A Critique of the Rape Culture.

[Read my script prior to reading this so that it does not skew your individual reading and perception of it.]

A Critique of the Rape Culture.

As developed in my script “Asleep in a Dream”, I have posited the idea that we are much too keen to condemn rapists. This will appear shocking only in so far as it is true. The Dialectical thinker in me should like to think that I owe a deep-down buried debt to Stanley Kubrick; his rendition of A Clockwork Orange, whose original novel I never read, presented the most sympathetic and pitiable rapist and (unwitting) murderer that I had ever encountered. It is truly the power of Art to accomplish that.

The rapist is a product of society and society is responsible. This is not a renunciation of individual responsibility. In fact the one philosopher that seems to be most stringent a believer in individual accountability is Sartre. But Sartre as a Marxist kind of “came out the other end” (to put it very dialectically) and seems to make the strongest case, post-humo(ro)usly, against the contemporary feminists. Fitting, since he his self dated a feminist through-out the entirety of his adult professional life. [Score Sartre!] In the Sartrean view rape is all ways the woman’s fault. It is the man’s fault too of course. It is every one’s fault. The dialectical confluence of human wills produce the tragedy. We all get the war that we deserve. It is a moral reading of Shakespeare that prioritises Justice over Mercy. And yet it is in this sense one of the most Mercifal. No one singularly is to blame; no scape-goat receives the Shadows of the other men or the negative Animi of the other women. It is a mark of psychological maturity that one can ac-knowledge this. And the average paranoid, unfriendly college student will be the last to grasp it. So be it. First time for every thing.

How is it then that the rape victim gets what she deserves? Or what he deserves, if we are to be fair and honest? Is it that she should have known better? A certain feminist strain implies this, even if it consciously denies it. Fascistic Feminism tends to expect women to behave in accord with THEIR gender role, THEIR objectification of women. They take this to such an extreme that gender roles and objectification have become memes. WERE they items of concern hither-to? Or are they merely objects of knowledge NOW as a part of the feminist regime? All knowledge is a function of power, a la Foucault, right?

So the feminists set the precedent for violence against women by employing MORAL violence in an attempt to make women conform. They objectify men by compelling men to perceive women a CERTAIN WAY. This imposition upon [male]man as subject renders him no alternative except as Object. Typical Sartrean analysis.

Why is it that I cite no feminine sources here? It is because to exploit them for ethos would be akin to rape. I intuited this in my early note-books. I could produce them as evidence if you would like; they are very tattered. (As though that mattered or flattered.*)

But surely the feminists do not have that much influence; they are merely Reactionary. They want to em-power women by imitating men. They do not command respect; they demand it. Their behavior is all ways going to be patriarchal, and for some one who has worked against patriarchy with pain-staking endurance and Angst for years, having intuited its dangers before-hand, having suffered mental turmoil at the thought of these injustices, and having been met with the injustices one’s self [and there-by to some degree calmed as by a surly cigarette] I am not prone to take any contemporary American Feminist seriously. Neither should she, were she actually secure, care if I do.

*Flat earth theory.

Enough of that.

Let us get to the grand point of it.

Rape Culture is symptomatic of an impersonal culture. This is not an attack upon introversion. Introverts tend to be the most personal and they command the greatest respect. It is our conventional conformist culture in fact, which the extraverts are more demonstrably guilty of (though not by a great margin necessarily, except that they are prone in the Jungian view to be rather ignorant of Personal Motives, and so the introverts must keep their silence in self-preservation) that creates anti-social behavior. TO cite Watts: We have no society. We have a mob.

We all get the war that we deserve because we fuel paranoia. Feminist rhetoric if any thing is the oil that sets the other lumber a-flame. Its angle is entirely that of VICTIMHOOD. No epistemological investigation is made here. It s approach is nothing short of Fascistic. “Rape is never a Woman’s Fault” should SCREAM Orwellian, especially when the campaign that it is a slogan for essentially forbids men and women in the state of California to have sex whilst BUZZED. So I have to ask: If two individuals are inebriated, and they sleep volitionally with one another, who is to blame? Both, as be-fits Accountability? Not if it is legally “rape” and there-by “never the woman’s fault”. Feminists take the position of victim in order to assert sexual domination and legal discrimination against Men, and Men even in the highest repute have to bite their tongues about it, un-less of course Controversy was how they ATTAINED status to begin with.

I do not find that that commands Respect. Not at all.

In my script I show a protagonist that begins to advocate for rape. But to him it is only an abstraction. He is marginalised as a rapist (admittedly with his own consent) due to the mis-communications typical of Romantic love, as they come into conflict with the Fascistic stringencies of the legal system in which he finds his self and the Culture it has created.

He is not patriarchal. He is not a chauvinist. He is not even a misogynist. His misanthropy is a reaction (admittedly an unstable one) to his pre-dicament. It is an a priori ethic based in a dubious accusation, NOT an a priori ethic based in actual violence. Violence was the example set to him by condemnation. Isolation severed him from society. Insecurity fueled his paranoia. What he says is not the author’s advocacy. It is the logical conclusion to a mind that tries to make sense of Absurdity. When the “woman” has become the personification of a hostile society, he has no further reason to be civil(ised).

Feminism does little to arm women (or men![And me!]) against rape. One site even deliberately de-nounced a scientific cure for date rape, but not on the grounds that chemistry is unreliable epistemologically. Rather, their whole ‘advocacy’ was to ‘console victims’ [survivors. What ever. They are being phallogocentric.] by assuring them that this was ‘never their fault’.

