You did indeed prove your point. Props. Mac Donald has issues as do the men at PJ Media who rail against something their own beligerence toward women created.

There’s hope yet though, in finding that there’s a growing number of men’s groups on various US campus’ who DO get it.
1. rape is never the fault of women. Drunk or not.
2. that men DO NEED to control themselves.
3. THEY alone can prevent an allegation of rape and posible jail sentence (for themselves) by doing just that.

____________________________

fp,
“The boys do NOT “need to control themselves.”

I am astounded you even have a pc let alone know how to operate one and I
can only imagine the strain with which you had to tax your one brain cell to conclude that very revealing statement as to a good reason why rape still exists. Good job dude. The evolution train definitely left you sitting on your thumbs long ago dude.

Thank you FP, Mac Donald, etc.

I rest my case.

You types don’t get to keep moving the goal post of what male pathology is, each generation. That is the real motivation behind resistance to you types.

It doesn’t matter what macdonald and other conservatives say. People have been using BS arguements for so many generations now they don’t know how to speak truth. They just feel and then lie tactically.

—
…Liberalism –ie pro-female society control–advocates the ‘mosh pit’ (or holliganizing campus), against the wishes of the actual right (read fascists –not the christians dunces and profitiers, who are nothing but cannon fodder for the ‘left’). Then the fems –the key of liberalism — (and staffers) claim the males in the mosh pit are ‘pathological’ for moshing with the females –who antagonistically ‘demanded’ a right to be in it ‘casue “they were equal”.

—–
…Either the genders are going to ‘waltz’ or ‘tango’. If the liberal created goal is tango, the boys are not “pathological criminals” for thrusting back with the steely browed latina hussies. This is something that liberalism — ie feminism–denies and the christians are too stupid to get and frame properly.

—-
The reason this isn’t understood is becasue the modern male –the victorius survivor of centuries and centuries of war to get rid of the better males–is a dunce and infantile goofball.

The difference from the mugger analogy is that all muggers are muggers, but only a few men are rapists. Educating men’s behaviour can change it. Certain types of rape, for example in marriage, are no longer acceptable for civilised men. In the past, and in the Muslim world today, child rape for example would not be seen as rape because Islam allows child “marriage”.

Of course some men would be impervious to any message telling them to be careful about what they drink, that no means no etc. But Mac Donald doesn’t even see any need to try to change them.

“Sluttish” is a word applied only to females. But it shouldn’t be if men act slutty. There isn’t, however, a pejorative word for men’s promiscuity, because it isn’t – by Mac Donald and most posters here -seen as reprehensible.

So the complaint is that Mac Donald uses a word that is used exclusively in relation to women, in relation to women?

“Thuggish” or “boorish” are not nice words, true, but they do not refer to promiscuity – a promiscuity which for Mac Donald turns rape into non-rape.

Where is this phantom implication of Mac Donald’s that promiscuity turns rape into non-rape?

Second, although Mac Donald uses the word “thuggish” in passing, her advice on avoiding “rape” (which she doesn’t believe happens anyway) is not directed at men at all. There is nowhere – nowhere at all – any hint that men should, or even can, change their behaviour.

To take Jackson’s mugging example from above (far, far above), I can’t imagine that a pamphlet advising white people the steps they can take to protect against muggings, being improved in any way by also criticizing the would-be muggers.

Why should Mac Donald, when she writes about the campus rape industry and its relation to women, include men in the discussion at all? Men’s behavior in this case is a complete non sequiter: other than to make Jackson feel good, I don’t see the point to including it.

Boys will be boys and girls must fit in round this.

Jackson is drawing a conclusion here that is not supported by the evidence. Back to the mugging example – if I were to suggest that not getting drunk in public is a good way to reduce chances of being mugged, it does not follow that I therefore am of the opinion that “muggers will be muggers,” or that their behavior should not be addressed in some way. There may be other avenues for this that I believe are more appropriate and/or effective.

Mac Donald not addressing male behavior may mean any number of things: she may think that male behavior has been addressed adequately elsewhere; or that it is extraneous to the topic of her column. I don’t know, and neither does Jackson.

Double standard. Guilty as charged.

Convicted by evidence that exists only in Mary Jackson’s imagination! The shame!

Far from missing it, the majority of commenters here have endorsed it. And yes, I regard people who believe in the sexual double standard as knuckle-dragging rednecks. It went out with the ark and is now fit only for Muslims and other primitives.

At the risk of repeating myself:

First of all, sluttish is a loaded word. It is only ever used of females, and MacDonald only uses it of females here. “Thuggish” or “boorish” are not nice words, true, but they do not refer to promiscuity – a promiscuity which for Mac Donald turns rape into non-rape. And men’s “boorishness” is testosterone-fuelled – ie they can’t help themselves, especially when encouraged by “slutty” women.

Second, although Mac Donald uses the word “thuggish” in passing, her advice on avoiding “rape” (which she doesn’t believe happens anyway) is not directed at men at all. There is nowhere – nowhere at all – any hint that men should, or even can, change their behaviour. Boys will be boys and girls must fit in round this.

[...]

[W]ords denoting promiscuity are used only of women. Advice relating to promiscuous or “slutty” behaviour is given only to women. Men’s behaviour is just the way it is, with a hint that if women didn’t act so slutty, men would respect them more.

Double standard. Guilty as charged.

For some reason the end period for the sentence got included in the link – try this one:

http://volokh.com/posts/1113597035.shtml

Exactly how does Ms. Mac Donald imply that only dark-alley rapes can happen? I don’t see that in her writing at all. She never discusses the relative merits of various rape circumstances, whether it’s perpetrated by a stranger, husband, or acquaintance. She makes what I agree is an unimpeachable argument: if the rape industry really believe that drunken hookups are “rape,” then it should be willing to advise the likely victims (women) to do everything possible to avoid this “rape.” i.e., avoid drunken hookups. What is so controversial about this?

Where is this double standard that Jackson so adamantly insists is in Mac Donald’s writing? She never explicitly endorses any such thing, and any implication that you see has got to be tenuous at best since the majority of commenters here have missed it. (I am assuming their good faith, unlike Jackson, who immediately assumes that anyone not in total agreement with her is a “knuckle dragging redneck”. See Jackson’s blog at http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/14418
)

Your link doesn’t work. But, assuming its arguments are true, and conceptually simple, the “high ratio of false reports” is seized on by Mac Donald and made much of, and the underreporting is ignored, as is the “high ratio” of reports which, by default, must be true.

Even if it is conclusively proved (which I doubt) that many, or half, or whatever, rape cliamants are liars, this is not what Mac Donald implies – she implies that all of them are false. (Except for dark-alley-stranger rapes, which she allows can happen, because they happen to “nice” girls.)

Underreporting of rape and a high ratio of false reports are not mutually exclusive. For a dispassionate explanation, see http://volokh.com/posts/1113597035.shtml. It’s a simple concept.