Subscribe via RSS Feed

The Dumbest Thing Ever Written Until The Next Time The National Review Publishes Something

[ 103 ] February 28, 2013 | Scott Lemieux

Shorter Heather MacDonald: First, feminists say that rape is bad. Then, they say that gender equality is good. Make up your mind!

Comments (103)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. penpen says:
    February 28, 2013 at 4:17 pm

    I read it as more, “what did you expect, a US Marine is a rape machine!”

    Reply
  2. Captain Haddock says:
    February 28, 2013 at 4:18 pm

    As a military prosecutor focusing on sex crimes, I can assure you this is not the dumbest thing ever written on this subject. But it’s damn close.

    Reply
  3. sharculese says:
    February 28, 2013 at 4:23 pm

    So I was waiting for the Metro today, and notice a bit of graffiti on a temporary barricade. One person had written ‘Don’t Get Raped’ and someone else had crossed out the ‘get and the final ‘d’.

    It is great to know that people who mark up plywood walls are smarter than your average NRO contributor.

    Reply
  4. Njorl says:
    February 28, 2013 at 4:28 pm

    Last time you posted one of these, I think it was someone defending the poor Nazis from Obama’s vicious anti-Nazi slurs, the commenters at the site mostly chastised the author. It was refreshing to see that even conservatives thought it was tasteless to publicly champion the Nazis.

    This time, not so much. The “legitimate rape” crowd are out in force.

    Reply
  5. actor212 says:
    February 28, 2013 at 4:30 pm

    Seriously? Rape = gender equality? Really?

    Reply
    • commie atheist says:
      February 28, 2013 at 4:41 pm

      Alternate shorter: By pushing for gender equality, women are just asking to get raped.

      Reply
      • Brenda Johnson says:
        February 28, 2013 at 4:57 pm

        Yup, that’s about it.

        Reply
      • sharculese says:
        February 28, 2013 at 4:59 pm

        Shorter shorter: Bitches are asking for it.

        Reply
        • DrDick says:
          February 28, 2013 at 7:47 pm

          But as long as you are out in public, not completely covered from head to foot, and not accompanied by several heavily armed male relatives, you are always asking for it.

          Reply
          • Origami Isopod says:
            February 28, 2013 at 7:51 pm

            And if you are at home and you’re raped by a male relative, you must have tempted him into it.

            Reply
            • delurking says:
              February 28, 2013 at 9:15 pm

              Well, according to the comments over there, rape by male relatives doesn’t happen.

              From what I can tell, though, it’s because the commenters defending honor killing as a way to defeat rape (because it keeps the bitches at home where they belong) don’t define what gets done to women by their male relatives *as* rape.

              After all, when a woman’s your very own property, well, that can’t be rape, then, can’t it?

              Reply
    • anthrofred says:
      February 28, 2013 at 11:44 pm

      It actually works in a perverted way if you start from the conceit that the state is male, male dominated, and with men’s interests in mind, so that protecting women from rape = patriarchy.

      Somehow I don’t think she’s thinking on that kind of level, and if she were I somehow doubt her proposed solution would involve actually challenging power as it exists. Because she’s being completely disingenuous.

      Reply
  6. actor212 says:
    February 28, 2013 at 4:33 pm

    Some of these women come from environments that made their descent into street life overdetermined, whether or not they experienced alleged sexual assault in the military.

    Is she saying that poor women will always end up in the street, despite their attempts to get out by enlisting, getting a decent paycheck and lifelong benefits that will help lift them out of poverty?

    Ho.Lee.Crap! That is asteroidally stoopid!

    Reply
    • sharculese says:
      February 28, 2013 at 4:37 pm

      Why would she have to say something that her readership already knows in their heart of hearts is true?

      Reply
    • Shakezula says:
      February 28, 2013 at 5:05 pm

      I stopped there because I didn’t want to puke. And not quite. She is saying that SOMETHING about these women (not the fact that they were raped) is what caused them to wind up on the streets.

      The nifty thing is, that with just a few alterations her spew can also be used to blame ANYONE who winds up homeless. Male vets, civilian rape victims …

      Bottom line – In Neoconville, if something bad happens to someone it is always their fault. Unless the NeoCon is the victim, in which case, it is Obama’s fault. (Note, the NeoCon is always the real victim).

