I’ve seen my fair share of bizarre anti-feminist articles, but this one takes the woman-bashing cake.
In Growing mongrels: Feminism's legacy, Kevin McCullough at WorldNetDaily argues that feminism is responsible for men turning into rape-crazy animals. (And I’m not going to even get into his use of the word “mongrel.� Crazy.) Now before any guys get their panties in a bunch, please note that I am not saying this about men. McCullough is.
Using baffling logic, McCullough says that violent rape is a direct result of feminism’s success. His examples of the consequences of feminism (very importantly-titled Exhibit A, B, and C) are a gang rape of a 13 year-old, an increase in pre-teen girls having “rectal sex,� and the sexual assault of a second grade girl.
How, you ask, could feminism have single-handedly raped small children while promoting that 10 year-olds have anal? Easy answer: equality=rape.
Feminists sought the desire, coming out of the '60s, to engage in sex similarly to what they perceived men were able to do – without consequence. The problem is "hooking up" has a more problematic effect for women because of the possibility of pregnancy. For that reason, taxpayer-provided birth control and, eventually, abortion on demand were advocated for, because consequences totally mess up the idea that "women can have sex just like men."
Not only did this idea that women should be able to have sex without popping out kids lead to a scourge of single moms, absentee dads and extramarital affairs--it also made men so mad they could rape.
Perhaps the most damning of all is the treatment of little girls went from making them a special princess in our heart, to thinking of them as one of the guys. Coarse behavior replaced manners. Using vulgarities replaced words of value. Men became demoralized and, in many ways, built up resentment and became more aggressive than ever.
But here comes the kicker--it’s not this built-up resentment and aggression that’s to blame for rape. Women are practically raping themselves, it seems.
The problem is that women are now equally aggressive...Girls aged 10, 11 and 12 should never even think that anal intercourse is acceptable, much less participating in it at twice the rate they did 10 years ago.
...Two generations ago, if a mob of seven boys decided to sexually penetrate a 13-year-old girl, society would have levied such a penalty they would have been near insane to even try it...In Exhibit A's case, the girl just this week changed her mind and said that the rape was consensual...Should an innocent 13-year-old girl ever come to the place in her life that she accepts forcible penetration by seven boys? Feminists think it's great. They argue that it shows that she's in control of her destiny.
Feminists think it’s great? What the fuck is this dude talking about?
I wonder if McCullough just sits around making shit up. “Feminists like gang-rape...yeah, that sounds awesome!�
After a nice long article of blaming feminists for male aggression, rape, and “rectal� sex, McCullough brings it home.
Boundless sex – the goal of modern feminism – has had many lasting effects, but one of its longest lasting and, I fear, one that will not be easy to undo is the mongrelization of men and boys.
Well, I’m glad we have that all cleared up. You’ll have to excuse me, I haven’t had my quota of boundless sex today.
Note: I’m not going to argue the details of the particular case McCullough cites, because who knows what went on there. Here’s some background.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Feminists responsible for “mongrelization� of men and the rape of children.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/3271
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Back in the good ol' days when only men had consequence-less sex, who were they shagging exactly? each other???
What is it about wingnuts that makes them forget basic grammar while in rant mode? The opinion he spouts is despicable and without any factual basis, which is bad enough, but he can't even be an idiot fluent in his native language. Egregious Exhibit A: "feminists sought the desire . . . to engage" This is a redundancy. One can seek to engage or desire to engage, but it is not possible to seek to desire to engage, unless he means feminists were looking for aphrodisiacs because we didn't want sex at all. We had to look for the means to want sex before we could engage in it. I can't even find a way to comment intelligently on something so devoid of sense.
Egregious Exhibit B: "special princess of OUR HEART." How does a group of people exist with only one heart? Do they have a schedule for its use? I suppose he obviously wrote this on one of the days someone else had the heart. It would explain how he could write something this stupid; he had no bloodflow to his brain.
Seriously, there is so much wrong with this, I wanted to start with the most trivial of problems and work up from there.
I didn't realize that raping only started 20 years ago. I guess any stories about rape prior to that must have been myths or fictions. It makes me wonder what this guy does in his spare time with all his pent up aggression.