Pity is a power attitude, eh? Pity as a power attitude, yea.

Their advocacy is totally fruit-less. They do not intend to prevent crime but to exploit victims for publicity. And per chance to punish perpetrators. They commit the fallacy of the Other. They project their own demons upon him: The stereo-typical rapist. Yet we are never justified in cruelty as a response to cruelty. As de Beauvoir pointed out in her Ethics of Ambiguity we never have access to an other’s Ethical Sanctity. The rapist is justified in his own mind usually, and we only have OUR own minds for reference; all other claims are Bad Faith. This does not mean that we become Relativists, leveling all moral reasoning to Nihilism. It DOES mean that, to cite Watts, we “recognize the relativity of [our] own emotional involvement,” as though we were “a spider and a wasp”. The reason that existentialist ethics work (what Americans all ways want: ‘Solvency’) is that they allow us to prosecute criminals but not to persecute them. As per Nietzsche: We judge their actions not their souls. Simple. To judge their souls is cruel, for we can only project aspects of our own except where personal experience with this individual is concerned. And we are much too unkind to scape-goats; they allow a release for our own “animalistic” sides (to use an un-flattering and archaic meaning of the word “animal”). We are never justified in seeking vengeance; we can only take those actions that WE deem practically and morally necessary to re-habilitate these people and ESPECIALLY to ensure (and insure) that what they did does NOT happen to them in prison, for then our prisons become meaningless. We cannot solve the problem if we support institutions that perpetuate these cycles of abuse and  then release the Abused back in to the wild. And an even greater cruelty would be to never release them at all.

This is not Romantic idealistic or naive. This is not pathos. This is a logical conclusion from the very ethics that Decency and Feminism (too very disparate trends in life) e-spouse.

In the mean-time we must cultivate a more social society in civilian life. Not a more extraverted society; we have had enough of that. But one that is more honest. We get the war that we deserve. That may sound like rape rhetoric but it is practical to putting an end to this. If the feminists are willing to surrender the false sense of power that they derive from the miseries of these (men and) women. And by “these” I mean this with deliberate ambiguity, not drawing a line between victim and perpetrator in what is a Cycle of Abuse. Some one who has been fascinated with this since before he entered in to the college environment and before it was a popular topic is entitled to his opinion from years of re-search. After all: It was not initiated in self-defense or self-interest. One begins to wonder why so many college students are so adamant about “preventing rape on college campuses” that it has become the norm to be un-approachable and dismissive. This is not an attitude of personal entitlement; it terrifies me. No one is born evil, that I know of. We learn evil. We are tempted to it. And the greater the evil that hangs over us the more un-reasonable the temptation. Try an experiment. Try dis-confirmation. Isolate your self from people. Experience solitary confinement. Experience marginalisation. Experience what Marcel called the absence of “Availability”, that crucial linch-pin of his Work. Heidegger addresses it as well, as do many genuine spiritual teachers. As does Marie-Louise von Franz in her elaborations upon Eros. As does Martin Buber in the notion of the I-Thou relationship. As does Deleuze, speaking from the negative angle, in explaining capitalistic schizophrenia and paranoia. As does any one who has had the heart and courage to open up to strangers and to be Receptive.

We get the war that we deserve. Feminists perpetuate Rape Culture by creating the very environment of paranoia and violence that justifies it. There is no way out of this; one should have to take Camus’ Leap to deny that the LOGICAL CONCLUSION OF THE AMERICAN FEMINIST NARRATIVE IS RAPE. It is not the “logic of a rapist”, and if they deny this they merely stifle the Unconscious, which as Woodman warns, as von Franz warns, and as Jung warns, will all ways have its say. The Shadow of society – the scape-goat – is of course ALL SO a product of this. We are responsible for the kind of society we live in; the Jungians and the existentialists (at least Sartrean ones) agree here. And yet the American Feminists insist on victimhood. Their entire effort to eliminate “rape rhetoric” is an effort to dis-possess their selves of the kind of Accountability and Responsibility that would be their greatest weapon if only they picked it up. But that would all so be the two sided sword that they would impale their selves upon, for once a problem has been transcended the war has ended. There is no longer a reason for feminism; at least it is not as great. No more jobs for people running Feminist Literary journals. No more lucrative law-suits. You can see why I distrust most social justice movements in the United States, the capitalist empire. Their idea of “justice” will make more evolved thinkers cringe and face-palm.

Did she deserve it? This question will be drawn from the muck of Shadow and Animus projection, where it is identified with “rape rhetoric” (a Fascistic distinction because it denies, as has been demonstrated, Logical Continuity simply in fear of what the inevitable conclusions are, and that it stifles intellectual discussion as though intellectuality were a “male” and not “masculine” trait), dust it off, and placed upon the shelves of Genuine Inquiry into the Metaphysical nature of Victimhood. But the passions must be assuaged. We can do this be recognising that the violent urges that one feels, which threaten Reason in these respects, are no different from the violence that is opposed; by battling monsters we become them at times. Feminism did not react to Rape Culture; it created it, even if it did not invent rape. And the labels we assign to things which are ambiguous (and sexuality is deeply ambiguous and difficult, however the average college student might try to escape this fact) are not to be confused with the things them selves if we want to engender genuine communication. The pun there was intended. To engender communication here means to refine and re-define communication BETWIXT the genders. Yet this cannot be forced, only done by example. One last point: If you do not like the logical conclusion of your own arguments, and if denying logic in favour of Fascism and reactionary violence will not do: CHANGE THY PREMISES.

Dm.A.A.