Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

Hawkeye, the "article" you posted is a perfect example of the sort of distortions you use--and that you fall prey to. That "article" is not an unbiased statement about anything.

Does feminism give a much-needed voice to women in a patriarchal world? Or is the world not really patriarchal? Has feminism begun to level the playing field in a world in which women are more often paid less at work and abused at home? Or are women paid equally for the same work and not abused more at home? Does feminism support equality in education and in the military, or does it discriminate against men by ignoring such issues as male-only draft registration and boys lagging behind in school?
The only book of its kind, this volume offers a sharp, lively, and provocative debate on the impact of feminism on men. Warren Farrell--an international best-selling author and leader in both the early women's and current men's movements--praises feminism for opening options for women but criticizes it for demonizing men, distorting data, and undervaluing the family. In response, James P. Sterba--an acclaimed philosopher and ardent advocate of feminism--maintains that the feminist movement gives a long-neglected voice to women in a male-dominated world and that men are not an oppressed gender in today's America. Their wide-ranging debate covers personal issues, from love, sex, dating, and rape to domestic violence, divorce, and child custody. Farrell and Sterba also look through their contrasting lenses at systemic issues, from the school system to the criminal justice system; from the media to the military; and from health care to the workplace.
A perfect book to get students thinking and debating, Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men? A Debate is ideal for courses in gender studies, sociology, psychology, economics, feminist philosophy, and contemporary moral issues. It is also compelling reading for anyone interested in the future of men and women.

Most people still assume domestic violence is more likely to be perpetrated by men, despite the overwhelming evidence that it is perpetrated slightly more by women. When I presented this data in this book, the valid questions this raised were so numerous that I was motivated to answer each of them in Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say and add an appendix of the fifty studies documenting this conclusion. The misconceptions are so fundamental that mandatory arrest laws were created with the assumption they would lead to the arrests of almost all men. But when police saw the evidence and didn’t have the option of ignoring the arrest of the woman, the mandatory arrest laws resulted in a marked increase in the number and percentage of women arrested.

There are few messages of the women’s movement that demonstrate a deeper misunderstanding of what masculinity is about than the belief that domestic violence emanates from males learning they have a right to beat up females. (Boys who beat up girls are called sissies, and beaten up by other boys.) “Treatment” programs based on that theory unwittingly encourage domestic violence.

Chapter 12’s “Twelve Female-Only Self-Defenses”, all of which denied the possibility of men as victims, have gone virtually unchallenged as the violation of the 14th Amendment that they are.

The good news in the areas of sexual harassment, date rape and domestic violence has come from the bad news: false accusations have been frequent enough that the “rush to judgment” has been, well, less rushed. DNA evidence has exposed many false accusations of date rape. Due process rights are beginning to mean something again. But it is rare for a woman who makes a false accusation to receive punishment for doing it–even if it results in the man spending years in jail and being raped in the process.

I cannot report that parents or our schools are doing a better job resocializing our daughters to share responsibility for taking sexual initiatives. More parents tolerate their teenage daughter asking a boy out by option, but few parents are helping her learn to share responsibility for both risks and rejection by expectation. This concerns me because success in business is dependent on teaching our daughters to take risks, fail, handle rejection and choose husbands who desire a woman who takes risks. I want our daughters to learn to take risks when their parents are around to help them put the rejections in perspective. When we overly protect girls, we hurt the women they become.

It could just mean you've found another person who shares your crazy views.

Feminist Assault on Reasonableness

Twenty years after women began attending law schools in greater
numbers, feminists are turning up as law school professors, law
review writers, state legislators, congressional staffers,
prosecutors, law clerks and even judges. It's splendid to have
women in all those positions, but large numbers of feminists are
causing ominous dislocations in basic concepts of American law and
justice. An excellent policy analysis on "feminist jurisprudence"
by the CATO Institute explains why.

The feminist goal is not fair treatment for women, but the
redistribution of power from the "dominant" class (the male
patriarchal system) to the "subordinate" class (nominally women,
but actually only the feminists who know how to play by rules they
have invented).

Feminists have peddled the fiction that men are engaged in a vast
conspiracy against women, that something like 85 percent of
employed women are sexually harassed in the workplace, and that
something on the order of 50 to 70 percent of wives are beaten by
their husbands.

Feminists want to establish the rule that offenses against women
should be defined (not objectively, but subjectively) on the basis
of how the woman felt instead of what the defendant did.

