This is a quick blog post in response to another blog. Read this beauty of a post. In short: retrospective withdrawal of consent at any point in the future.
I replied with a comment which I suspect will never be published so I will paste it here instead for future reference.
I kept hearing an echo from the past but now I know where I have heard this before. I know why this rings a bell. I know why this sounds familiar. I know what this is. I recognise this beast. How history moves in cycles but each the same thing can reappear in slightly different garb to evade the societal immune system analogue. Just like a virus once fought off must mutate a little to evade the gatekeepers of common sense. But I already have an inoculation be way of an education in history.
Let me tell you why this is a visitor from the past, a plague we have met and defeated before. It’s called oppressive etiquette. We know where and when this has been the practice before and what has been the effects and the collateral damage.
The Jim Crow laws of the old US south where any black man could be lynched simply because a good white girl felt a little something, a little upset, a little embarrassed or a little cruel.
That’s right folks. This is Jim Crow in feminist garb. The human need to hate has reasserted itself. It has evaded the societal immune system by mutating a non-racist shell to its structure. That is how the feminist movement has morphed into a movement resembling the KKK. That is how the article here passes muster.
Lets look at the biological dynamics. Males competing for females. Competition for females means competing for effective ownership and with ownership comes protection of his seed, his prodigy and her children. Males competing against other males and males protecting females against other males. The females need protection but protection means ownership.
But here is the rub. The really ugly biological part for men. Females not only need physical protection, they need to feel scared, to feel threatened. As an instinct it is as strong as the nurturing instinct. Enter the “rape culture” hysteria. Over the last few decades women have
never been safer. There has probably never been a safer group in all history than white middle class western women. Deep down women can not function sanely in safety. They are in the element only in the presence of a safety provider. They want a man in uniform but a man in uniform needs an “other” to justify his uniform. Thus is set the stage for the great biological game called “Let You and Him Fight” (over pretty old me) and to the victor goes the mating rights.
War is the ultimate expression of this in macro. Wars are fought to protect women and to make the women feel protected. In WWI the white feather brigade were giving the message “no fight, no nooky”.
The tragedy of women is that they are not and can not be happy when genuinely safe and thus the paradox that as women became more safe the level hysteria about rape is increasing as witnessed by the dramatic decline in rape over the last 20 years.
What is the “rape culture” hysteria about? It is about setting men against men to “stop” the “rape culture”, about getting men to fight other men. Feminists are playing out a biological script fooling themselves that they are actually doing something real. There is just one thing more scary to a woman than rape and that is to be ignored, to not be the centre of competing male attention. If men will not haze and harass other men then the women will do this for themselves by belittling and insulting ,men at every opportunity. If men live in peace with each other then women will be more and more angry. The ability to pull a retrospective ace out from the past at any time in the future free from cross examination or challenge is a license kick unlikely and unwanted men and the likely and wanted men will not do this.
All of this analysis paints women as acted upon actors in a grand biological play but don’t worry because men also have biological imperative issues which space will not allow me to expand on.