This literally-not-from-The-Onion collection of facepalmery is like a concentrated shot of web feminism.
There is a reason why a significant majority of Americans support sex equality, but only a small-ish minority consider themselves feminists.
Feminism has a problem.
I don't doubt that your average feminist-in-the-street is as sane as ever. Johnny Quest, for example, literally the most reasonable person I have ever met, if forced to say, says that she considers herself a feminist--though she doesn't go around talking about things in those terms.
But the most prominent current public representatives of feminism are batshit crazy.
And a fair bit of it is on display here. Anti-rape-drug nail polish? A little gimmicky, perhaps...but if invented by women, would be lauded...however, invented by...dudes
. Ergo: not cool. Also: falls afoul of perhaps the most insane bit of contemporary webfem orthodoxy: there is absolutely nothing any woman can ever do to lower the odds of rape!
Is impossible! Also: it is wrong to try to stop some rapes if you are not stopping all rapes.
Contemporary feminism is deranged.
It has abandoned any effort to be rational or reasonable, and replaced those things with a kind of ideological primal scream.
And it isn't just that these people make feminism seem
crazy. Rather: they are actually making
it crazy. These are the people influencing the direction of the movement.
As I've often said, I try not to hold the lunatic fringe against any movement. For example, if the GOP merely had its nutty fringe like the Dems have theirs...well...that plagues even the best of political movements and parties. But when the crazies take over, it's a different story... In the case of contemporary feminism, the nuts have taken over. And, almost as bad: the rank-and-file seem hesitant to criticize them.
Rape drugs are a factor in only a small number of rapes
. See? That is what we call a good point. That is a reasonable and important thing to point out.
Contrast that with this, written by Jessica Valenti:
"I'm appreciative that young men like want to curb sexual assault, but anything that puts the onus on women to 'discreetly' keep from being raped misses the point," writes Jessica Valenti for the Guardian.
"We should be trying to stop rape, not just individually avoid it."
The mind, it reels...
"We should be trying to stop rape, not individually avoid it."
Hey, let's apply this principle generally, shall we?
Don't exercise or eat right--we should be trying to stop heart disease, not individually avoid it!
Don't lock your doors--we should be trying to stop burglary, not individually avoid it!
Don't wear your seat belt--we should be trying to stop car accidents, not individually avoid them!
If physically attacked, do not fight back--we should be trying to stop ass-kickings, not individually avoid them!
Two. Seconds'. Thought.
That's what it takes to see how insane this is.
Two. Seconds'. Thought.
This is basically a paradigm of a false dilemma. Nothing about seeking to individually avoid rape is in any way inconsistent with stopping rape. In fact...it's a kind of turbocharged false dilemma. Individually avoiding rape is, in fact, a step toward stopping rape.
Also from Valenti:
Valenti argues that promoting products like Undercover Colors is not only ineffective, but also can lead to "victim-blaming," if women don't take all the suggested precautions.
Analogously: telling people to exercise to avoid heart disease is bad, because then if they don't exercise, it might
lead to people blaming others for not exercising...
Don't blame the victim: sound advice.
Criticizing methods of avoiding victimization because they might lead to victim-blaming if you don't use them: nuts. (In Vaelenti's words, they "leave room for" victim-blaming... Egad.)
Again: criticizing them because they are ineffective is perfectly reasonable.
But criticizing them because someone might conceivably blame someone who didn't use them, or because they do not end all rape everywhere, or because they are not the methods you prefer...is just nuts.