      Reply
      • UserGoogol says:
        February 28, 2013 at 5:29 pm

        It’s fair to say that rape is not a sufficient cause for becoming homeless, since yes, lots of people get raped and don’t become homeless, so it’s entirely reasonable to look for other factors. She just tangled that fact up in all sorts of stupid fucking bullshit.

        Reply
        • Shakezula says:
          February 28, 2013 at 5:54 pm

          How about this: Different people react to similar events in different ways. What’s more, the same person may react to the same event in different ways.

          The military is fucked because it is just starting to deal with the fact that a significant number of combat vets did not come back from combat and resume normal lives.

          And I have no doubt that millions of dollars will be spent attempting to determine who will come home and blow his brains out or rob a convenience store or wind up on the street, but at best they’ll have a bunch of charts that show that certain people are more likely to react in certain ways, because people will insist on being unique.

          Reply
          • David Nieporent says:
            February 28, 2013 at 9:13 pm

            How about this: Different people react to similar events in different ways.

            How about that? It’s actually saying exactly the same thing that you criticized her for saying, except phrasing it more gently.

            Reply
            • Shakezula says:
              February 28, 2013 at 10:37 pm

              More gently is it? OK. Let’s try this. In response I could say:

              1. You are without a doubt the dumbest motherfucking, knuckledragging dick blister it has ever been my displeasure to encounter or the internet. You are a pox-ridden scab and a disgrace to the species who couldn’t be more wrong if he tried. I intend to invite my friends and relations to laugh at the epic levels of idiocy present in the few words you managed to bash out on the keyboard.

              OR.

              2. I disagree with your statement.

              Now, I think we’ll agree that the essential message of both responses (I disagree) is the same. Further, no one could argue that Response 2 is “more gentle” than Response 1. But Response 1 would understandably cause people to cry out “Whoa bitch. Are you using a hedgehog for a tampon?”

              I would further argue that Response 1 is so different in tone and content that attempting to say the responses are exactly same is – at best – a lame attempt to create a false equivalence and – at worst – an outright lie.

              Reply
      • Brandon says:
        February 28, 2013 at 5:37 pm

        Just World Hypothesis

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

        Reply
      • David Nieporent says:
        February 28, 2013 at 9:11 pm

        Not sure what you think this has to do with ‘neocons’; I thought that the Internet meme of labeling ordinary conservative views as “neoconservative” in order to make them sound scarier to semi-educated liberals stopped being trendy about a decade ago.

        And yes, the idea that one is responsible for one’s own situation is a pretty standard conservative view.

        And of course something about them other than the fact that they were raped is what caused them to end up on the streets; we don’t see most people who were raped end up homeless, do we? That’s all she was pointing out.

        Reply
        • Hogan says:
          February 28, 2013 at 9:17 pm

          “Certain people are just bound to end up on the street.” You down with that? How does that line up with your personal responsibility thing? What do you think “oversetermined” means?

          Reply
        • J.W. Hamner says:
          February 28, 2013 at 9:42 pm

          And of course something about them other than the fact that they were raped is what caused them to end up on the streets; we don’t see most people who were raped end up homeless, do we?

          That’s all she was pointing out.

          That’s only true if you ignore 2/3rds of the post. Her ultimate aim to present a false dichotomy of choosing between rape prevention and allowing women to serve in combat.

          Reply
        • S_noe says:
          March 1, 2013 at 5:35 pm

          Eh, “that shit’s your own damn fault” – with the corollary “it could also be your parents’ fault” – is not a terrible summation of neoconservative social policy thought (as commonly understood). Is it?

          Reply
  7. Dr.KennethNoisewater says:
    February 28, 2013 at 4:35 pm

    I’m thinking about clicking but I’m pretty scared. Because I think Heather MacDonald would rape a woman herself if she thought it would get her head pats from men.

    Reply
    • Dr.KennethNoisewater says:
      February 28, 2013 at 4:37 pm

      In other words, she is just a huge huge misogynist…and she’s like that because it gets her validation…to put it less shockingly.

      Reply
    • Shakezula says:
      February 28, 2013 at 5:06 pm

      Um. Perhaps this will help you decide:

      Now here is a tentative alternative hypothesis: Some of these women come from environments that made their descent into street life overdetermined, whether or not they experienced alleged sexual assault in the military. To blame alleged sexual assault for their fate rather than their own bad decision-making is ideologically satisfying, but mystifying.

      Reply
      • sharculese says:
        February 28, 2013 at 5:15 pm

        It is adorable when they try to use words they don’t understand, though.