Before the feminist movement burst on the scene in the 1970s,
there were literally hundreds of laws that gave advantages or
protections to women based on society's common sense recognition
of the facts of life and human nature. These included the
prohibition against statutory rape, the Mann Act, the obligation
of the husband to support his wife and provide her with a home,
special protections for widows (e.g., one state gave widows a
little property tax exemption, another prescribed triple penalties
against anyone who cheated a widow), and laws that made it a
misdemeanor to use obscene or profane language in the presence of
a woman.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the premier feminist lawyer in the 1970s.
Then a professor at Columbia University Law School, she argued
that all such differences of treatment based on gender were sex
discriminatory and, therefore, should be abolished. She won
several Supreme Court cases on that theory. In state after state,
as well as in Congress, feminist lawyers persuaded legislators to
gender-neutralize their laws.

In theory, Ginsburg appeared to demand a doctrinaire equality,
opposing the Mann Act because it "was meant to protect weak women
from bad men," which she believed was demeaning to women. But in
practice, she demanded affirmative action for women, even in the
military. Ginsburg's exposition of her views on the "equality
principle" are contained in her book Sex Bias in the U.S. Code
(published by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1977, and
summarized in the Phyllis Schlafly Report, July 1993).

In the 1990s, the feminists no longer even pay lip service to a
gender equality goal (except, of course, when it suits their
purposes). Their goals are the feminization and subordination of
men, and their tactics are to cry "victimization" and
"conspiracy." They have launched a broadside attack on such basic
precepts as equality under the law, judicial neutrality, a
defendant is innocent until proven guilty, conviction requires
proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and guilt or liability should be
judged according to the traditional "reasonable man" theory.

Female plaintiffs had always been able to sue for offensive sexual
actions in the workplace by using the common law remedies of tort

and contract. Feminists reject these remedies because they want
sexual harassment cases to be based on the nutty notion of a male
conspiracy to victimize women and/or their newly-invented legal
theory that a "hostile work environment" is a form of "sex
discrimination" prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court adopted this feminist theory in the 1986
case of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, where the Court even went
so far as to say that "'voluntariness' in the sense of consent" is
not a defense. This notion had been invented by Michigan Law
School professor Catharine Mackinnon, who was reported to have
boasted, "What the decision means is that we made this law up from
the beginning, and now we've won." That's exactly what happened.

In a 1991 Jacksonville, Florida case, a federal district court
found an employer guilty of a "hostile work environment" even
though there was no evidence of sexual language or demands
directed at the plaintiff who claimed she felt sexually harassed.
The other female workers said they did not feel sexually harassed,
but the judge said that their testimony merely provided
"additional evidence of victimization." In order to accommodate
their claim that 85 percent of employed women are sexually
harassed, the feminists have defined it so broadly that it is
trivialized to include behavior that is merely annoying.

A 1991 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision replaced the common
law "reasonable man" standard with a "reasonable woman" test,
embracing the 1990s feminist notion that men and women can't see
the same events in the same way. The court declared that the old
common law standard "systematically ignores the experiences of
women."

The "unreasonable woman" rule is what the feminists are demanding
now. The feminists want the victim rather than the law to define
the offense. Remember, the feminists repealed the old laws making
it a misdemeanor to speak "any obscene, profane, indecent, vulgar,
suggestive or immoral message" to a woman or girl. Now, they argue
that it's just as actionable for a man to call a woman "honey" or
"baby" as to call her a "bitch." The feminists are trying to
enforce rules that any man's words can be punished if a woman
subjectively doesn't like them, and the basis is how the woman
felt rather than what the man said.

The feminists are actively promoting college speech codes to
prohibit what they call discriminatory or harassing speech. Of
course, jokes are not allowed because feminists have no sense of
humor. Nearly 400 colleges and universities have these anti-First
Amendment speech regulations, about a third of which target mere
"advocacy of offensive or outrageous viewpoints or biased ideas."

The feminists want the battered woman syndrome to free any woman
from conviction of violent crime. The feminists are even pushing
the Catharine Mackinnon fantasy that all heterosexual sex should
be considered rape unless an affirmative, sober, explicit verbal
consent can be proved.

The feminists want the action of a battered woman who kills her
husband to be considered as normal. They want us to believe that
killing a man in his sleep can be excused as self-defense. They
want to establish a license for women to kill their allegedly
abusive spouses.

More lawyers, scholars and academics are badly needed to speak up
and expose the feminist foolishness for what it is: a scurrilous
attack on our Bill of Rights

Nearly 400 colleges and universities have these anti-First
Amendment speech regulations, about a third of which target mere
"advocacy of offensive or outrageous viewpoints or biased ideas."

whose entire value system seems rooted in his need to engage in BDSM activities, and his anxieties that these might be deemed illegal. So, he sees "FEMINISTS" lurking everywhere, plotting to get him. How dare FEMINISTS say that women shouldn't be hurt, harmed, abused or exploited! They are trying to take all the pleasure out of his life! They are trying to rob him of his "sovereignty", his "masculinity", his very "essence"!

