"Give Us The Freedom To Risk Rape"

[Howseitgoin]

Famed feminist Camille Paglia's interesting views on women's freedoms:

"Yes this is probably the most controversial area that I have written about.
From the start, when I became known in the early 1990s, this has been, my views on this subject have been highly inflammatory.

And I am coming to the subject from the point of view of a 1960s women, who, as a student, when I arrived as a freshman, my first year in 1964, the college, rebelled against the strict surveillance by the college administration of the lives of the women students.

This was the period that was called 'in loco parentis', that is, 'in place of the parents'. The college administrations felt that they had the obligation to supervise, to monitor, and protect the women students as they did not the male students.

Hence we had all girl dormitories and all male dormitories. The men could come and go at any hour of the day or night. We women had to sign in at 11 o'clock at night, so that the authorities of the college knew where. And we said, my generation rebelled, and called for an end to this practice. And they said, the world is dangerous, we have an obligation to protect you against rape. And what we said was 'give us the freedom to risk rape. That is true freedom'. That is what the sexual revolution gave to women.

Now, what will women do with the freedom? Feminism should have taken my view and said that 'now, you are an equal of a man and you must protect yourself as a man would. You must see the world as dangerous as a man would.' You must be as defensive and hyper-aware of your surroundings as a man would. Because men too are attacked for all kinds of things. Men too are the victims of crime and so on.

Instead, we've had this process of women calling for protections, a new paternalism, from the government and now from the college administrations again. They want to draw the parent figures back into their sex lives. This to me, is a major major fault of contemporary feminism. There are great responsibilities that come with freedom. And one of them is that you must take responsibility for your own defense."

Seems particularly relevant in terms of today's demand for 'women's private spaces'

Thoughts?

So is fourth wave feminism deciding that trying to be a lad is better than seeking true equality? Transing away the sexism?

Are you really so naive as to say that malevokence shouldn't exist and think that's the end of the matter? It's a fact that malevolence exists in our world. Whether we like it or not it plays a fundamental part in our existence. It will be here for ever just as 'up' 'down' 'left' and 'right' will remain here too. It always makes me question what goes through the head of the kind of people that say 'but men shouldn't rape', as if there was a subset of people who go around advocating rape as a good strategy for males in society. Obviously nobody thinks that, and nobody thinks you're any more of a good person for feeling the need to state it. If anything it makes me wonder what flaws of their own these types are trying to mask by making such statements.

And I don't know what delusion you see on a day to day basis but to assume that men, even in general didn't see women as human pre 1990's is plain wrong. Just stop it.

Evil exists but we can see that the prevalence of sexual abuse and violence is partly cultural - and we need to to move the UK to the top of this list not accept it as somehow natural

You'd think it didn't need stating, wouldn't you? Then you think of all the things that are said to skirt round this obvious and core point, that are invariably about what women shouldn't do in order that men won't rape (including a recent thread where it was suggested that women shouldnt have fillers and heavy make up, because this was part of the reason a man was able to sexually assault another man, believe it or not!) and you realise that it probably can't be said enough. Probably needs saying over and over until we all keep our focus on changing the behaviour of perpetrators, be it with education, restrictions or consequences as necessary, rather than accepting it as inevitable and putting the onus on women to avoid being victims.

Prior to 1992, marital rape was not a crime, so in a way we weren't seen as human, but merely an extension of our husband.

1. At one point almost all students were minors, viz. under the age of 21; hence the university or college was in loco parentis to all of them—not just the women. Then the age of majority went down to 18. When I went up I was 17, so for a bit the college was still in loco parentis to me. Technically.
2. Remember that thing about women preferring the bear? Well, women generally would prefer to have government protection from sexual violence than depend on either men or guns: you know, the way citizens do rely on their governments for certain protections? We may not always get them, of course, but we can keep hammering away at it (cf. the recent changes regarding domestic abusers in the UK).
3. We women do not like having to rely on men to protect us from other men. It sucks. The only way this will change is if men stop being dicks, so we're not holding our breath. We certainly don't want men in frocks asking to borrow our lipstick to "protect" us from other men, especially as you all seem to be such delicate flowers that men attack you all the time. (As far as I can see, none of those attacks was carried out by feminists, or indeed women generally—just men. And the victims were almost always prostitutes or drug users, which is sad, but not much to do with their identifying as women per se.)
4. If you lot kept out of women's private spaces, there'd be zero cases of women being challenged.
5. Did you know a man is more likely to be raped than to be the object of a false rape accusation?

That's probably true. It's quietism. The politics of despair.

Thank you 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

It’s still victim blaming. Paglia could have called on men to stop raping and attacking women, but didn’t. She rolled over and assumed men will always be like that.
Second wave feminism did a great deal of work on getting men to consider consent and see women as people, then the 90s backlash of the lads and banter took over. Third wave feminism decided being a ladette was better than seeking true equality.
And here we are.