I can't believe you all mongrelized me! Thanks for the boundless rectal sex, though. That was pretty cool. ;)
WTF is this guy talking about?
"taxpayer-provided birth control"
When did this program start?
And the 13 year old girl and the feminists who think it's great. This guy is living is some sort of alternate reality or something. Truely some of the most bizzar crap spewed this week.
I can't believe this article was even published. Creepy.
Why don't you manly men just leave us women alone? And what does it say if men, in identifying with women as fellow human beings rather than some mystical Other, start raping them? If this is really what McCullough is trying to say then men need rescuing from one another! But I don't need some nut journalist telling me men are in dire straits, there's enough out there to demonstrate to the densest that men are at least as actively abusing one another as women. What those fellows need is a liberation movement of their own that focuses on breaking out of these patterns rather than putting women down.
LOL. This is awesome.
:0)
Growing mongrels: Feminism's legacy
Nice.
This is exactly what Wendy Shalit says in her book "A Return to Modesty." She for some reason believes that the sexual revolution brought with it a huge increase in sexualized violence. She takes the bullshit lipservice that chivalry pays to respecting women at its face, but is sure that all women having sex outside of marriage are unhappy and being raped all the time. It's obvious that she's starting with the proposition that modesty and sexual repression are good, and then ordering the Universe around the first supposition.
Yes, there's lots of bonkers stuff there, but there's also an interesting point. He's criticising the part of modern feminism which was a sexual liberation movement, because of some of its cultural consequences.
Once, if a 13-year old girl had had sex with a 13-year old boy and gotten pregnant, it would have been uncontroversial that she was a victim and he was the culprit. People would try and deter 13 year old from impregnating 13 year old girls by punishing them for it. After women's lib, that's not a position which is as sustainable as it used to be, you can't place the blame upon him for something she was an equal participant in.
His problem is that he hate this, because he thinks it's entirely appropriate to blame and punish boys for sexual behaviour in order to protect girls.
In Exhibit A, the group sex, the standard moralist position is that she has been cruelly victimised, the boys should not have done it - regardless of whether she consented - and they should be beaten to within an inch of their lives. These moralists hate the idea that, with women's lib and with her as an equal participant, it becomes hard to maintain her victimhood and to place the blame for what happened upon the boys. Surely they're all equally to blame?
I think this cultural change has happened, and it was caused by feminism. If you weed out the wingnuttery, there is a point at the bottom of the article.
nik, I think you and the original author are putting the cart before the horse. Blaming a 13-year-old girl's having sex on feminism is making a very simple reason for a very complex problem. The 13-year-old did not have sex because she was liberated. We don't know WHY she chose to do it, or even if she did. All we know is that she is no longer accusing the boys. To say that it is because of feminism is bull. There's a whole lot of problems with society nowadays, but feminism is a solution, not a problem.
"Perhaps the most damning of all is the treatment of little girls went from making them a special princess in our heart, to thinking of them as one of the guys. "
Men used to only rape other men, but now that a woman can be "one of the guys," they rape women as well? I learn something new every day.
So let me see if I get this right: Women fought for the right to act like men, and now that they're doing so the world as we know it is going to shit. Hmmm...maybe we did get it wrong--maybe the MEN should have had a sexual revolution so that they could act more like women.
From my understanding of history, rape has been around for a while, and usually it was the woman who was blamed and ostracized because of it. Oh wait...that still happens today...
I give up. I can't even touch the crazy of this article.
I'm not saying the 13-year old girl had sex because of feminism.
I am saying that feminism has limited our ability to treat 13-year old girls as victims, and boys as the culprits responsible for their plight. That's a big cultural change. Unlike McCullough, I think that's either a neccesary evil or not a bad thing at all, but I think he's right that it has happened as a consequence of feminism and women's sexual liberation.
Once, if a 13-year old girl had had sex with a 13-year old boy and gotten pregnant, it would have been uncontroversial that she was a victim and he was the culprit. - nik
I've got to disagree. If the sex was consensual, his actions would be considered irresponsible but understandable (wink wink, nudge nudge). She would be considered a slut or a whore.
