Earlier in the week, I learned that something was brewing up north. RooshV said some stuff that made people upset, so they decided to try and kick him out of Canada, untruthfully brand him a rapist, throw a beer in his face, and then brag about the whole thing on the internet. They even posted a video of the assault on the internet.
As you might imagine, the people responsible for this unlawful mob justice behavior promptly went to jail.
The Canadian government not only failed to press charges against the assailants, but some government officials actually joined in protests against Roosh.
This weekend I flew up to Toronto to get a closer look (and eat poutine). I even attended an “anti-rape / pro consent” rally to figure out what this is all about.
After spending the weekend in Toronto, I’ve had an opportunity to put my thoughts together.
Flying the Banner of Rape – How Feminism Went From Promoting Equality to Becoming a Cult Religion
Rape is a terrible thing. Understandably, the word and the concept triggers deep emotions in many, especially those who are rape victims. As far as I’ve always understood it, rape is forcing sexual intercourse on someone against their will. The most obvious instance is when a person is violently dragged into a dark area and forced sexual activity occurs – something that is extremely common among men in prison. There are other non-phsyical ways in which rape happens, such as coercion, incapacity, or abuse of authority. Thankfully, most societies are completely intolerant of rape, and it’s a serious crime.
Bear in mind, I’m not supposed to be talking about rape. In weird sociology lingo, I am a “cisgendered heteronormative male”, which basically means I’m a straight white guy. According to third wave feminism, that means I’m “privileged” and therefore not allowed to talk about rape. Any attempts to do so are deemed “mansplaining.”
Someone like me simply could never hope to understand or relate, so I should be quiet.
Attempts to broaden the definition of rape are done under the justification of trying to end of “rape culture”, which apparently justifies complete deviation from the traditional definition of what rape actually is. According to Woman Against Violence Against Women, rape culture is:
a complex set of beliefs that encourage male sexual aggression and supports violence against women. It is a society where violence is seen as sexy and sexuality as violent. In a rape culture, women perceive a continuum of threatened violence that ranges from sexual remarks to sexual touching to rape itself. A rape culture condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as the norm . . . In a rape culture both men and women assume that sexual violence is a fact of life, inevitable . . . However . . . much of what we accept as inevitable is in fact the expression of values and attitudes that can change.
But there’s more.
Rape culture includes jokes, TV, music, advertising, legal jargon, laws, words and imagery, that make violence against women and sexual coercion seem so normal that people believe that rape is inevitable. Rather than viewing the culture of rape as a problem to change, people in a rape culture think about the persistence of rape as “just the way things are.”
What some are trying to do here is taken the concept of rape, which has extremely serious connotations, and then tie it to behavior that is otherwise innocuous. For instance, everything on TV isn’t just mindless entertainment (which I don’t even watch except for sports and a few random shows), it’s actually society’s secret way of condoning rape in society.
When you read WAVAW’s definition, you come away with the notion that entertainment producers should tailor their creative content to other’s sensibilities. While that’s so downright caring, it is also a form of controlling artistic content, which is… censorship. Freedom confers rights to the individual producing the content – not the people consuming the content. This makes sense because consumers can simply choose not to consume content they don’t want.
What’s really cause for concern is the attempt to tailor our fundamental liberties to others’ delicate sensibilities. WAVAW states that “legal jargon” and “laws” are actually part of rape culture. Actually, freedom of speech and Due Process are two fundamental cornerstones of democracy that ensure unpopular people and ideas are given a fair shake. If we expect people to follow the law, we have to treat them equally under it.
Describing our fundamental liberties as “rape culture” is an attempt to create a situation where raising fundamental due process issues also subjects one to being “pro rape.” As Scott Greenfield put it, certain people and organizations “willingly gave away your rights with the best of intentions.”
This expanded definition of rape is used to manipulate a situation where the person asserting the “rape culture privilege” has the moral authority, because to go against their viewpoint is to be “for” rape. Disagreeing with me means that you support rape.
But consider this. I could just as easily change definition of “murder” to also include “driving too fast” because “speeding kills millions of people each year.” From there, I could identify the United States’ murder culture, which is prominent in things like NASCAR and The Fast and the Furious. I could then cite statistics that at least half of all Americans were almost murdered, because they drove on highways. Anyone who challenges me is a murder apologist, and supports murders. I don’t care about the substance of your argument, all that matters is you’re a murder apologist.
An academically disingenuous argument, but one that is emotionally charged. No one wants to be seen as someone who supports people who kill.
But that is how radical left wing social justice warriors are turning their breed of feminism into a religion, and trying to suggest that their opinions are beyond questioning or criticizing. Simply take a word that is emotionally charged and associate speech you disagree with it. Rape is recognized as a bad thing, so therefore anyone who disagrees with me is turning a blind eye to a universal truth. If you disagree with my radical feminist views, you are in also favor of rape, and rape culture. While that may sound persuasive to some, it’s simply not a cogent argument.
Does rape culture exist? Absolutely. Very recently the New York Times recently penned a post that opened:
In the moments before he raped the 12-year-old girl, the Islamic State fighter took the time to explain that what he was about to do was not a sin. Because the preteen girl practiced a religion other than Islam, the Quran not only gave him the right to rape her — it condoned and encouraged it, he insisted.
This is the difference between what radical feminists contend is “rape culture” in First World Countries, and what a “rape culture” actually is. In the United States, our government and our society condemn rape. It carries serious criminal penalties, and convicted rapists are put on a sex offender registry for life. There are campaigns all throughout the country to “end rape.” Rape is considered one of the most heinous things a person can do, through either physical violence or coercion.
