This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I work at a library/town hall, and was going through a big load of donations the other day, when I came across a teenager/young adult book called "50 reasons why its good to be a girl", and it was the most misandrist piece of trash I have ever read in my entire life - Men have "womb envy", men commit crimes, men don't live as long, etc. Fortunately, I was alone, so I ripped the book up to shreds and tossed it in the garbage can. Is this what we, as a country market towards teenage girls? No wonder why women have the attitudes they have.
NOTE: The book itself was written in 1993 (13 years ago).
Good article. This part was worth the whole thing:QuoteTom said while sitting in a courtroom during his divorce, he realized he was a victim of abuse.
"I looked up, and I see a poster saying 'Are you a victim of domestic violence?' And I start reading the questions, and tears started coming down. I said, 'damn.' "
NEW YORK (CNN) -- A Delaware schoolteacher was charged Tuesday with 28 counts of raping a minor after she allegedly engaged in a weeklong sexual relationship with a 13-year-old student, police said.
Rachel L. Holt, a 34-year-old science teacher at Claymont Elementary School, faces additional charges that she allowed a 12-year-old friend of the victim to watch them have sex at her home, and that she gave both boys beer, New Castle County acting Police Chief Scott McLaren said.
Robert Ziegler, a spokesman for the Brandywine School District, confirmed that two boys were allegedly involved in the incident.
"One student was involved physically, and the other one observed," Ziegler said. (Watch what tipped off the boy's dad and see Holt's condo -- 1:12)
Police say Holt and the 13-year-old had sex 28 times between March 24 and March 31. Under Delaware law, the boy is too young to consent to sex.
Police began an investigation after the victim's father told police his son was having an inappropriate relationship with his teacher, New Castle police told reporters Tuesday.
The father "also indicated his son had lied to him about staying at a relative's home while he stayed overnight at Holt's residence," according to the county police Web site.
The affidavit in the case states Holt knew the victim's father would disapprove of the boy spending the night at her residence, and alleges Holt phoned the boy's father's girlfriend, pretended to be the boy's mother and obtained permission for the boy to stay at her Wilmington, Delaware, home.
Holt was jailed and bail set at $500,000. She has been placed on leave until further notice, school administrators said.
The woman, a teacher's aide, had been working at the day-care center for approximately four years, but the alleged abuse happened recently, in January, according to police.
NEW YORK - A Queens day-care worker was arrested Wednesday after being accused of sexually abusing a 4-year-old boy multiple times. Khemwatie Bedessie, 38, allegedly separated the boy from 14 to 16 other children during nap time, then took him into a bathroom where she sexually abused him, Queens District Attorney Richard A. Brown said.
"The child, I fear, may never recover from the emotional trauma that was allegedly inflicted upon him," said Brown.
An investigation began in early February after the boy told his mother of three alleged incidents at the Veda's Learning World day-care center in Ozone Park.
The incidents allegedly began in January and ended during the first week of February.
The woman, a teacher's aide, had been working at the day-care center for approximately four years, but the alleged abuse happened recently, in January, according to police.
The woman was arrested after turning herself in at a Queens child abuse center Wednesday morning.
Parents were asked to pick up their children early Wednesday and detectives were on hand to explain the situation.
"I got a call from work, so I rushed back now. I have no idea what's going on here," a parent said.
Calls to the day-care center were not returned.
Parents said the center would be closed Thursday, but according to the District Attorney's office, the licensed facility is not in danger of being shut down.
"There's no reason to believe at the moment that anyone within the management of the day-care center knew what transpired," Brown said.
Bedessie faces charges of first-degree rape, six counts of first-degree sex abuse, and endangering the welfare of a child, which can bring a sentence of 25 years in prison.
RUSH: Sunday in the Washington Post there was a piece by Michael Gurian. "Michael Gurian is a family therapist and he's founder of the Gurian Institute, an educational training organization." His most recent book written with Kathy Stevens is 'The Minds of Boys: Saving Our Sons from Falling Behind in School and in Life.'" So he's a good guy. He's got a good mission here, and his piece is called "Disappearing Act, Where Have All the Men Gone? -- No place good," he says, and he begins the piece this way -- and I'm going to just give you some excerpts because some of this stuff in here makes sense, and I think a lot of you will agree with it along with me. He says, "In the 1990s, I taught for six years at a small liberal arts college in Spokane, Washington. In my third year, I started noticing something that was happening right in front of me. There were more young women in my classes than young men, and on average, they were getting better grades than the guys. Many of the young men stared blankly at me as I lectured. They didn't take notes as well as the young women. They didn't seem to care as much about what I taught -- literature, writing and psychology. They were bright kids, but many of their faces said, 'Sitting here, listening, staring at these words -- this is not really who I am.' That was a decade ago, but just last month, I spoke with an administrator at Howard University in the District [of Columbia]. He told me that what I observed a decade ago has become one of the 'biggest agenda items' at Howard. 'We are having trouble recruiting and retaining male students,' he said.
