The IWF on Rape

Regular “Alas” readers have seen me criticize the IWF (the Independent Woman’s Forum, the Republican Party’s answer to feminism) before. Maybe I should quit.

But whenever I think the IWF has reached rock bottom, they bring in the big Caterpillar earthmoving machines and dig themselves an even deeper hole to sleaze in. Regarding the University of Colorado sex party scandal, Charlotte Allen of the IWF writes:

Several women have complained that they were raped at either team sex parties or in players’ apartments in 2001. Perhaps they were indeed molested against their will–but why go to a sex party if you don’t want sex?

(If a man was mugged at a charity dinner, presumably Charlotte would say “why go to a charity event if you don’t want to give away money?”)

I guess the difference between feminists and the enlightened women of the IWF is, feminists don’t make excuses for rape. But I guess retrograde opinions like that are why I don’t get free money from Richard Scaife.

This entry posted in Anti-feminists and their pals, Rape, intimate violence, & related issues. Bookmark the permalink. 

25 Responses to The IWF on Rape

  1. Is Allen being deliberately obtuse? The coach wasn’t just commenting on Hnida’s ability, he was all but blaming her for the rape by saying that she was “forced on them” and implying that the guys didn’t respect her because they respect ability. (I suppose a bad male placekicker has to worry about rape?)

    And for heaven’s sake, the girls who complained about getting raped at a party may not have known that it was supposed to be a “sex” party–they probably just heard about a party. The recruits were told there would be sex parties, and that CU would “get them sex” if they signed on.

    Would it kill Ms. Allen to actually read the freakin’ news? (Or enable comments for that matter? Very telling, that.)

  2. 2
    brayden says:

    You know, I’ve been on a college campus for about 10 years now and I’ve never received the flyer advertising the “sex party.” Do they distribute those outside the freshman halls?

  3. 3
    nemesys says:

    One small, but important, distinction — rape is not sex.

    Rape is violence.

    Even if I went to a party with the knowledge that it was a “sex party,” and even if I went with the intention of finding someone(s) to have sex with, I could hardly be said to have consented to being beaten.

    That rape is a beating aimed at sexual organs makes it no less an act of violence. And I might even go so far as to argue that the “targeting” of the sexual organs for violence is a big part of what makes rape an especially appaling violent act, as these are areas of our bodies that are particularly sensitve and vulnerable.

    Imagine getting your eyes gouged, and having someone say that you wanted that to happen?

    Shorter version: Rape is violence, not sex.

  4. 4
    Amy Phillips says:

    I wonder if they also believe it’s not possible to rape a prostitute. After all, why become a sex worker if you don’t want to have sex? Or for that matter, I wonder if they’d support legalizing marital rape, since why would you marry someone if you didn’t want to have sex with him any time he wants to? It’s just shameful. I consider myself both a conservative (just barely) and a feminist, and I really wish that people like that wouldn’t keep making a bad name for people like me.

  5. 5
    Echidne says:

    I love that comparison to the guest at the charity party! May I borrow it in the future, with proper attribution of course?

  6. 6
    Ampersand says:

    Echinde – of course feel free to use it. No need for attribution, I’m sure I’m not the first person to have made that comparison over the years. :-)

  7. 7
    PinkDreamPoppies says:

    It’s more likem “why go to a charity event if you don’t want to be mugged?”

  8. 8
    Raznor says:

    Well obviously, if a woman consents to sex with one man, she instantly constents to sex with everyone.

    (He said as he beats his head against the wall)

    Seriously, how can you say stuff like that and still pretend to have women’s interests at all in mind?

  9. 9
    EdgeWise says:

    Does anyone know where organizations like the IWF and Concerned Women of America get their funding and what their demographics are? I don’t want to believe that such mysogyny really originates wholely with women, even a minority of misguided ones.

  10. 10
    Quadratic says:

    Hey cool. Thanks for the link to the IWF, I had no idea they existed.

    I can finally read women that think with their brains, not their vaginas!

    Caveat: Yeah, the article linking “sex parties” and “asking” to be raped is ignorant, but please admit, NOW has some dumbasses too.

  11. 11
    Quadratic says:


    Any feminist worth his/her salt would know how to spell misogyny. Look it up, I’m sure it’s in your manifesto somewhere.

    Keep up the good fight.

  12. 12
    JRC says:

    Quadratic, why the snyde insults?

  13. 13
    JRC says:

    Or, sorry, “snide.”

  14. 14
    Quadratic says:

    Insults? What insults?
    I merely meet intolerance with intolerance.

    I’m insulted by Edgewise’s implication that men MUST have something to do with anything she/he disagrees with as a feminist.

    I’m insulted by the buzzwords “misogynist”, “anti-Semite”, “Bigot” and “Racist” that are so liberally applied to anyone with an unpopular opinion on this blog.

    I’m insulted by YOU JRC, who use words like “Dumbasses” in, and at the end of your posts. You say things like “You believe in discrimination and the politics of hate, therefore you are prejudiced” (I’ll give you the link if you care)

    Here’s a word for you JRC, and I’ll even spell it right the first time…hypocrite.

  15. 15
    Mr Ripley says:

    Edgewise–note the final sentence in the blog entry, and poke around the blog a little for more on Mr. Scaife. He comes off as a throughly nasty piece of work. Naturally, since sources of funding as big as the Scaife foundation are in the vast majority of cases run by men, it’s not by any means a wholly female, or female-originated, enterprise; but that doesn’t let the “misguided” women off the hook. Being a fifth-columnist for the patriarchy –or indeed working for the oppressor in any situation– can be a very attractive profession to some.

