If you don’t know where the phrase “drinking the kool-aid” originates, look into Jim Jones, Jamestown and mass suicide. We often hear this phrase used as an insult for people who uncritically repeat political talking points, buy into hysterical narratives, etc. In this case, however, we are actually referring to ideas that, if consistently followed in real-life, increase one’s chances of being gravely harmed, violated and possibly murdered. It’s as close to the Jim Jones kool-aid I’ve ever seen.
I am referring to a “controversy” – and it is really insane that any controversy ought to exist at all – over an obviously amazing product developed by four men at North Carolina State University, a varnish that can detect common date-rape drugs in drinks. To normal, healthy and sane minds not corrupted by ideology, this would be an indispensable tool for women of all ages and particularly college-age girls who are in the most danger of being drugged and assaulted. For radical feminists, however, the detector threatens to undermine a narrative and a worldview in which they have a great deal invested.
This worldview is more important than individual victims, more important than actually preventing rape, more important than just about anything else. From the above link:
“Rape Crisis does not endorse or promote such a product or anything similar. This is for three reasons: it implies that it’s the woman’s fault and assumes responsibility on her behalf, and detracts from the real issues that arise from sexual violence.”
Absolutely none of this, of course, was assumed or intended by the inventors of the product. And absolutely none of it is true. That this madness can be sincerely believed by millions of women and men is truly frightening. Perhaps the notion is that if women who don’t use the product get drugged and raped, then someone will say, “well, they should have used the product.” This would indeed be a despicable thing to say, but it would be about a million times worse if a woman chose not to use it when it may have saved her because she was afraid of “implying” something about other women.
Can they not see how this logic could apply to anything? If my home is burned down because of an electrical problem, some fellow might say, “those people, they didn’t have a fire extinguisher in the house or batteries in their smoke alarm. If they lived like us, it wouldn’t have happened.” I wouldn’t want to hear that as I watch my house go up in flames. It would be insensitive and I might sock the person who said it. It would also not be outside of the realm of possibility that I did make poor choices that increased the likelihood of a fire. To ignore this possibility is to infantilize not only women, but all human beings. It is also to deny that while a victim’s actions may contribute to their victimization, the moral fault lies with the perpetrator. You can be technically responsible for something without also being morally responsible for it.
What I wouldn’t do if my house burned down is begin a campaign to “teach fire not to burn.” Human beings do have free will, can be educated and persuaded, and I am all for it. Human beings are also a widely diverse lot: some are more in control of their passions than others, and some can be fully educated on how they are expected to behave as civilized adults and choose to act like savages or sociopaths. Statistically it is bound to happen no matter who is taught what, and in that sense, probability is no different than fire, impersonal, immune to reason, but relatively easy to prepare for. Each individual man is responsible for the decisions he makes, and this in no way contradicts the statistical certainty that some men will choose rape and violence, thus making it entirely rational for women to take steps to defend themselves. Again, it must be said that this applies to so many areas of life for men and women both.
The feminists knocking this drug are causing real harm to real women. Their ideology is a dangerous fraud. Fortunately the overwhelming majority of women I’ve seen commenting on various articles related to this “controversy” are in favor of the drug and do reject the insanity of radical feminism.