In response to words printed in a scary thing called a newspaper, available in both paper and electronic format, some wingnut feminists are calling for a man to be fired from his position and some other men to be forced to change their words to reflect what the feminists feel is a better choice of words. The “better choice” is of course the choice that best obscures some icky facts feminists don’t wike!
The opinion that rape confers special victimhood status on the “survivor” is apparently outrageous because, according to the UltraViolet petition, no person is allowed to question the veracity of rape claims. From female victims. The jury is still out when it comes to male victims. The reality that lowering the bar on what constitutes rape to ground level will inevitably lead to a whole lot of women being held accountable for rape will no doubt take a while for the feminist mind to process. And the growing list of men falsely accused of sexual misconduct and punished by kangaroo courts on college campuses, is met with utter indifference from the rape culture crowd. Meh. Who cares, right?
The whole rape culture argument has devolved into pure hysteria – totally irrational and devoid of any evidence, facts or truths – this video from Christina Hoff Summers aka The Factual Feminist lays out the case brilliantly.
But what really, really irritates me is the second part of the Huffington Post story: the Washington Post changed a headline in response to outrage from fascists who refuse to allow any truth that doesn’t meet their ideological framework to be proclaimed. Here is the truth that is pissing them off so badly:
Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father.
Start with the threat that girls face from men. One of the most comprehensive portraits of sexual and physical abuse of girls (and boys) comes from the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect. As the figure above indicates, children are more likely to be abused when they do not live in a home with their married father. What’s more: girls and boys are significantly more likely to be abused when they are living in a cohabiting household with an unrelated adult—usually their mother’s boyfriend. Indeed, the report notes that “only 0.7 per 1,000 children living with two married biological parents were sexually abused, compared to 12.1 per 1,000 children living with a single parent who had an unmarried partner.” The results from this federal study are consistent with academic research that indicates that “girls who are victimized are … more likely to have lived without their natural fathers,” and that the risk is especially high when a boyfriend or stepfather is in the picture.
The risk of physical abuse also increases when a child lives without her father, once again, particularly when an unrelated boyfriend is in the home. A 2005 study published in Pediatrics found that “[c]hildren residing in households with unrelated adults were nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries than children residing with 2 biological parents.”
Women are also safer in married homes. As the figure above (derived from a recent Department of Justice study) indicates, married women are the least likely to be victimized by an intimate partner. They are also less likely to be the victims of violent crime in general.
Overall, another U.S. Department of Justice study found that never-married women are nearly four times more likely to be victims of violent crime, compared to married women. The bottom line is that married women are less likely to be raped, assaulted, or robbed than their unmarried peers.
What’s going on here? Why are women safer when married and children safer when living with their married biological parents? For girls, the research tells us that marriage provides a measure of stability and commitment to the adults’ relationship, that married biological fathers are more likely to be attentive and engaged with their children because they expect the relationship to be enduring. As a consequence, unrelated males are less likely to have sustained interaction with children of the family when dad has a day-in-day-out presence in the home. More generally, the “emotional support and the supervision” that engaged fathers provide to their children can limit their vulnerability to potential predators, as David Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire Crimes Against Children Research Center, has observed.
In other news, water is wet and fire has a 100% probability of being hot.
Chief Royal Shrieky Witch herself, the lovely Amanda Marcotte, immediately jumps on the backpedal express, claiming the article is really just a threat to women: Get married or you face the violent consequences, ladies. Because clearly there is no distinction to be made between an observation of fact and a threat.
Bananas are yellow.
Did you just threaten me?
Then Amanda goes on to explain that married people tend to be wealthier which allows them to live in nice neighborhoods and they kind of like that and tend not to fuck up their lives with violence. While it is true that wealthy people are the ones who seem to grasp that marriage is an important facet of happiness for most people, marriage is also one of the best ways to accumulate wealth with one important caveat: it has to be a lasting marriage. Get married and stay married and, according to the Census Bureau (2010) your median net worth when you are between 55 and 64 will be $261,405. Compare that to $71,428 for a man heading a household, and $39,043 for a woman heading a household.
Is marriage automatically going to make a couple wealthy? Of course not, but it hardly takes a mathematical genius to know that two people earning minimum wage are going to be able to afford a much nicer lifestyle than one person earning minimum wage. Toss a kid in the mix when you only have one income and you are fucked. And not only are you and the kid personally fucked, you create a society in which kids living near you are less likely to be successful, too. Being surrounded by women who make stupid, financially disastrous choices seems to teach children that stupid, financially disastrous choices are the way to go.
What is behind this feminist hatred of simple facts? Why are feminists so opposed to long-term married couples with children accumulating wealth and living in safe communities? Why are they opposed to children growing up in homes with their biological parents, protected from violence, abuse and assault?
Well, which way do those couples tend to vote?
How does rape culture fit in here? It’s the principle means by which the feminist media convinces women, especially young college aged women, that men are dangerous predators who will harm them and their children and being a single mother is so much more fun! Whee!
Get married and stay married, ladies and your odds of living in poverty just dropped dramatically! $260K net worth vs $40K! You’re less likely to be the victim of violent assault, more likely to be happy (if you are committed to the marriage and not to yourself, that is) and your children are less likely to be abused.
But think of all those welfare and social safety net programs that aren’t gonna be needed anymore! And that is the real threat, isn’t it? Who works in these programs? Who earns a nice state or federal salary for doing what amounts to bullshit work? Who counts on an endless supply of single women dragging their children through poverty to earn their own comfortable living?
Women depend heavily for jobs on some sectors that aren’t doing well in the recovery, particularly government.
Well, isn’t that curious? Must be a coincidence, right? Lots of liberal arts educated white ladies working in government – the demographic most likely to identify as feminist – and they don’t like the facts about lasting marriages broadcast too loudly. But they do like the rape culture narrative out there front and center to plant the fear of men deep in women’s souls.
Follow the money. It always comes down to that, doesn’t it, with ideologues? The money leads to one place: single women, terrified of rape and men and marriage, create jobs for rich white women. Feminism promotes the well-being of women and girls?
About as much as Hitler promoted the well-being of homosexuals, the disabled and Jews, if you ask me.
Lots of love,