        …I mean, it would be adorable if it weren’t in the service of arguing that all women are dumb sluts except me.

        Reply
        • Malaclypse says:
          February 28, 2013 at 5:17 pm

          I assumed “environments that made their descent into street life overdetermined” means women who are not white, rather than women who are not Heather MacDonald. But I may be wrong.

          Reply
          • sharculese says:
            February 28, 2013 at 5:20 pm

            There’s probably that connotation to it, yes. I assumed that this was general scorn directed at any woman who didn’t have the good sense be born white and middle class, and I was using ‘me’ as a shorthand for ‘in my circumstances.’

            Reply
            • daveNYC says:
              February 28, 2013 at 5:38 pm

              Even that might be giving her too much credit.

              Reply
            • ironic irony says:
              March 1, 2013 at 2:41 am

              “I assumed that this was general scorn directed at any woman who didn’t have the good sense to be born white and middle class and had the balls to join the military…”

              FTFY.

              Reply
          • Shakezula says:
            February 28, 2013 at 5:24 pm

            The next line is something about having children out of wedlock makes you poor, but I had to bail.

            I swear it is like they all read Swift’s A Modest Proposal and
            1. Thought he was serious.
            2. Decided to apply that mindset to everything.

            Reply
  8. Brandon says:
    February 28, 2013 at 4:44 pm

    Jesus christ the comments on that thread:

    “Here’s my standard for rape: if you don’t report it you weren’t raped.”

    “You may be unfamiliar with the physiology but if there is a rape her body will show trauma. Reporting it is key since there is also DNA evidence. No scarring or fighting needed.”

    “If she wasn’t raped enough to take the obvious steps to both prevent her own rape from continuing or to attempt to prevent the guy from every attacking another woman by putting him behind bars forever then I reserve the right to believe that she wasn’t raped at all.”

    Reply
  9. Djur says:
    February 28, 2013 at 4:48 pm

    I’m trying to comprehend how she thinks that saying that women who are sexually assaulted in the military tend to come from Circumstances (which I believe is true on average of people who enlist) somehow mitigates or invalidates the problem of those women being raped in the first place.

    It’s hardly earthshaking news that women who are already struggling are likely to suffer particularly badly from sexual assault. That’s kind of how trauma works, isn’t it?

    Reply
    • Shakezula says:
      February 28, 2013 at 5:08 pm

      Let me spell it out for you: She is an mendacious dirtbag.

      Tentative alternative hypothesis: She is an evil dirtbag.

      Take your pick.

      Reply
    • penpen says:
      February 28, 2013 at 5:10 pm

      Obviously crimes are just not as objectionable when suffered by minorities and the poor. The tragedy they face is a mere fraction of that suffered by Real Americans (conservative scholars currently estimate this fraction as 3/5).

      Reply
      • weirdnoise says:
        March 1, 2013 at 5:14 pm

        Oh, it’s worse than that. Her argument essentially boils down to being raped doesn’t make any difference to those people.

        Reply
    • BigHank53 says:
      February 28, 2013 at 5:24 pm

      It’s retreaded Calvinism. Remember predetermination? God’s already picked out who he was going to save? It’s like this:

      1. Those people were already going to hell.
      2. Nothing we can do will save them.
      3. Therefore, we should do nothing.

      The only addition here is that McDonald has (a) assumed she can determine who God has picked out*, and (b) done her level best to excuse felonious behavior committed by men. I’d go for evil, mendacious dirtbag myself.

      *GOP Calvinism consists mainly of looking at one’s net worth. That’s why they hate George Soros so much: he’s a filthy class traitor.

      Reply
      • Shakezula says:
        February 28, 2013 at 5:44 pm

        If memory serves, early Calvinism also looked at net worth. If your life sucks, it is because God hates you. Being poor sucks, ergo if you’re poor, God hates you.

        Reply
        • cpinva says:
          February 28, 2013 at 6:52 pm

          your memory serves.

          “If memory serves, early Calvinism also looked at net worth.”

          those of high net worth were deemed the ones “pre-destined” for heaven. by an amazing coincidence, rev. calvin’s patrons just so happened to be wealthy nobles and merchants. this had absolutely no bearing on how the story ended.

          Reply
      • daveNYC says:
        March 1, 2013 at 9:14 am

        Calvinism combined with Just World Fallacy. The plus side is that it really cuts down on having to think.

