Feminist Rape Constructs

Let us first review the facts.

Mount Holyoke College is an all-women’s college that recently began admitting male students who self-identify as female. And then, in a spasm of self-righteousness, there was a successful student-led effort to get a college performance of The Vagina Monologues cancelled because that play was insufficiently sensitive to those women who were vagina-less. We know that such creatures exist because we recently began admitting them to our college.

At American colleges, The Vagina Monologues is traditionally — ah, tradition! — performed on Valentine’s Day because, and this is important to note, American colleges generally don’t have a clue. But, and this is also important to note, if ever you think that this vapid cluelessness has disappeared down Alice’s rabbit hole forever, up it pops again later, right in your news feed, still chattering at us about gender constructs.

So then, speaking of gender constructs, let us pursue the will of the sexual revolution all the way out to the end. Unless it is endless, of course, but we can still make some pretty good time. I think. After a while you lose track because the outer darkness doesn’t keep their mile markers maintained very well. And the roads are really bad.

The Vagina Monologues — that sexist throwback to earlier misogynistic times — was performed the way it was by the thoughtless feminist minions in order “to raise awareness of gender-based violence.” But if we have now gotten to the place in our absurdist theater review where we are laboring to avoid offending all the women-without-vaginas out there, I don’t know why we shouldn’t follow this to the utter frozen limit. We need to recognize that some rapists self-identify as tender, sensitive, and thoughtful caregivers. What is more of a social construct than violence? We need to raise awareness of that, people.

Of course, I hasten to break satiric voice here because we live in a time when satire has become virtually impossible. Someone might think that I am the one urging that we go easy on rapists, when it is I who want to deal with rapists with actual biblical justice. It is feminism that is laying all the intellectual — heh, so to speak — groundwork for a robust defense of both rape and rapists.

Do you doubt what I say? What, then, are the limits of self-identification? When does a poor lost soul bump into nature as it is, the world the way it is, the eternal law of Almighty God as it actually is? When do we say, and on what authority, that we don’t care about your stupid self-identifications? If a man with a penis can get sympathy on a modern college campus because his womanhood has been insulted, bringing a blush to the maidenly cheeks of us all, then what isn’t possible? What can’t self-identification do? I ask this question indignantly, going so far as to toss my curls at you.

And you can’t just tell me that there is such a limit. You have to tell me why it is there, who put it there, why the rapist needs to obey it, and why we need to obey it. Obey? Obey? There’s that misogynistic word again.

Be careful how you answer the question though. We are up against nature, and nature’s God, the Father of Jesus Christ, who through the Spirit gave us the books of Deuteronomy and Matthew both. When we come before Him, we find all our self-identifications going up in a blaze, like tissue paper in a wood stove, and we discover that we must answer to the name He has given us, and we must answer for the way we behaved in the natural world He gave us. For feminism this will be, I trust you have noticed, problematic.

Share on Facebook92Tweet about this on Twitter19Share on Google+0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, off-topic, or semi-Pelagian.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

17 thoughts on “Feminist Rape Constructs

  1. Presumably a man self-identifying as a woman must in these enlightened times be considered to have full reproductive rights over his own body including over the baby that he cannot actually have.

    This means that abortion can no longer be portrayed as a “women’s rights” issue. Surely society must equally respect a man’s right to choose.

  2. Presumably a man self-identifying as a woman must in these enlightened times be considered to have full reproductive rights over his own body including over the baby that he cannot actually have.

    This means that abortion can no longer be portrayed as a “women’s rights” issue. Surely society must equally respect a man’s right to choose.

    Well played, sir. Well played.

  3. John, if we carry it out further on the self-identification spectrum, realizing that a man can self-identify as a rabbit, then abortion becomes an issue of “hare’s rights”. And in a way, perhaps the Pope’s recent words about Catholics breeding like rabbits take on a more literal meaning.

  4. I wonder how long before the obligatory “so what?” arrives.

    Sometimes an argument (viz. gender self-identification) doesn’t need a careful intellectual to lead it down the path by the hand for it to meet its contrary. It has the cow patties of absurdity as its bed in the first place, and has never quite escaped the inherent stench.

    And yet, people keep trying to polish a turd.

  5. There is a great article by Zoe Heller, a self-identified feminist, in this week’s New York Review of Books called Rape on the Campus. She shows how the recent laws on college campuses regarding rape actually end up encouraging the practice. Maybe a small portion of feminism has sobered up the morning after.

  6. Come on Doug, this is too easy! Why can they admit em-penised, self-identified “women” but rail against rapists? Because of that ancient moral code that dates all the way back to the 1960s: do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.

    You and I and a few of your readers know that that form of morality is spineless and self-defeating but the tender hearted feminists don’t. They try to actually live by it. Until they run into masculinity then they want to hurt someone else and down comes the moral house of cards.

  7. Barnabas beat me to the punch! I immediately thought of that Monty Python bit as well, and have it bookmarked for just such occasions. Priceless.

    On another note, I believe Thomas should endeavor, starting right now and for the sake of all humanity, to write down all his thoughts on every subject so that he can share them with the rest of us. His comment, spoken with such authority and clarity (though sadly followed by an expression of apathy that has me thinking he may not take me up on my suggestion), leads me to believe that he just might be the final arbiter of all things…or at least all things internet-discussion-related.

    So, please, Thomas: enlighten us further.