"'We are at about a 2-to-1 ratio, women to men.'" At this point, I said, "Well, why is anybody surprised at this? What do you expect? The universities are feminized. They're 'politically correct.' They're filled with female-oriented propaganda. I wonder if that could be part of the problem." I mean, look, let's say you're a guy. When this news first came out yesterday of a 2-to-1 ratio, Snerdley had the typical horn-dog male response: "Alright, how do I get there?" instead of the sensible response, "Wait a minute. If there's a 2-to-1 ratio it means some smart guys aren't showing up because otherwise they'd go but the lure of meeting women is still not strong enough to overcome what they encounter when they get there." Now, what could that be? Well what kind of courses in the last ten years, 15 years, have female college students been treated to? Well, we've had courses like those taught by Catharine MacKinnon at the University of Michigan, which is "all sex is rape, including the sex of marriage." We've had major institutions of higher learning creating all of this animosity in women for men. They go to school, and they're told that their future is bleak and dismal and they're going to have to overcome all these obstacles because men are a bunch of predators. They can't be counted as fathers; you've got to keep them away from the kids because they'll abuse them.
"Get to know the social workers in your town because soon your kids are going to be being cared for by them, because you can't count on this worthless guy that you're going to marry out there. He's going to run out on you. He's going to have affairs with his secretary," and all that sort of stuff. Then you look at the courses that men have to take, "women's studies" and so forth and so on. I mean, these universities have been turned into citadels of feminism, citadels of liberalism, citadels of political correctness -- and that's not who a guy naturally is. Now, you can take a guy, and you can feminize him. Michael Kinsley and Alan Alda prove it. Most of the liberal guys in Washington have been feminized. They are case-history examples for how this has been done, but normal guys who don't want to end up like Alan Alda or Michael Kinsley or any of the other feminized "liberal lion" guys in Washington, DC. They're saying, "What good do I need to put up with this for?" Plus, why pay all this money to go there and listen and get preached to about what a rotten SOB I am just because of my gender? Well, let's continue with the piece.
"Howard is not alone. Colleges and universities across the country are grappling with the case of the mysteriously vanishing male. Where men once dominated, they now make up no more than 43% of students at American institutions of higher learning, according to 2003 statistics, and this downward trend shows every sign of continuing unabated. If we don't reverse it soon, we will gradually diminish the male identity, and thus the productivity and the mission, of the next generation of young men, and all the ones that follow." I've got a story here in the stack, by the way. Some state has just said that college experience -- not a degree, but college experience... Here it is. Indiana. "The Indiana State Police are dropping a longtime requirement that would-be troopers have some college education, a requirement that's been in place for more than a decade that says state police candidates must have either 60 credit hours of college or previous police or military experience. Starting as early as next year, trooper applicants will need only a high school diploma or to pass the General Education Development Test to apply for the agency. The superintendent says the goal is to increase the number of candidates, especially minorities who want to work..." Oh, don't let Jesse Jackson hear this! Oh, jeez.
What Jesse Jackson is going to take out of this is that we need to lower the education demands otherwise we're not going to get enough black candidates. That's not what the guy is saying, but if the Reverend Jackson gets a hold of this... I can tell you exactly why this is. They don't have enough candidates because there aren't enough men going to college at all, much less getting degrees, so their field of candidates for the state trooper position in Indiana is been depleted. So they gotta throw that out to expand the universe of applicants. It fits hand-in-glove with this story. "The trend of females overtaking males in college was initially measured in 1978." I would rewrite this. The trend of females overtaking...college was initially measured in 1978. Yet despite the well-documented disappearance of ever more young men from college campuses, we have yet to fully react to what has become a significant crisis. Largely, that is because of cultural perceptions about males and their societal role. Many times a week, a reporter or other media person will ask me: 'Why should we care so much about boys when men still run everything?'" Yeah, well, where the hell does that kind of asinine thinking come from? That comes from the class envy orientation that people get: Well, men are just powerful brutes! They run everything. Women are serving at their pleasure, blah, blah. Why should we give anything to them? Why should we care what's happening to them? They still run the show.