However, with ISIS, the state sanctions and promotes involuntary intercourse. That is a rape culture.
“Hate Speech” Is The New Inquisition
The Roman Inquisition was a system of tribunals developed by the Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church during the second half of the 16th century, responsible for prosecuting individuals accused of a wide array of crimes relating to religious doctrine or alternate religious doctrine or alternate religious beliefs.
The purpose of the Inquisition was to find and combat heresy, because the views opinions of heretics could challenge the supremacy of the church.
For example, at the hands of the Roman Inquisition, Galileo was found “vehemently suspect of heresy”, namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to “abjure, curse and detest” those opinions.
At the time, Christians held the moral authority, because their views were bestowed by the Creator himself. Disagree? You will be punished by the government.
This concept of inquisition as it pertains to traditional religion is foreign to most First World countries nowadays, thanks to progressive notions that speech should be free. You have a legal right to deny the existence of God. Even that which is sacrilegious is protected by free speech rights, and even if it offends people of faith.
However, a new concept of “hate speech” is emerging, where some are advocating for a legal right not to hear certain speech via government action. Rather than suggesting “God” is their moral authority, they contend that “being anti-rape” and “pro civil rights” is their moral authority.
At its core, this is authoritarianism cloaked in the guise of being progressive.
What third wave feminists are looking for is to create a “right” not to hear speech they don’t like, which is then enforced by the government. Rather than utilize a little self control and ignore speech that one finds upsetting, or take proactive measures to address it, radicals want the government to silence that speech. This allows radical feminists to set the agenda without being subject to questioning or criticism, with the power of the state behind them.
That is exactly what the Inquisition did. Same concept, different justification. For that reason, free speech is intertwined with freedom of religion. No belief, no matter how moral or God given, is beyond challenge and scrutiny.
A society does not have free speech if it recognizes “hate speech.”
The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect speech that is unpopular or offensive. It’s about protecting a person’s right to say things that upset people. Free speech confers a right upon the speaker, not the listener.
The concepts of “hate speech” and “free speech” are actually opposites of each other, and cannot coexist. We either live in a society where people can express their opinions freely, or in a society where a certain group dictates what “unquestionable truth” is under threat of government sanctions. But you can’t have it both ways.
Speech is either free, or it’s not.
RooshV – The Modern Feminist Heretic
Let’s make rape legal. Less women will be raped because they won’t voluntarily drug themselves with booze and follow a strange man into a bedroom, and less men will be unfairly jailed for what was anything but a maniacal alley rape. Until then, this devastating rape culture will continue, and women who we treat as children will continue to act like children.
In my opinion, Roosh’s post about legalizing rape as a tongue in cheek way of saying men and women should share equal responsibility when it comes to sex.
Others have expressed similar concepts, but in a different way. In the words of Scott Greenfield, “third wave feminism is a total load of self-serving, narcissistic crap, infantilizing women and turning them into self-absorbed whiners who think the world should bend to their whim to protect their delicate sensibilities because they’re such special victims. This isn’t old school feminism, the quest for equality, but quite the opposite.”
I think that was the point here.
At any point did Roosh say “I want rape to be legal, so that me and all my friends can go and rape women?” Absolutely not. No one with a working braincell could have read that piece and taken away from it that Roosh was trying to suggest that women should be raped.
But even if he did, no one forces anyone to read opinions that are upsetting. If you don’t like something, it takes but a modicum of self control to close the browser window and move on with your day. If you find completely offensive, nothing is stopping you from writing your own blog post about it, and confronting it with better speech.
What I find compelling is there are very few articles, if any, actually challenging the content of Roosh’s speech. Instead, everything I’ve read has focused on deeming the article “hateful” as opposed to addressing the concepts on the merits.
Claims that Roosh’s speech makes people unsafe is extremely disingenuous. “RooshV told me I was allowed to rape!” isn’t a legal defense to rape. If you rape in America, you go to jail. That’s the law. Shutting down Roosh isn’t a matter of promoting “public safety”, it’s about silencing people with contrary opinions, using the inquisitor’s tool of “hate speech.”
If Roosh bothers you, there’s an easy way to fix that. Don’t read his website, don’t visit his forum, or buy his books. Write blog posts about why you think his opinion is stupid if you choose to respond to him.
When controversial views are silenced because they’re unpopular or offensive, that creates a dangerous precedent where certain ideologies are beyond questioning. I know “rape” is a hot button issue, but that does not confer moral God given authority to silence any speech about the topic that is contrary to your own.
Using the government to silence people is a slippery slope to a state mandated truth.
Why It Matters That RooshV Won Battle of Montreal and Battle of Toronto – For Every Action, There is an Equal and Opposite Reaction
RooshV came to Canada and put it on the line, and he upset a lot of people. But in the process, Roosh serves as a reminder that there are many in America and Canada who believe their political views are not just right, but God given truth that the government should impose on everyone.
Had they succeeded in silencing Roosh, it would have created an extremely dangerous precedent. Not all that long ago, many have were put to death for questioning communism, when the political ideology transformed from a system of government to a state mandated unquestionable capital T Truth. In a free society, no political group can deem another a heretic.
People like RooshV are necessary to ensure that no political ideology becomes an unquestionable, absolute truth. Even if people say it’s “hate speech” because it “promotes rape.” When political ideologies become unquestionable truths and beyond criticism, they stop being ideologies. They become cult religions, and their leaders gods.
Thankfully, we still live in a free society, one that is ruled by reason and discourse. Not men acing with God given authority, imposing their ideology on others, or a society of mob rule. We live in a world where unpopular speech is given protection from the mob, and the government maintains neutrality as to content.
That is what makes us free.