        Reply
    • David Nieporent says:
      February 28, 2013 at 9:21 pm

      I’m trying to comprehend how she thinks that saying that women who are sexually assaulted in the military tend to come from Circumstances (which I believe is true on average of people who enlist) somehow mitigates or invalidates the problem of those women being raped in the first place.

      She doesn’t. That’s not what she said.

      Reply
    • ironic irony says:
      March 1, 2013 at 2:48 am

      This is what I was thinking as well.

      Reply
  10. Decrease Marher says:
    February 28, 2013 at 7:36 pm

    From the comments:

    I’m assuming you’re talking about the fact that Muslim women who are raped are declared damaged and potentially stoned to death. Yeah, that is barbarism. It is also one heck of a rape deterrent. A Muslim chick living under such a system will not, for example, dress such that her assets are all on full display, drink herself into a blackout, leave the bar alone at closing time, and go wandering off into the night (Which is exactly what happened in one particular high profile rape/murder case of which I am thinking…I think they eventually convicted the bouncer?). Is she avoiding this behavior to avoid the actual act of rape or is it more because she finds it prudent to avoid the repercussions, in that environment, of being raped or even, simply, exhibiting that socially unacceptable behavior that increases the chances of being raped?

    Reply
  11. Patrick says:
    February 28, 2013 at 8:12 pm

    I vehemently dislike and disagree with basically everything NRO ever publishes, but I read the article as saying something like “It isn’t plausible to claim that rape is a significant causal contributor to later homelessness. If this was the case, then (1) it must be something about rape itself, but rape statistics about other populations don’t seem to support this claim or (2) it must be something about the sort of women that join the military, or the stresses that women undergo once they get to the military, but that doesn’t make any sense either, because combat is a worse stress [and women seem to deal with that OK].”

    I don’t think this argument *works* (it’s way too simplistic about the harms caused by rape, and about the mechanisms behind these harms), but I fail to see how the sort of discussion here, which basically says “NRO loves rape and hates women” really does anything to help move the ball forward, either.

    Reply
    • Anonymous says:
      February 28, 2013 at 9:17 pm

      Your concern over balls and them moving forward has been noted.

      Reply
    • Hogan says:
      February 28, 2013 at 9:20 pm

      Let’s try this: it’s something about being raped while in the military, and the way the military as an institution responds to that, that results in something like the PTSD that afflicts other veterans of violence while in combat situations.

      Reply
    • J.W. Hamner says:
      February 28, 2013 at 9:34 pm

      Uhm no. She clearly thinks MST is a made up “syndrome” for lying women who were never sexually assaulted or were at worst asking for it. She is not trying to advance any sort of conversation as to what is leading these women into homelessness.

      Second sentence of the article:

      Military-sexual-trauma syndrome is that debilitating condition that befalls female service members who have allegedly been the victim of sexual assault by their fellow service members.

      Why is the word “allegedly” there? Why would women who have falsely claimed to be raped be suffering from a syndrome? Answer: because it is a made up syndrome.

      She then does proceed to make the case that being raped is not a sufficient explanation for homelessness. This is of course true, but it is also the case that another traumatic disorder, namely PTSD, is not sufficient to explain every bad thing that happens to vets with it either. That does not imply that it should not be treated.

      That is unless you think it’s a BS made up syndrome.

      Her final paragraph is about how “ironic” it is that liberals who think rape is traumatic think women should be allowed to serve in combat which is also traumatic! The idea that liberals thinking that “traumatic experiences should be treated” is a gotcha against equality in combat service is obviously something only a complete idiot could entertain, but that is only a brief conserava-lolz before we come to the conclusion:

      Perhaps they think that with enough multi-million-dollar gender-equity training contracts showered on the gender-industrial complex, the problem will go away. Or perhaps they think that keeping before us proof that the patriarchy is alive and well is more important than protecting women from “MST,” especially if that image can serve as grounds for remaking the military.

      Got that? “MST” is a construct of feminists so they can destroy our military effectiveness by making all our Marines go to sexual harassment seminars.

      Reply
      • anthrofred says:
        February 28, 2013 at 11:25 pm

        Because we’re not “remaking the military” to protect soldiers from trauma to begin with, by using for example drones or airstrikes whenever possible or putting our active-duty troops on alarming doses of anti-depressents and anxiolytics. We love trauma! We want all our soldiers to experience it! Or not so much.