"It's a fair and logical question," says Michael Gurian, "but what it really reflects is that our culture is still caught up in old industrial images. We still see thousands of men who succeed quite well in the professional world and in industry -- men who get elected president, who own software companies, who make six figures selling cars. We see the Bill Gateses and John Robertses and George Bushes -- and so we're not as concerned as we ought to be about the millions of young men who are floundering or lost." Well, Gates didn't go to college. He didn't get a degree. Steve Jobs dropped out of college. You're finding more and more really successful entrepreneurs who didn't waste the time there -- and one of the reasons they're not going, folks, is because for the truly bright it's a totally waste of time, but the curriculum and with the feminization of these places who wants to put up with it, especially told what a rotten creature you are on a daily basis! But anyway, these guys are there. The young men who are working at the lowest level of most dangerous jobs instead of going to college, they're sitting in prison instead of going to college. Yeah, well, committing crime and going to jail will keep you out of college." Yeah, well, committing crime and going to jail will keep you out of college. I mean, we have to acknowledge that. Men "who are staying out of the long-term marriage pool because they have little to offer young women" (Laughing.) On that one, folks, I'm going to take a break. We will continue after the break with more of this because there is a lot more -- and it's not just this story.
RUSH: Kate O'Beirne happened to write, in National Review Online today, a response to Michael Gurian's piece about where have all the guys gone. Kate's got a book out next January called, "Women Who Make the World Worse and How Their Radical Feminist Assault is Ruining or Schools, Our Families, Our Military and Sports." I wrote a blurb for this book because I so partiality agree with the concept, "Women Who Make the World Worse," and how their radical feminist assault, etc. It's a very great treatise on any of them and where it's all gone wrong. By the way, folks, do you know what day it is today? I almost forgot to mention this to you. Do you know what today is? Today is the day that DVD of season four of the TV show "24" is released. I, of course, already have multiple copies for the purpose of giving it away for Christmas. But for the rest of you in the real world, the retail version's out and available today. (interruption) What? You don't like the title, Dawn, "Women Who Make the World Worse and How their Radical Feminist Assault is Ruining...?" It's not about all women. It's not "Women Make the World Worse." It's "Women WHO Make the World Worse." It's sort of like a Who's Who of women who have screwed us up, and do you know...? (interruption) No, Kate doesn't know you. So you can't be in the book, so you needn't worry about it. So, anyway, Kate says:
"In his welcome Washington Post 'Outlook' piece, 'Disappearing Act: Where Have the Men Gone? No Place Good,' Michael Gurian reports that colleges and universities across the country are 'grappling with the case of the mysteriously vanishing male.'... But he doesn't explain who is to blame for boys' alienation from our current schooling regime." So she writes, "So I will. It's radical feminist academics, theorists, and activists. Gurian explains that boys 'dominate the failure statistics in our schools' beginning in elementary school and continuing through high school. Boys lag behind girls in reading ability by 1 ˝ years, a disparity that persists into college. This diminished educational achievement consigns young men to the lowest-level jobs, lands plenty in prison, and takes many out of the long-term marriage pool. He counsels that we abandon the 'boys-are-privileged-but-the-girls-are-shortchanged emphasis of the last 20 years.' No kidding. This 'emphasis' that has so disadvantaged our boys is the fundamental tenet of feminist educational policy that is subsidized by tens of millions of public dollars in the name of a phony 'educational equity.' Take reading achievement, as one example of what feminism has wrought.
"With the federal government's clout and cash, feminists have dictated the rewriting of textbooks to conform to their notions of gender equality. At its 1973 convention, NOW resolved to take 'dramatic action' to see that dangerous sex-role stereotypes were erased from textbooks, and within a year they had the Women's Educational Equity Act to advance their campaign with funding for alternative curricula. The editors, publishers, administrators, bureaucrats, and teachers' unions that make up the feminized education establishment have eagerly adopted the feminists' destructive gender agenda. The result is what NYU psychology professor Paul Vitz calls 'Wonder Woman and the Wimp' stories that little boys understandably have little interest in reading. Sandra Stotsky, a reading specialist and research scholar at Northeastern University explains, 'Gone are the inspiring biographies of the most important American presidents, inventors, scientists, and entrepreneurs. No military valor, no high adventure. On the other hand, stories about adventurous and brave women abound.' Peggy Orenstein is one of the feminist theorists who welcomes the 'gender-fair' regime that has turned our classrooms into reeducation camps for our sons.
