VAWA vs. Violent Women

For the sexual-assault on Grossmont College's campus, the only description, whatsoever, given of the alleged attack, by police and school officials, was 'a-man'.

For the sexual-assault on Grossmont College's campus, the only description, whatsoever, given of the alleged attack, by police and school officials, was 'a-man'

Last year at Grossmont College, here in San Diego CA, administrators sent out 20,000 emails to students, staff and faculty, warning that “a man” had “sexually assaulted” a woman.  For the following couple weeks, local news was all over the place, then things died down.  The GCSummit did a story on the assault, even did a followup.

Officials never released anything substantive about the event.  Regardless, the alleged event became folklore, and the buzz around school became, “did you hear about the girl that got raped in the parking lot!?”

But rape was never suggested by anyone close to the investigation.  Rather, an Iraqi Chaldean woman claimed to have been contacted physically in such a way that officials termed the matter a sexual-assault.  However, if I ran by and slapped you in the butt–that would be “sexual-assault.”  Not to say that is what happened, but it gives you an idea about how varied “sexual-assault” can be: a butt slap and rape are both sexual-assault.

Nevertheless, no clarifications were made, not by campus administrators, local news, or local police.  Instead, the community is just left to fear “a man.”  No big change there–plenty in our culture have learned to fear and distrust men generally, at least compared to women.

However, in the same semester as the “sexual-assault,” a woman was punched the hell out, in broad daylight–by a woman.  The GCSummit covered the story, but the event was more or less ignored by most.

Jeanne Clery Act

Interestingly, the reason that the sexual-assault generated so much attention is because of the Jeanne Clery Act–legislation that requires campuses to trumpet whenever a sexual-assault occurs on campus.

Among the catalysts for the conception of the Jeanne Clery Act was that some colleges’ campus police were trying to save face for themselves and their respective campuses–by not notifying students of rapes that had occurred on their campuses.  The lack of awareness certainly made people feeeeeel more secure than they otherwise may have, yet resulted in people not taking precautions that they otherwise may have.  The result: more rapes.

So to compensate for the foolish, unprincipled decisions of those college administrators–especially that of the campus police–federal legislators created the Jeanne Clery Act which mandates timely notification of faculty, staff and students, in the event of a sexual-assault on campus.

The spirit of the law

Of course, among the chief goals of the Jeanne Clery Act is to keep people aware of the environment so that they can be safe.  But our culture is done a disservice by pretending that the only person to look out is the proverbial “guy who wants to rape you.”  What about the pothead broad who wants to punch your sister out?

The inconvenient truth

In our culture, women assault far more children than do men.  In fact, the number of children assaulted by women is higher than woman victims of men’s violence.  No?  Well, if it matters enough to you–then look it up.  What you will further find is that the majority of victims of violence is men.  The philosophically lazy, sexist person will say, “yeah–but men are the ones attacking the men.”

Sexist, anti-male guilt-by-association

It takes amazing idiocy to hold such a position, insisting to group men to together–based on genitals–even when one is a victim, and the other is a perpetrator. Such idiocy though is unsurprising in a culture that would say, “there is never an excuse to hit a woman.”  Look back at that quote; remove “a woman.”  What do you get?

There is never an excuse to hit.

There is never an excuse to hit.

Men as victims

Imagine John Wayne Gacy: plenty, in our culture, who read about him would say things to the effect of, “nothing was too bad for him–he deserved the worst.”  Some might even get specific: “they should have cut his dick off,” etc.

But imagine this:  John Wayne Gacy was tortured as a child.  So as much as a given person may want–“starting now”–to deny Gacy’s  humanity, the fact is that, typically, such a victim received dehumanization long before they acted it out. (I know, I know–“that’s no excuse:  I heard of someone who went through way worse and they never blah blah blah…”)

Plenty will say, “[that rapist] is a monster; he should be castrated; how could he have looked into her eyes and simply raped her, ignoring her humanity!?”  It should surprise no one that rapists exist in this culture where people feel fit to be so dehumanizing towards men, for example to speak of castrating them.  For as long as this dehumanizing of men exists, men will rape–at least because, if they learn to accept their own devaluation, it is a small step for them to accept the devaluing of another.

The hypocrisy of concern

One need only eyes and honesty to know that our culture takes far more serious female victims than male victims.  Moreover, male villains are taken far more serious than are female villains.  This double-edged, sexist hypocrisy causes immense lack of concern of the real world–a world where tortured men and women act psychopathically; yet when men are the villains then the situation is abstracted into “this is typical of men,” even though it is not; moreover, if a woman is the villain then every excuse imaginable is used to absolve her of responsibility.  Of course, in the latter case, the tortured woman, being denied accountability, is unleashed to further escalate her psychopathy.  Hence, Casey Anthony is only a symptom of culture’s disease of woman-worship.

Imagine if the following story were reversed:

If a man had done that to a girl–you would have heard about it.

Women as marketing gimmicks

Women, in our culture, marketed as gimmicks–as both sexual gimmicks but also morality gimmicks:  women are held to be “typically good.”  This is all well and good because most women are, in fact, good.

However, a cultural disconnect happens when people accept the notion that men are “typically bad”–or, at least “worse than women.”  Instead, people are individual, and if we spent as much time METICULOUSLY teaching girls to be aggressive idiots then we would see many more stories about violent women doing crazy shit.  Or would we?

Probably not.

The above story is likely to generate little attention, especially compared to if the gender-reverse happened.  This serves the purpose of allowing social-engineers to teach men and women to generally trust women–even against their better judgment, and, as a corollary, men are scrutinized and made to prove that they deserve even baseline respect and trust.

This inequality between the perceptions of the genders in our culture is likewise reflected in the fact that typically men must prove that they are a “real man.”  However, no one ever says, except in jest, that a woman should “be a real woman.”

Recently, I was in an argument with my debate coach, who is a woman.  She was being rude and foolish, and I stated as much, as diplomatically as I could.

Afterwards, a female teammate of mine with, whom I typically get along, ignored the idiocy of my teacher, ignored also the rightness of my position, and with an idiots grin said simply, “Russ, you can’t win against pussy.” (She meant that in our culture, even if I am right, still a man cannot win against a woman in a social environment.) Of course, such coarseness is a cliche-of-choice for many girls in our culture: “look at me–I said pussy! I can be crude, without repercussions!” Much more interesting to me, however, is that this teammate has two sons.  And she actually believes–however subconsciously–that, by her bitch-princess-ness, she will be able to shield her sons from the cultural dehumanizing that she accepted against me.

To her, I say, “good luck.”  Especially since, by the time she calls on her bitch-princess-ness then she will be an “old” woman.  To women and men like her–that readily cosign disrespect and dehumanizing against men: good luck navigating and combating the system that YOU are helping to create.  One day, a male that you care about will be on the alter for the misandrists of our culture.

Watch the following video, before continuing:

Now, consider the following two points:

1. Imagine the gender reverse.

2. Imagine how the safety of the kicking woman would entirely depend on the laughing men backing her bluff, if the man were to attack her back.  She knows that there is a mountain of socialized ignorance that defends her every vicious choice–she know that “there is never an excuse [for a man] to hit a woman.”

Related post:

An excellent reason to hit a woman: self-defense

This entry was posted in Russ Lindquist and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.