Michael Z. Williamson sums up rape education and response

An excellent, detailed, comprehensive, well documented post by Mike:


So as the other side is putting words in my mouth, or saying that people like me and Mike don’t believe in education or all that nonsense, nope. Mike’s response is fairly representative of how most people on my side of this debate feel about the issue.

Peter Grant on educating rapists
Correia uses a bad word, and it is the Worst Thing Ever: SJW Outrage of the Week

40 thoughts on “Michael Z. Williamson sums up rape education and response”

  1. Wow. I was expecting weapons-grade snark in such epic concentrations that the EPA would put his IP address on the Superfund list.

    But that was cogent, well written, and calm. I’m impressed. Kind of sad that we didn’t get anything as snarky as his “Let’s treat cars like guns!” post, but this will be much more useful in internet debates.

    1. Mad Mike can be extremely rude and obnoxious with right occasion. This isn’t one of those. He’s being serious.

  2. Wait, this is a “debate”? With logic and stuff?

    I have to say it ain’t. This is Miss Utah saying something entirely unremarkable, and you saying the same thing to back her up, and now MZW saying the same thing to back you both up, while a bunch of mentally ill people call y’all names and pretty much have a public freak-out. Oh, plus the likes of Mr. Scalzi and Mr. Hines snipe from the sidelines for political gain. Which I find putrid.

    Saying “women should protect themselves from rapists” is factual on the same level as “water is wet” and “the sun rises in the east and sets in the West.” There is no “other side” to that. Its a stand-alone, self-evident, self supporting fact of life. Like gravity.

    Saying men must be “educated” so that women will never have to defend themselves is f-ed on the same level as Canute commanding the tides to turn. Its not an argument, its wishing for the moon to fit in your pocket.

    This is not a debate. Its a freak show, with all the freaks on the anti-freedom, anti-gun, anti-self defense side.

    As freak shows go though, this one is pretty fun. Watching one’s political enemies set themselves on fire and run around in circles, it just never gets old.

    1. Well, isn’t this how “debates” with liberals typically go? We try to use reason and logic and they throw tantrums. Then when we call them on their BS, they go all pearl-clutchy and have a fit of the vapors.

      The “problems” here are that the rad-fems and their pussified male allies like Scalzi are starting from the premise that all men are rapists, and that their definition of “rape” is so malleable that it can basically describe any behavior they don’t like at the moment of their choosing. Same as their definition of “racist,” or their definition of “extremist,” or, etc.

      Remember Hillary on CNN the other night, blathering about how Americans can no longer allow a pro-gun “minority” to “terrorize” the majority with their viewpoint? That’s the other premise they’re starting from. The mere fact that we disagree with them is beyond the pale, and we must shut up for their peace of mind. Because, in their mind, they’re the “right-thinking” “majority.”

      You can’t debate that mindset. You can only defeat it.

      1. Debate’s not worth much when it’s nut farm time. Two small victories this week when it comes to mainstreaming hate-speech as “justice.” The racist Medieval PoC has stopped posting, as least for now, because its own racism brought attention and people started digging. The stoppage was not voluntary. QUILTBAGs in SFF were always linking to it. Surprise, the owner is a WisCon-ite and nuts.

        The most insanely venomous feminist I’ve ever seen, Shanley Kane in the world of tech has gone to protected Tweets for drawing the same attention. That was one of the most remarkable Twitter feeds I’ve ever seen for sheer hatred of straight white men, morning to night, every day.

        I got Beth Bernobich to shut her Twitter down for a short time by quoting some miserable thing she said on Twitter here. Now she’s back wishing us dead by fire, a quote that will be on the internet forever. Unremarkably, the very morons who went nuts over “pussy” to the tune of “stay away from me” have squat to say about Bernobich. If Kowal can say stay away from me over a vagina joke, should I be calling Interpol over Bernobich? But how can they have a double standard when they don’t have any?