"She has noted approvingly that 'perhaps for the first time, the boys are the ones looking through the window' when classrooms are adorned with women's pictures and bookcases are crammed with women's biographies. We parents of boys have meekly allowed gender warriors like Peggy Orenstein to treat our sons like unindicted coconspirators in history's gender crimes, while parents of girls permit their daughters to be patronized as helpless victims of a phantom, crippling sex bias in America's schools. Michael Gurian notes the casualties without identifying who created the battlefield for their campaign of intimidation and indoctrination." Much more could be said about this as well, but I don't want to devote the whole hour to this, but you remember the joke that I have told you, the old newspaper headline joke? God calls s reporter from the New York Times and says, "You know, I was watching Oprah the other day, and it's over. I have concluded the human race is a failed experiment. I'm ending the world tomorrow," and the New York Times reporter asks, "Can I have an exclusive on that?" He doesn't even try to talk God out of it, just wants an exclusive. God says, "No, I'm calling others other papers." The Times guy grouses. God hangs up. God calls USA Today, calls Wall Street Journal, calls the Washington Post.
The next day, the headline in the New York Times is found on page A-16: "God Says World to End Tomorrow." USA Today, front page headline: "God Says World to End Tomorrow; We're Doomed." Wall Street Journal: "God Says World to End Tomorrow: Markets to Close Early." Washington Post: "God Says World to End Tomorrow, Women and Minorities Hardest Hit." Well, guess what? (CNSNews:) "The debate over climate change evolved into a battle of the sexes Monday at the 11th annual United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal. The spokesman for a feminist-based environmental group accused men of being the biggest contributors to human-caused 'global warming' and lamented that women are bearing the brunt of the negative climate consequences created by men. 'Women and men are differently affected by climate change and they contribute differently to climate change,' said Ulrike Rohr, director of the German-based group called..." I can't pronounce it. Who cares? The last two words are "Environment, Sustainability."
She "is demanding 'climate gender justice,' left no doubt as to which gender she believes was the chief culprit in emitting greenhouse gasses." She said, "'To give you an example from Germany, it is mostly men who are going by car. Women are going by public transport mostly.'" She "was standing in front of her booth, which featured a banner calling for 'creative gender strategies' from 'rural households to global scientific bodies.'" So the joke's true! Here they're talking about global climate change is going to ruin everybody, going to destroy us. Men are the culprits; women hardest hit. Well, this is a classic example of what Kate O'Beirne is talking about. This kind of radical feminism shows up in institutions, and guys that go to school hear about how they are more responsible for all the world's ills, including whatever women are unhappy about, than anybody else. Why do they want to put up with it? They've heard about it for all these years. Why mess with it? And why pay whatever tuition costs to subject yourself to this?
RUSH: Ann in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin. It's nice to have you with us.
CALLER: Hi. Thank you.
RUSH: You bet.
CALLER: I can't believe I'm on. I've been listening since February of 1990 --
CALLER: -- and I guess I was just calling about need of education. I really believe that women need the college advantage because they get passed over if they don't have that, where a man can start in the work room or in the mail room and work his way up, and they'll take a man more seriously than a woman --
RUSH: Oh, jeez. (laughing)
CALLER: -- and I woman needs that college education, otherwise they get passed over. I've seen it happen many times.
RUSH: You know what I'm tempted to say? "Women can start on the couch and work their way up."
CALLER: That's true, but that -- I wouldn't do that, but I know there are women out there that have. But, umm.
RUSH: Well, look, I understand. Sorry. It just was the first thing I thought of when you said that, and I just had to share it with you. I understand the point that you're making, and it dovetails with the notion of it's still a disadvantage to be a woman out there, because men just naturally have a leg up when it comes to promotion and so forth. But, you know, something, I have a little different take on it now.
RUSH: I'm not denying that what you say has been institutionally true, but I don't think it's as universally, institutionally true today. I think women, in fact -- and I'm being dead serious about this -- have far many more options in corporate America than men will ever hope to have. For example, a woman can come out of college; she can get the job. A lot of companies today, to keep the federal government and the EEOC and the Jesse Jacksons and the NAGs off your back, hire women whether they're as qualified or not, because they'll fulfill a statistical quota requirement that makes the company look good, and they will promote them on the same basis, and at the same time more qualified maybe men are not being promoted and not being hired.