I have posted up thread an added excerpt where she talks about criminals who aren't receptive to shame or laws. So she isn't victim blaming rather warning women to be realistic about how far societal protections can go.

The singer of The Pretenders Chrissie Hynde was in fact publicly excoriated for discussing a very brutal gang rape she experienced as a young women where she was high & accepted a lift by men she didn't know who went on assault her. Hynde claimed it was important for women to take care because "unhinged' people couldn't be controlled & got shamed as a victim blamer.

I mean what parent in their right mind doesn't warn their daughters & sons to take care? Are they being victim blamers or just being realistic. Should they not warn their children because that's victim blaming?

Should old people not be warned to lock their doors because that's victim blaming?

Have we forgotten to remember why we started the thread?

Why is it feeling like this has moved over to providing wanking material for a rape fetish?

No men of any type should be allowed into womens single sex spaces.

Trying to argue that a sub-set of men dont rape because they somehow share some unknown unknow and unprovable essence.

Trying to argue men should not be shamed when they do rape.

Trying to discuss what woman should feel if she is raped.

I am see one onging theme.

Should old people not be warned to lock their doors because that's victim blaming?

@Howseitgoin lock their doors against what crime?

Taztoy just a FYI I have asked MN to redact my question post quoting your post🌻 I am having second thoughts about my reasoning but ...
Its done.

🌻

Yeah. I think OP is typing with one hand IYKWIM

Have a kitten (or three)

The kitten breaks are very useful thanks AnSolas

Incoherent and inconsistent posts without in-depth answers, just short statements that seem contradictory in intent really is a form of engagement farming. It is done by posters who want any attention they can get from their target audience. It is also why filmsy evidence is presented as being strong evidence and the flaws of that evidence are denied.

We are wise to remember this and to remember all the drip feeding is from a motivation to convince female people that they should allow some men into female single sex spaces. The drip feed and contradictory approach style is designed to increase replies by the poster.

However, it is always an interesting perspective into how it all weaves together in the minds of some male people. Of course, it can also give us the insight in how some posters operate on other forums and perhaps why so many isolated feeling young people hold the views that they hold. When you see it on MN FWR and women are being asked to discuss rape in the way that this poster wants, one who believes it is appropriate to type whether sexual assaults can be ‘successful’, it is rather disturbing.

All this, plus I can't help being reminded of Mr Logic from Viz. It's the mutant ability to miss the point of the debate while getting bogged down in irrelevant details, along with a complete lack of empathy or any understanding of sexual boundaries.

Paglia's claim about 'bourgeois' women is interesting too, isn't it? I understand she's quite proud of her working-class background, but does she really think only bourgeois women are the ones who want to feel safe from rape?

It is done by posters who want any attention they can get from their target audience.

It's why the OP couldn't help themselves near the end of the last thread when they posted in what can only be described as an excited state:

"Couldn't have done it without all those dedicated cookers out there, pat on the back to my loyal dancing squirrels 🐿🐿🐿 And on my debutante outing too. AND AND I'm just warming up…. 27/08/2025 12.47"

Yeah. The hypocrisy of calling us 'cookers' after all they have posted on these threads is really interesting.

We are taking time to detail our thoughts and have evidence that is not just some fucking nutcase's medium posts or a really poor quality report on a poll that had highly dubious statistical relevance. But apparently, we are the ones who are conspiracy theorist extremists.

From some ill-informed random who actually believes that men can be women.

It is probably enlightening though for anyone who is not familiar with this type of person to see how their thoughts play out.

And considering there were women who were willing to give this poster benefit of the doubt, calling them 'cookers' is really just fuckwittery. But maybe those posters will just excuse this behaviour. To me, it was always clear that this is not a person who is going to listen to any of us. That was never the intention.

They are set to broadcast and they think they are cleverly getting one over on the stupid women. In fact, I will go further, 'the stupid British women'. It is just that type of fuckwittery.

I was particularly impressed with the constant Wikipedia links from the OP when asked for evidence.

I notice that the Allsop and the Williams Institute links have stopped.

Yep.

I will say though their last wiki link on the other thread was useful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_English_vocabulary

Yes. I am very aware of the term. It was not unexpected at all from this poster. I have to say that the post was pretty much on par with the rest of the posts.

As I say, unfortunately some posters may have not had that cultural insight that I picked up very quickly. It really is distinctive once you have experienced it. 'Stupid British women' was what I believe the target was. And meanwhile the Matterhorn grows daily with this so clever and insightful poster.

The urge to explain to us all exactly how we were being insulted by the OP once they realised the British posters might not understand the oh so brilliant insult they had just thrown at us was entertaining!