So, why doesn't the law intercede? Given the formal recognition of domestic violence, rape, and sexual harassment as legally actionable harms, why are laws prohibiting them so inadequately enforced? Some feminists have argued that the pervasiveness, seriousness, and tenacity of these threats and the inadequacy of official responses reflect the patriarchal construction of gender itself on a model of dominance and submission. That is, the law reflects a way of thinking. According to this long-standing model masculinity means strength, forcefulness, aggressiveness, and domination. Femininity means delicacy, resistance, submission, and subordination. It makes the sexual game that of the male predator and the female prey. It makes coercion erotic. It also makes the distinction between persuasion and force a fine line that is easy to cross. If the distinction between normal sexual behavior and rape turns on a last minute decision by a woman to stop resisting and submit, then it will hardly be surprising if rape turns out to be a) very pervasive, and b) widely denied (MacKinnon 1989). Furthermore, if the very concept of masculinity—the meaning of manliness is not just strength but domination, then resorting to violence to enforce female subordination is a clear correlate of the model. Finally, if the natural relation between the sexes is taken to be both hierarchical and adversarial, then a male dominated legal system formulated by men from a male perspective is bound to protect the interests of men at the expense of women whenever the two conflict or are perceived to conflict. Thus, the patriarchal construction of gender makes domination the model of masculinity and rape (or at least power and submission) the model of sex (MacKinnon 1989; Schulhofer 1998, Schneider 2000; Estrich 1987, 2001; MacKinnon and Siegle 2004).

The feminist description and critique of the dominance model of sexuality has been widely misunderstood and commonly attacked as a condemnation of all sex, or as an indictment of all men as rapists. To some extent this was a response to a few exaggerated individual feminist claims that were highly publicized in the early 1970s. But in a more enduring sense it is due to several factors that illustrate the truth of feminist claims about the entrenchment of patriarchy as the status quo and the domination model of sexuality. Many feminists claim that the dominance model of sexuality is pervasive and universal: it is very common and applies everywhere. It affects how people think and interact in all cultures (MacKinnon 1989; Schneider 2000). This claim is susceptible to being reinterpreted by critics as a claim that every sexual act is an act of domination (or rape). Part of the reason for this difficulty is that once again feminists are arguing against the norm. If feminists are correct that domination is the patriarchal model of sexuality and patriarchy is the status quo, then it is not surprising if they appear to be arguing against sex itself. If sex is domination and feminists condemn domination, then feminists must condemn sex—according to anyone who cannot envision an alternative model of sex. Attacking feminists for their critique of the domination model, however, is attacking the messenger, since no feminist advocates the dominance model. They only describe and oppose it.

So, what is to be done? Early on feminists were rather divided about how to address this issue especially as a legal matter. Focusing on causes or influences, some feminists attempted to challenge media stereotypes for which they were criticized as censors. Some challenged the fashion and beauty industry with miniscule impact while suffering considerable personal ridicule for their efforts. Some focused on opposing pornography (especially violent pornography) as the symbol of the dominance model. Most of this turned out to be a losing battle in which the feminist message of opposing female subordination was converted into a Victorian condemnation of immoral sex, for which feminists were then criticized as prudes. All this illustrates the deep entrenchment of the domination model. Every attack is revised, reformulated, rephrased, reduced and if possible reversed altogether so that it fits the original model with as little conceptual revision or social restructuring as possible (Rhode 1997). It also shows that a conceptual model cannot be overcome by attack alone. It must be replaced by some other, more attractive or effective—way of thinking. Ultimately, the domination model (and with it rape and domestic abuse) will not die until it is replaced with a better model of masculinity (Rhode 1997; Estrich 2001; MacKinnon and Siegle 2004).

In all these efforts the point was to attack the model directly by opposing the use and abuse of women as sex objects.

you want something and you are not above lying and scamming to get it.

We all witness that element right here on this thread and website directed at both of us Hawkeye in the attempts to get us ban

According to Schlafly, out-of-wedlock births primarily are the result of premarital sex among teens. More teens are having sex "because the teaching trend has been to say, `It's up to you.' They have never been taught that premarital sex is wrong. Never."
http://www.ypress.org/news/phyllis_schlafly_first__with_family__values

"It's very healthy for a young girl to be deterred from promiscuity by fear of contracting a painful, incurable disease, or cervical cancer, or sterility, or the likelihood of giving birth to a dead, blind or brain-damaged baby."
Phyllis Schlafly, founder and leader of the Eagle Forum

“Sex education classes are like in-home sales parties for abortions” Phyllis Schlafly
http://www.abortionaccess.info/truemotives.htm

In 1987, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop publicly recommended that people use condoms to prevent the transmission of HIV, which develops into AIDS. Some conservative Christian organizations attacked his stance. Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum accused him of promoting "safe fornication with condoms" as "a cover-up for the homosexual community.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/condom3.htm

By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape.