        “I want LC and his fucking minions to die in a fire.” – Beth Bernobich, SFWA member

        “You are dangerous and disgusting. Stay away from me” Beth Bernobich you flesh arsonist.

  3. You’re assuming we’re in an actual debate with differing ways of viewing this. Let’s ask ourselves a simple question: why are there two sides in this debate? Normally there’d be staggered and mutually intersecting and differing multiple viewpoints all dedicated to a single goal – diminishing rape: law, law enforcement, prevention, the criminal justice system, drinking, chaperonage, buddy systems, situational awareness, peer pressure, etc.

    Most of that is is rejected out of hand by the group most driving this debate.

    This debate is obviously driven by our QUILTBAGs. Only in their ditzy world does one have to spend much of an essay reiterating water is wet and comparing locking a door to shaming door-lockers. Once you assume this debate is driven by a cult bent on demonizing men as a politicized identity and puffing up women at the expense of those men, you’ll see this is nothing more than the across-the-board disdain for men that addresses every aspect of our culture in which women are hated victims of men.

    Group demonization theory is not dedicated to solving problems. It is dedicated to taking individual acts of immorality by a member of that group, whether man, black, Arab or Jew and subtly attaching those acts to the entirety of the group. What you were at birth becomes “culture.” “Rape culture,” a culture of multiple “privileges” unavailable – globally – to anyone fortunate/unfortunate enough to be noble PoC, gay and women.

    Though I use the word “debate” it is one you will never win because it is not a debate. You can not win this sort of debate unless you can confess to the innate indecency of being a privileged ethnic European, a man, and a heterosexual. Then you graduate to an “ally,” though never fully trusted. The QUILTBAG “solution” to rape is for men to stop acting like men, just as the white supremacist solution to black crime is for blacks to stop acting like blacks. Simple.

    On the core SFF level, that means nothing less than a wholesale adoption of QUILTBAG dogma in your fiction, as represented by the Tiptree and Nebula Award winners, each anti-white straight male to the hilt. As long as there is a single rape this cult will exploit it for their real goal – blaming every failure in the world on men.

    Arguing with these people is like banging your head against a wall – it is senseless.

    The real debate lies in exposing the people who are driving this ideological view of crime which makes tens of millions of men accessories while excusing millions of others – and all based on QUILTBAG critical fake Marxist pedagogy about race and gender

    It doesn’t matter what you do – the other side will keep putting words in your mouth because in their minds they represent all women, and to disagree with them is to oppose womanhood itself.

    You folks really need to read this for an introductory lesson on what we’re really up against and realize the subject of “rape” is really just a bullet in their ammo clip:


    Then read this, and after you’re done, multiply it by 50,000 blog posts:


    These people are nuts and they are gunning for you starting from the day you were slapped into life. Even white and black feminists are gunning for each other based on the same QUILTBAG shaming rituals where traditional feminists must bend the knee.

    1. Scalzi did link back to it.

      Dunning-Kruger comes into play a lot. Guns are common enough that everyone has an opinion, the opposition simultaneously believing they’re too complex for the common person, and being sure they know all about them.

      1. Libs like to think learning basic defensive gun use is super hard and dangerous. Meanwhile, the opinions of guys like me and Mike who have actually taught lots of regular people how to use guns effectively don’t count. Go figure.

      2. too complex for the common person

        For crying outloud, the Army and the Marines manage to adequately instruct thousands of 18 year olds on how to safely use a variety of weapons annually. It’s not rocket science.

        (And it’s even worse when that sort of statement comes from people who view military service as “the last resort of retards.” Not that every lib/anti-gun/anti-military person thinks this. Just too many.)

        1. Professionally, I found that I could take just about any regular willing student who didn’t have severe emotional or mental problems, and with two long days of training take them from zero knowledge to being able to pass most police department’s basic qualifiers.

      3. Meanwhile he won’t back off his position one iota. Anyone who’s crazy enough to support N.K. Jemisin’s WisCon speech needs to have their head (and rhetoric) examined, not debated with. How do you debate someone who parrots bell hooks and Melissa Harris-Perry by writing articles about white privilege?