        Reply
      • ironic irony says:
        March 1, 2013 at 2:57 am

        Too late. Service members already go through sexual assault prevention training quarterly. Have since at least 2000. She’s a day late and a dollar short.

        Reply
      • S_noe says:
        March 1, 2013 at 5:20 pm

        Your reading misses the full Alinskyite argument she’s making in the last sentence – the feminists want to “remak[e] the military” through the vehicle of more rape and the resulting backlash against it. Feminists are all for rape, if it helps their eventual policy goals. I guess they want to highlight the contradictions or something.

        I’m sorry – only “perhaps” in favor of more rape. Maybe they just don’t know better, I guess.

        Reply
      • S_noe says:
        March 1, 2013 at 5:23 pm

        Thanks, by the way, for calling out her dickish use of “allegedly” – as though she were a reporter referring to an actual case. Goes hand in hand with the over-reliance on scare quotes.

        Reply
  12. Anonymous says:
    February 28, 2013 at 9:11 pm

    My favorite bit is how rape is just a “sexual experience.” Not good or bad, just something that happens to women and why are feminists against it, and so forth.

    Reply
    • Shakezula says:
      February 28, 2013 at 10:46 pm

      Did she now? Huh.

      You know. If Normal Earth started ignoring these pox scabs on Sunday, they would set themselves on fire on Thursday. Not that I’m saying this would be a good thing. Of course. My vord, no.

      Seriously, these fucknuggets are running around screaming all women must be allowed concealed carry because RAPE RAPE RAPITY RAPE RAPE! If rape is “just a sexual experience” there is no need to put an exit wound in someone who wants to have one.

      In short, this is the sort of shit that made Camille Paglia famous and we shouldn’t be surprised that other desperate attention whores are going the same route. Who knows, maybe some doucheclog at the Post will cite that exercise in translating fart noises into words in an article about rape in the military. Just to be fair and balanced.

      I actually feel a bit better now.

      Reply
      • Anonymous says:
        March 1, 2013 at 5:57 am

        Yep. All of these things.

        I’m fairly certain, however, the characterization of rape as one of many “sexual experiences” women will invariably experience in their lifetime is her none-too-subtle way of suggesting rape victims are lying, being hysterical, or blowing “it” out of proportion. Again, the message is that if you’re victimized by a man, you did something to deserve it, so no rape for you. Same old “bitch regrets sex, cries rape” routine, but with an extra dab of Milking the System. (Where milking the system means seeking counseling and assistance when your PTSD gets in the way of living.)

        Reply
        • Origami Isopod says:
          March 1, 2013 at 11:48 am

          If you don’t believe that consent matters, then you can’t really distinguish rape from “rough sex.” Therefore, it’s just a “sexual experience.”

          Same deal with the Rethugs like JenBob who don’t understand why voluntary abortions are OK but forced transvaginal ultrasounds aren’t. Dumb broad’s having something shoved up her cooze in either case, right?

          Reply
  13. J.W. Hamner says:
    February 28, 2013 at 11:52 pm

    This Yglesias tweet says it well:

    If women aren’t tough enough to be raped by fellow soldiers how can they fight in a war?

    Reply
  14. S_noe says:
    March 1, 2013 at 5:11 pm

    I just want to highlight the last sentence of the NRO post:

    Or perhaps [the feminists who advocate for women serving in combat] think that keeping before us proof [i.e., more military rape] that the patriarchy is alive and well is more important than protecting women from “MST,” especially if that image can serve as grounds for remaking the military.

    Yes, perhaps that’s an ethical calculation anyone who’s not a psycho would make. Jesus frickin’ wept.

    Reply
  15. Kiwanda says:
    March 1, 2013 at 6:07 pm

    It’s not a good sign that almost every mention of sexual assault or rape is “alleged”, even when talking in generalities, including saying “whether or not they experienced alleged sexual assault”.

    Her main argument seems to be that support groups for female vets with Military Sexual Trauma should not be needed: the bad situations those vets are in are their own fault (children out of wedlock); rape isn’t causal to those bad situations, because famale college students are raped in large numbers and don’t become homeless like those female vets; women who are tough enough for combat ought to be tough enough to handle rape (as Yglesias tweeted).

    Even if her reasoning wasn’t bogus, even if her arguments were in good faith, I don’t understand what she’s got against support groups for MST.

    Reply

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

    • Switch to our mobile site