Then, let's say this woman sat some future date, the biological clock starts ticking (ticking), and the woman says, "You know what? I want to have a baby," and of course, we love that. Motherhood, apple pie -- and the woman's allowed to take maternity leave, sometimes of a year, depending on the company. Then you've added family and medical leave so while she's caring for the baby, she can take to the dog to the vet. All the while her job is protected, and she can go to the management and say, "I want to have a baby. I'm pregnant. I want my maternity leave." You got it. You got it, and somebody gets transferred to cover her job until she comes back. Then when she comes back, she comes back and assumes the job she had at that moment and the pay at that moment and whoever was doing her job while she was gone goes back to wherever they were or what have you. Then a couple years later or maybe two months later she says, "You know what? I don't really want to work. I want to stay home and raise my child." Oh, great, because society loves motherhood at home. So fine. Go home.
If an average male employee tried one of those stunts, "Pssht!" Out the door. His career is ruined. Once that kind of stuff is on his résumé, he's histoire. Turn the tables. Say a guy, at age 30, his wife gets pregnant. He goes to the boss, "You know, my wife is pregnant. I want to stay home and help her raise the baby during my maternity leave." You what? You what! So he can't do that. Then he comes back after the maternity leave if he gets it and says, "You know what? I'm going to be the one to raise the kids. I'm leaving, and I want to be the one to raise the kids." His future is over. Once he's made the decision to do that, once that's on his résumé, he's not going to get hired. Women have that option. I'm not upset about it. I'm just telling you it's far more flexible for women in corporate America than it is for men, but by the same token, a lot of management is very much aware of the new trend that women who come out of college all revved up and geared up for the career world. The statistics are increasing rapidly after the birth of their first child, more and more of them are deciding not to go back to work.
CALLER: Well, I took time off when I had my first child, and it definitely had implications at work for me.
RUSH: What kind?
CALLER: Well, I didn't get a raise that year, or if I did, it was substantially less than what the other women in my work group got, and there were other promotional opportunities, and I was again passed over. So I think what you just described for men did happen to me when I took that extended time off for my first child. I didn't do it for my two subsequent children. So I did learn.
RUSH: Wait a minute, wait. You didn't take maternity leave for your two subsequent children?
CALLER: I did, but not the same length. I took six months for the first one and only like 12 weeks, I think, for the second one.
RUSH: Okay, I have to ask you an honest question, ma'am. Six weeks of maternity leave, and you said that you didn't get a raise.
CALLER: No, no, no. I took six months.
RUSH: Six months. Okay, six months -- I'm sorry, that's what I meant to say -- and you didn't get a raise.
RUSH: All right. Now, I have to ask, because I deal with this all the time. I have to ask you: On what basis did you earn one?
CALLER: That's true, and that's basically what my supervisor told me, that they had to review me on what I did while I was there, and I was only there for six months of the year.
RUSH: So you felt penalized, though? You felt penalized because you got pregnant?
CALLER: Well, not really that. But, you know, I thought, "Well, why don't you just review me on the six months of my work that I was there?" But they didn't look at it that way.
RUSH: Well, that's because they were paying you --
CALLER: I know.
RUSH: -- for work you weren't doing when you were at home.
CALLER: That's true. That's true. But there are consequences if you do take the time off, and I don't think it's just solely for men. I think women do experience that, too. So...
RUSH: Well, you know, I, frankly, don't know a guy... (exhaling) Well, I'm sure there are. I know journalists like Bob Woodward who take leaves of absence to write books and come back.
RUSH: But I don't know that it happens with men with a frequency. I don't know that men have the opportunity because of something that happens to them biologically and they automatically qualify for six months of leave for anything and --
CALLER: I understand.
RUSH: -- come back and have their jobs, but that's okay because we understand. You know, we respect motherhood in this country. We revere it and we cherish it and we want to do what we can to promote it. That's why these policies exist. But what's interesting is that even after acknowledging all this there can be feelings of bitterness on the part of the person who has had these benefits offered and extended to them. I appreciate the call, Ann. Who's next on this program? Steve in Cleveland, you're next, sir. Welcome to the EIB Network.
CALLER: Thank you, Rush. I wanted to say that I think you're missing the good news for men in this report about women outnumbering men in college two to one.
RUSH: I seldom "miss" good news, so tell me what it is.
CALLER: The good news is because universities are that bastion of liberalism, affirmative action applies and it will be easier for men to get into college than women as long as liberals are consistent.