I. SCHLAFLY ON PORNOGRAPHY

Schlafly has argued that


pornography can be best defined as the degradation of woman. It
exploits women individually and as a group in the most offensive,
degrading, and cruel way. In the modern jargon, pornography is the
most "sexist" activity of all.

The women's liberationists prove their hypocrisy by their
nonattitude toward pornography. They profess outrage at the
role-concept fostered by school textbooks that include pictures of
women in the home as wives and mothers, but they raise no protest
about the role-concept fostered by obscene pictures of women as
playthings for male lust and sadism in obscene and "bondage" books,
magazines, and movies. (1)
Schlafly wants to suppress pornography precisely because of the way in which it socializes men. "Pornography cannot be victimless because its very essence demands that a victim be subordinate. One cannot be an abuser unless there is an abused. Pornography portrays the past abuse, and pornography is a tool to facilitate future abuse." (2) The testimonies of women abused either in the making of pornography or by men who have consumed pornography--testimonies that Schlafly collected in an edited volume--"prove that pornography is addictive, and that those who become addicted crave more bizarre and more perverted pornography, and become more callous toward their victims." (3) The basic problem is the effect of pornography on the way that men think. "Pornography changes the perceptions and attitudes of men toward women, individually and collectively," she writes, "and desensitizes men so that what was once repulsive and unthinkable eventually becomes not only acceptable but desirable. What was once mere fantasy becomes reality. Thus conditioned and stimulated by pornography, the user seeks a victim." (4) Pornography, she argues, should be regarded as a "public nuisance." (5)

The claims just quoted are wildly overstated. Schlafly suggests that pornography provokes sexual violence. The correlation between pornography and sexual violence, however, is strong only among a very small subset of already pathological men, comprising less than one percent of the male population. (6) In the aggregate, it appears that the availability of pornography actually reduces the frequency of sexual assault
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-175875958.html

The justices have constitutionally protected obscenity in libraries, filth over cable television, and now unlimited internet pornography.
Phyllis Schlafly

There is a strong correlation between belief in evolution and liberal views on government control, pornography, prayer in schools, abortion, gun control, economic freedom, and even animal rights.
Quotation of Phyllis Schlafly

Sexual harassment on the job is not a problem for virtuous women.
Phyllis Schlafly

Phyllis and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day
Submitted by Kyle on August 22, 2007 - 2:01pm

Today cannot be a very good one for the Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly. First off, President Bush basically laughed at those on the right who have been hyperventilating over a supposed conspiracy to install a “North American Union,” which has been one of the Eagle Forum’s primary focuses in recent months.

When asked about the allegations that he is secretly planning to destroy American sovereignty, Bush replied:

"It's quite comical, actually, when you realize the difference between reality and what some people are talking on TV about," Bush said. "You lay out a conspiracy and then force people to try to prove it doesn't exist.

"There are some people who would like to frighten our fellow citizens into believing that relations between us are harmful for our respective peoples," Bush said, accusing opponents of engaging in "political scare tactics."

"I just believe they're wrong," he said. "I believe it's in our interest to trade. I believe it's in our interest to dialogue. I believe it's in our interest to work out common problems for the good of our people."

In between fulminating about the dangers of this non-existent union, Schlafly has also been warning Americans about the dangers of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), claiming it is designed to “compel the United States to pay billions of private-enterprise dollars to the ISA bureaucrats, who can then transfer our wealth to socialist, anti-American nations (euphemistically called ‘developing countries’) ruled by corrupt dictators.”

And now, according to the Wall Street Journal, it looks as if President Bush is about to stiff her on that too.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/individuals/phyllis-schlafly?page=7

Schlafly made headlines at a conference for the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration by suggesting that "Congress ought to talk about impeachment" of Justice Anthony Kennedy, citing as specific grounds Justice Kennedy's deciding vote to abolish the death penalty for minors.
http://www.answers.com/topic/phyllis-schlafly

Did you forget that Hawkeye said his children were molested by a male babysitter?

So?? that mean all men should be assume to be child abusers or even more likely even to abusers then women?

All men are not child abusers, but most child abusers are male.

pedophilia in a thread about rape?

Firelfy?