        You win this debate by quoting the other side, not engaging them, because at this point, what’s left are too fanatic or out on a limb to ever back off. Arguing with Scalzi that ethnic European heterosexual men aren’t all that bad is like arguing whether trees exist, and Scalzi’s the least of the lot. You may as well entomb yourself under the pyramids as directly debate Jemisin. The effect would be identical.

        Jim Hines and the rest of QUILTBAGdom construct enough straw men without a brain to fuel the sun. You’d think this year’s Nebula’s were escaping bondage from Egypt. I think “hysteria” and “paranoia” are the words we’re looking for here.

      4. with two long days of training take them from zero knowledge to being able to pass most police department’s basic qualifiers

        *sigh* So much for the ‘but the police are so much more experienced and expert than ordinary mortals’ theme.

        (That’s sad, that really is. Even for an awesome instructor, I would like to think that the police would set their bar higher.)

        1. Cops shoot for certification once or twice a year. Most never even clean their guns more than twice a year. They are, as a class, some of the worst marksmen out there.

        2. Yeah, it isn’t that the average person learns that quick, but rather that most PD quals are aimed at the lowest common denominator.

      5. correia45, on June 20, 2014 at 6:56 pm said:
        Professionally, I found that I could take just about any regular willing student who didn’t have severe emotional or mental problems, and with two long days of training take them from zero knowledge to being able to pass most police department’s basic qualifiers.

        Larry, I think you’ll have more problem with novice shooter than guys like me who have handle guns, but have pick up way too much bad habits to correct. At least with them they don’t have any bad habits to unlearn.

      6. I went shooting today, hadn’t been for a while. My best grouping was 2 by 2 1/2 inches (low and to the left) at 10 yards with my 9mm Walther PPQ. I’m insufferably proud of myself at the moment. “Too complex for the common person,” *snort*

        Girls like guns. 🙂

        Now I have to do the (just a little bit) complex part and disassemble and clean them.

      7. *sigh* So much for the ‘but the police are so much more experienced and expert than ordinary mortals’ theme.

        If you’re a regular over at Insta-pundit, then you quickly learn to hope that the ordinary mortals are a *lot* more experienced and expert than the cops are. I think today’s story involved a cop who accidentally discharged his weapon in a courtroom while demonstrating something to the court.

      8. Junior, maybe the ossifer thought he could imitate Temple Houston (who was a gunfighter as well as a lawyer). Houston “inadvertently” caused a mistrial by sending the jury fleeing as he demonstrated what might have happened during the alleged crime.

  4. That was a very well-written, and nicely documented, piece.

    I’m sorry that it will do so little good.

    The idea of being helpless makes my skin crawl, and it’s terrifying to read so many people who seem to want me to be.

  5. “guns don’t rely on strength, only on mindset”




    I preach this until I am blue in the face and this is the most distilled truth I have seen in print regarding this concept.

      1. Contrary to what the TSA might say a weapon is not a thing, like a knife or a gun. A weapon is a person with the right mindset.

        If you have the mindset of, “If someone tries to hurt me or mine I’m going to F**k him up as badly as I can with whatever I can put my hands on quickly. And if all I can get my hands on is his naughty bits, that’ll work too!”

        If a person, man or woman, has this mindset as their default setting it clearly conveys itself to a potential attacker thus reducing the ROI for most attackers to the point where they don’t even try.

        You don’t have to be a BadAss to think like a BadAss!


  6. I’m still waiting for Scalzi to blog about why wishing people to die a fiery death is actually a gender-awareness teaching moment that illustrates how the slang term “pussy”= rape because degree in philosophy of language.

  7. That was a fantastic piece. Time after time, while reading I kept thinking,”Man, I’ve been trying to think of a good way to say that for years.”

    It deserves widespread dissemination.