RUSH: Well, but you're missing the point. Men are not going because they don't want to. They're not going to college because they don't want to. I'm sure the reasons are varied, but largely it's because what their experience has been there and what they're going to find there. You know, it really isn't all that complicated. Back in the days where -- let's take this example in the story that in classrooms you had pictures up there of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln and Douglas MacArthur and Dwight Eisenhower. That made the feminists mad. It made them mad. "It's unfair to women! Why, where are the pictures of powerful women?" Okay, put some pictures of powerful women. Eventually the men pictures came down. Now, every time I say this, it makes people mad, but if you're going to put pictures of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and James Madison on the wall in your classroom, you can't replace them with women. There were no "founding mothers" in this country.
Not sure how you got "that is exactly" out of what I wrote considering she has nothing to do with either of your labels for women.
She does appreciate his company when he's around from everything we've seen and heard. She should be pthe perfect women for a guy like him (who's not around all that much), because she just gets on with her life when he's not.
"Why do you say that rape of a male is worse than rape of a female?"
Well, for starters, the possibility of contracting AIDS is greater in a prison population than it would be for an assault in general society. The population is closed, so the infection rate is likely to be higher.
Also, the nature of the rape is such that it is emasculating, a penetrative homosexual rape that psychologically devastates the victim. And, of course, we're talking sodomy, which is in itself a traumatically painful, potentially fatal experience--esp. if the perpetrator is massively endowed.
But to explain the major difference between rape in prison and male-on-female rape requires a little gender role reversal--an exercise females in this society, undoubtedly through upbringing, are woefully bad at. Rocks, I hope you're up to it.
Imagine a prison system where men and women are integrated. (An analogy with dykes with strap-ons is a bit tortured.) There is no particular protection for either men or women from inmate perpetrated violence. Your cellmate is as likely to be a member of the opposite sex as your own. The only restriction the authorities put on sexual activity is that mustn't result in pregnancy.
So it's your first night as a new fish, your cellmate a male. You're anally raped till your well-hung assailant is completely satisfied. (If you resisted, you were beaten to the point of hospitalization and/or disfigurement. You won't report it because the authorities are indifferent, and snitches don't live long.) In the morning you are ready to begin your sentence as your rapist's bitch. During the term of your incarceration, he pimps you out during the day, everyday, to both male and dildo-bearing bull dykes, while he himself takes you at his leisure, day or night. Sure, your ass is always sore, but consider yourself lucky: the fish in the cell next to yours gets GANG-RAPED nearly daily.
Psychologically you're wreck but if you can just make it to parole....
Now let's stipulate that society has the same expectations of you as it would a man. Most notably there are no well-financed support groups for you to mentally and emotionally recover from your ordeal. Your sexuality may have been permanently damaged. Like a man, you are blamed and shamed for whatever happened to you; you live in silent fear that someone might discover that you've been raped. If so, there will be no commiseration just accusation:--"You whore!" "You lesbian!"--so your silence is survival.
Your plight is joked about on Jay Leno.
See the difference now? On the one hand, you have a rape that was over in minutes. You got support, sympathy, and if the perp was caught, retribution. On the other hand, you had to live, sometimes for years with your rapist; maybe you got gang-raped nearly daily for years. Without any kind of safety net, all you have to show for it is nightmare at best, or AIDS at worst
Feminists first question your motives for saying what you're saying. You must be a misogynist pussy who fears the awesome power of woman, being greater than the puny power of man. This is grounds to ridicule you, even though feminists argue that weak women's fear of powerful men is perfectly legitimate and deserving of sympathy.
Then they might suggest that you probably just can't get laid or you "have issues" as though this somehow contradicts the factual basis of your argument.
Then they'll just say, "Nuh-uh...you're wrong. Rape is horrible and happens all the time."
But goddamn, Hugo's using that damn "fear" argument again. When Orson Wells broadcast The War of the Worlds on the radio, many people were afraid of Martians. People in Salem, Massachussetts during a certain period of history were terrified of witches.
More to the point...I once saw the movie "Signs" (I know, it was crap) with my girlfriend. It was a nice night out, and as we walked into the theatre, we were both in a very good mood. When we left after the movie, she was holding my arm tightly and saying how scared she was, and how she was jumping at shadows.
Was she afraid because there was some legitimate reason for her to be afraid, or because she had been exposed to something unreal which she found frightening?
Yes, rape really happens sometimes. So does murder. So do car accidents. Let's imagine a metropolitan woman who drives to and from work every day. That woman is more likely to be in a serious car crash than she is to be raped. But I'll bet she's afraid of rape and not of death or disfigurement by car accident. Why is that?
Nah. History has shown us time and time again the complete ineffectiveness of propaganda.