“Don’t Expect Tomorrow’s Predators To Look Like Yesterday’s”

The rapes of 1,400 British girls by Pakistani men is slowly becoming international news.

British authorities failed to act, even though the crimes had been reported, because they didn’t want to look racist.

Ross Douthat of the New York Times has some astute observations:

…what happened in Rotherham looks like an ideological mirror image of Roman Catholicism’s sex abuse scandal. The Catholic crisis seemed to vindicate a progressive critique of traditionalism: Here were the wages of blind faith and sexual repression; here was a case study in how a culture of hierarchy and obedience gave criminals free rein.

But here’s the mirror:

The crimes in Rotherham, by contrast, seem scripted to vindicate a reactionary critique of liberal multiculturalism: Here are immigrant gangs exploiting a foolish Western tolerance; here are authorities too committed to “diversity” to react appropriately; here is a liberal society so open-minded that both its brain and conscience have fallen out.

And he warns:

In Hollywood and the wider culture industry — still the great undiscovered country of sexual exploitation, I suspect — it has often meant the famous and talented, from Roman Polanski to the BBC’s Jimmy Savile, robed in the authority of their celebrity and art.

Douthat’s conclusion, however, is what really caught my attention:

The point is that as a society changes, as what’s held sacred and who’s empowered shifts, so do the paths through which evil enters in, the prejudices and blind spots it exploits.

So don’t expect tomorrow’s predators to look like yesterday’s…Expect them, instead, to look like the people whom you yourself would be most likely to respect, most afraid to challenge publicly, or least eager to vilify and hate.

Because your assumptions and pieties are evil’s best opportunity, and your conventional wisdom is what’s most likely to condemn victims to their fate.

Rather than the stereotypical creep guy lurking around, predators most often have worn a mask of respectability, as with priests; or sympathy, as with Pakistani immigrants in Britain.

This leads me to the second news item. The US Centers for Disease Control released its 2011 report on intimate partner violence. As with previous reports, the CDC says it’s rape when a man has sex with a woman (or another man) without consent. But the CDC refuses to say it’s rape when a woman forces a man to have sex without his consent. Instead, they employ the euphemism “made to penetrate”.

Table 6 of the CDC report reveals something startling, however. In the past 12 months, 0.8% of women report having been raped. And 0.8% of men report having been “made to penetrate”.

In other words, women rape men as often as men rape women – if we decide to consider all non-consensual sex as rape.

In addition, almost every week we read news stories about female teachers sexually exploiting underage male students. And if a statutory rape results in pregnancy, then the boy can be ordered to pay child support.

And it’s not just schools. A surprising number of boys in juvenile detention experience rape and sexual abuse. Though a minority of the staff, female guards account for 90% of the perpetrators at one Tennessee juvenile detention center. Similar rates have been found at other juvenile prisons.

Douthat may be right that Hollywood is full of hidden sexual assault scandals. But no group is thought less capable or less inclined to sexual assault than women. And as we see with the child support case, the law actually protects female rapists and re-victimizes boy victims.

Political correctness in this case works against victims. As one feminist professor, Adele Mercier, told men’s rights activist Alison Tieman, the 90% figure “merely reflects THE PROPORTIONS OF GAY AND STRAIGHT MALES in juvenile detention centers” (emphasis Mercier’s). Mercier states that only a male can rape a male, and notes that the boys “experience sexual misconduct involving FEMALE STAFF WITHOUT FORCE” (emphasis Mercier’s). The age of consent apparently is not a factor when a woman wants a boy.

Predators indeed don’t look the way you expect them to, and progressive politics/social justice activists can be an enablers.


2 thoughts on ““Don’t Expect Tomorrow’s Predators To Look Like Yesterday’s”

  1. “Predators indeed don’t look the way you expect them to, and progressive politics/social justice activists can be an enablers.”

    Oh, so very true. You can really get yourself into trouble these days by suggesting that “rape” often has more to do with the protected or unprotected status of the rapist, then it does about the amount of force or coercion used. It’s not what you do, it’s who you are perceived to be within the culture. Who can ever forget Whoopi Goldberg explaining to us the difference between “rape” and “rape-rape?”

    Rape used to be perceived as a property crime, a crime against a family’s “property.” Today it is a crime against the state. The thing about the state however, is that it tends to take care of it’s own, so those who have the favor of the state will always have protected status.

    1. The state taking care of its own and protecting those it favours hadn’t really dawned on me, though it’s absolutely true. In the Rotherham case it should have been the girls in state custody that the state was protecting, but the fact that it wasn’t should make us stop and think.

Comments are closed.