"Once, if a 13-year old girl had had sex with a 13-year old boy and gotten pregnant, it would have been uncontroversial that she was a victim and he was the culprit." - nik
I've got to disagree. If the sex was consensual, his actions would be considered irresponsible but understandable (wink wink, nudge nudge). She would be considered a slut or a whore.
Is it really possible for a 13 year old girl to give consent to having sex with 7 boys? She doesn't have the experience to know what that means. At least I hope she doesn't. Perhaps one of the children saw something like this on a video(it looked easy).
The situation becomes rape when she decides she doesn't want to complete these acts. Does a 13 year old know that it will eventually hurt?
The culpability of the males would be directly related to their ages(17 year olds know a lot more than 12 year olds) as well as what sort of force or intimidation was used. She definitely is not qualified to determine whether she was raped or not.
The idea that we now live in a feminist society is ridiculous. Women still do most of the housework and childcare, make less money, get sexually harrassed and raped. This is NOT MY femitopia.
Feminism has made some remarkable inroads, but the answer to the question "Are we there yet?" is no.
Nik, The point at end of the article made no sense is crazy to boot:
Should an innocent 13-year-old girl ever come to the place in her life that she accepts forcible penetration by seven boys? Feminists think it's great. They argue that it shows that she's in control of her destiny. I dare to disagree. She knows it's wrong, and she will hurt for the rest of her life from the effects of that afternoon.
Boundless sex – the goal of modern feminism – has had many lasting effects, but one of its longest lasting and, I fear, one that will not be easy to undo is the mongrelization of men and boys.
And it's killing our girls.
A better title would have been "Feminism have taken on more stereotypically male gender roles, but men have not taken on traditional female gender roles". Women have changed while men haven't changed much.
if children having sex isn't still big news then explain this to me:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/4764417.stm
Seems like a feminist posing as a man made these comments to upset the gullible
What I find most interesting about this is that he's using the same kind of faulty logic that the anti-sex work feminists use.
Should an innocent 13-year-old girl ever come to the place in her life that she accepts forcible penetration by seven boys? Feminists think it's great. They argue that it shows that she's in control of her destiny.
Sounds a lot like the old argument that sex work isn't empowering because women don't choose to be raped.
It's really simple- if it's voluntary, it's not rape; if it's rape, it isn't voluntary. And if women who were raped tell the police that they weren't, it isn't feminism that's to blame. Women are far more likely to report a non-sexual physical assault because the embarrassing element is gone. It is the shame of the sexual aspect of rape that makes women less likely to testify against their attackers. I think if anything, more women are reporting rape these days because societal views towards sex and victims of sex crimes are changing- two things which feminism deserves most of the credit for.
Why is this even being debated? As any woman who has been accused of adultery in Nigeria or Pakistan or Iran knows, feminism is the only sure bastion against rape, not the cause of it. Feminism, by definition, is the political manifestation of the humanized consideration of women. Rape, on the other hand, is perhaps the single physical act that is most closely related to the degradation and violation of that consideration. This should flow from no more than basic, common sense. The fact that here in the United States, which is supposed to have one of the world's most enlightened views of gender relatgions, that anyone feels a need to respond to Mr. McCullogh's article by itself, is a sad statement on our society.
Hey! Do you think it's amusing to ridicule people with drug problems? Huh? HUH? I think it's time for people to stop viewing the crippling mental disorders caused by crack use as some kind of joke. Kevin McCullough is obviously a short time away from ending up in an institution drooling and jibbering to himself. Pray for the unfortunate man.
I disagree that men werer blamed more in the past for rape. If a woman was raped, she obviously did something wrong to invite it, and was severely ostracized or metaphorically stoned/persecuted in public.
It's interesting that I first read the Aisha Simmons interview and all the arguing over that, and then read this entry. Here we are (as a culture) blaming women for not adequately dressing themselves, or being strippers, or whatever, as the cause of rape because men just can't handle themselves. These are the people who are "mongrelizing" men. Feminists are opposed to this. ITS WHAT FEMINISM IS. Seeing that men and women are people, individuals, who don't ascribe to these petty roles everyone is putting them in.