    As a previous victims of sexual assault, I thank you, Mr. Williamson

  8. As I stated on Twitter (more than once) – feminists, and The Chinless Wonder considers himself one, are not the least bit interested in educating anyone or saving women, all evidence points to this being true. Anytime you advise women to act in X manner (arm yourself, don’t get drunk at a party, etc) is met with much shrieking and hand-waving about “blaming the victim”. What is important to remember is that the shrieking crowd is not your audience, your audience happens to be in the wings reading, but not commenting on either side. You are not here to argue with the shriekers, but to put out the relevant facts (such as the studies correlating drinking/drunkeness to being raped as well as the ones Mr. Williamson cited in his post) and answer reasonable and relevant questions that are raised. You cannot and will not be able to reason with the unreasonable – in this case it is all of those who are emotionally and intellectually incapable of doing so. They are simply to tied to idea of being victims and they enjoy the drama of it, all protestations to the contrary. The facts and evidence are a simply not on their side.

  9. I believe that almost all liberals suffer from a variety of mental health issues; often resulting in a lack of emotional development throughout their lives. I know this may seem contradictory to many who see them as excessively emotional; but, emotional maturity is determined by how one copes with their own emotions. The less control someone has over them, the more immature they are.

    This liberals live in a perpetual state of detachment from what a more stable person would consider the real world. They do not understand that everything in the world has consequences and in some cases refuse to acknowledge such a concept; especially when it comes to their own actions.

    It is difficult to explain what a sociopath or a psychopath is to a small child. This idea that a person is inherently emphatic to other living creatures and is incapable of producing emotional connections to them. That’s why they do not understand how outlandish the idea of teaching a sociopath not to commit crimes truly is; because, they do not register that not everything in this world can benefit from a glittery make-over. Even when these people try to change something, to make it fit into their fantasy view of the world and that thing explodes in their face; the lack of emotional immaturity inhibits them from effectively registering the full weight of what had transpired. Typical of someone with limited emotional stability, they will throw fault in their failures to some external source. In most cases that external source of corruption is someone who clashes with their naive ideology.

    People use to think that I was making this up until I went to college and began making my liberal professors cry like spoiled children, not getting their way. It began clicking into the minds of people connected with me; that these are not just individuals with a different point of view; they are deeply troubled individuals.

    Every society has that group of people who are willing to put their head into a lion’s mouth; simply because they want to believe that it is harmless. Anyone with a foot in reality knows a stronger truth of the world we live in; that what we want isn’t always compliant with what is possible or even ethical. In that regard, it isn’t surprising that liberals, who accuse others of being apathetic, tend to be the most apathetic towards understanding the realities of our world.

    That all being said, I’ve found the best way to communicate with a liberal, is to simple lower yourself to their level. You simply speak to them like you would a child. Just don’t use the child voice or they may catch on.

  10. Regardless of whether any of the self-defense critics or people that are suggesting education is the only/best approach, this was one of the most concise and cogent articles on this subject that has come out in this whole ‘controversy.’

    I disagree that no one will listen. While there are always some people that aren’t interested in having their position challenged in a any way, there are still some that can be persuaded.

    1. My first paragraph could have been written better. My point was that this was a good blog entry that looked at comprehensive response.

  11. As I’m reading this,I’m trying to figure out what the heck a degree in philosophy of language is. Sounds kind of like a degree in wymyn’s studies only not as hard…
    Somebody over on Vox’s(that racist dog!!11!111) site had a really good short comment on these humanoids. I can’t remember the exact wording, but it came down to the fact that libs/progs/ socs/femnazi etc DO. NOT. GIVE. A. DAMN. about rape – except as it can be used to further their various agendas.
    The only pleasure I’ll get from those on the wrong side of this issue (and most other issues as well) is that IF they win and if I’m still alive, I’ll get to watch as they are all circumcised and then sold off as cleaning slaves and kitchen drudges. And that’ll only be the younger, less ugly ones.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.