Those in Kevin’s camp would no doubt feel the same sense of self righteousness lynching a supposed patriarchal oppressor that Klan members felt while lynching “street harasser” Emmett Till for whistling at a white woman.
As ever, “those” men are bad, but men like Kevin are good. The group defines itself by what it believes it is not. It’s how all tribal groups derive their identity, from inquisitions, genocides, pogroms, to any garden variety war. Men are either heroes or villains, apparently. How progressive!
Kevin’s understanding of gender, like most feminists, is not progressive by any means, but archaic. And it’s that very same set of underlying assumptions which leads to the trivializing of male prison rape on the one hand and the hysterical persecution politics employed to combat female rape on the other. It is often feminists that trivialize male rape in prisons, and all of them share the same underlying assumptions about male villainy and female victimhood that Kevin has. More proof that feminism does not challenge archaic notions of gender, but powerfully reinforces what we have always believed.
As far as the rape prosecution statistics, such as they are, we have absolutely no reason to think that they have anything to do with patriarchy, and everything to do with the basic premise behind due process. If feminists like Kevin are complaining about due process, what further evidence of feminism’s fundamentally reactionary character would we need?