  16. 16
    Raznor says:


    Besides being correct about the spelling of “misogyny” (I always thought it was a “y” instead of an “i”, go figure) you go a bit too far but bring up a good point (and I say this for reasons other than your nice words to me in another thread).

    You’re absolutely right that we must be careful how we apply words like “misogynyst” and so on, for fear that they may lose meaning. This is a mistake on the part of many, across the ideological divide, to use words like this in order to dismiss arguments rather than argue on their credentials. I think this falls under what Nietzche would classify as the universal human trait being laziness.

    Still, most of us don’t classify people as bigots or whatnot, but usually mention bigoted comments. There is a difference. It may be that a person may not feel bigoted when pursuing bigoted arguments, and it does not necessarily reflect on the person’s character. Those of us who are honest realize not to attach too much of the argument to the person making the argument.

    And in that vain, I don’t know how to classify Charlotte Allen’s comment as misogynystic. It is a classic blame the victim school of rape-apology that is, to put it bluntly, disgusting. Besides that, regular readers of this blog know that there are many reasons to believe that the IWF doesn’t really have the best interests of women at heart.

    But another post here from a bit after I started reading here about a year ago noted that the point of feminist isn’t that all women must necessarily agree with feminism, it’s about standing up for women’s rights to do what they want, even if that is joining the IWF. More power to the women of the IWF if they’re doing what they truly believe in.

    That doesn’t mean IWF isn’t a despicable organization though.

  17. 17
    Kristjan Wager says:

    So if I go to a sex-party (whatever that is), I can have sex with any girl there? cool. Except of course if it’s a homosexual sex party …

    How can anyone say such garbage and still think they are feminists? or enlightened? or wahtever they call themseleves?
    How hard can it be to figure out that a woman have the right to choose who she wants sex with (as long as that person is in agreement)? Anything else is rape.

  18. 18
    Ampersand says:

    Quadratic – I agree that rudeness on this blog is a problem (and one I try to gently discourage). But you’re not a part of the solution; you’re part of the problem.

    Your very first comment on this blog, before anyone had said a word to you, was quite insulting (“Does anyone on this blog have anything original to say… Your rhetoric is so tired, it borders on juvenile.”) I’m sure that’s your honest opinion, but you expressed it in an openly insulting and contemptuous manner.

    Take responsibility for your own actions, Quad. If you want to be treated with civility, then treat others civilly. If you choose to treat others rudely, don’t expect respect.

    * * *

    Has NOW sometimes said dumb things? Of course (see my comment about NOW in this post, for example). But I don’t think anyone in NOW would make excuses for rape – they leave that sort of thing to the IWF.

    * * *

    Please don’t make spelling flames on my blog. I prefer not to be bored, and nothing is more boring than flaming another person’s spelling.

    * * *

    This is a feminist blog, and I don’t have to tolerate misogyny here. If you want to post a public apology for “I can finally read women that think with their brains, not their vaginas!” – which is definitely a misogynistic comment – email me and let me know. Until you do, please don’t post on this blog anymore.

    I suspect you won’t be willing to apologize. Apologizing would mean accepting responsibility for your own actions, rather than blaming other people, and so far that hasn’t been your style. Maybe you’ll surprise me.

    Otherwise, have a nice life.

  19. 19
    Rebekah says:

    What bothered you, Quadratic, was it that JRC described your position so accurately?

    As far as I can remember, the post you’re talking about was when you argued that denying marriage to same-sex couples wasn’t discrimination because they could marry members of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals. As someone pointed out, that’s the same argument they used against inter-racial marriages: “Blacks can marry blacks, and whites can marry whites, so it’s not discrimination.” You were actively arguing for segregation, and you’re suprised when someone calls you prejudiced? I’d say that that’s almost the definition! How is that not prejudiced? If you believe that how are you not prejudiced?

    As a woman, also, I am extremely insulted by your comment: “I can finally read women that think with their brains, not their vaginas!” That was quite uncalled for. If you want to argue against people, argue, but if you want to use a vulgar insult like that to 1/2 of the human race, please kept it to yourself.

  20. Quadratic, before you lean up against the cross and declare yourself a martyr of the PC left, here’s a tip:

    “Don’t do it. You can never get the last nail in.” — Neil, from the Young Ones.

  21. 21
    Ampersand says:

    Just a test… Ignore this post, folks.

  22. 22
    Raznor says:

    Uh, technically that would be martyr to the PC left, but that’s cool. We all know what you meant. Even if I didn’t get the reference.

  23. 23
    Quadratic says:

    I’m sorry, my comment was rude and out of line.

    I usually refrain from posting about things that upset me for at least 24 hours, for this very reason.

    Again, I’m sorry, my comment was offensive, and not conducive to adult, intellectual conversation.

  24. 24
    Ampersand says:

    Okay. Thanks, Quadratic, for apologizing. I appreciate it.

    To Everyone: I think this thread has gotten kinda derailed. No one’s fault; it happens. But please keep future comments constructive, or at least related to the initial post, if possible. :-)

  25. 25
    Raznor says:

    Okay, I’ll get things started in the right direction again.


    Boy that Charlotte Allen. She sure is a pretentious asshole, huh?