I think the main point that Ms. MacDonald is trying to make is that the “rape industry” (as she calls it) on campus seems to have come to the point where it wants high rape statistics (which, thankfully, is not necessarily a high incidence of rape) as this improves their political and financial position.
My local fire department does a great job of handling fires that occur in our town – that is, after a fire has started. But they also do an enormous amount of work in prevention: raising awareness of brush and trash hazards, education on proper storage of flammable chemicals, reminders to maintain smoke detectors, reminders to have two escape routes, etc. This is because their first goal is to have fewer fires.
I believe Ms. MacDonald is pointing out that if these groups had as their first goal to have fewer rapes, they would work on prevention as much or more than on helping after a rape has occurred. But this one avenue almost guaranteed to reduce the number of rapes (and “rapes”) is vigorously avoided since it is politically distasteful, as if it implies the victim’s guilt. As if putting together a storm kit makes one responsible for the hurricane.
Women on campus may or may not be able to affect men’s behavior, but they CAN affect their own. They should try to do both. When I was in college, we always had a designated sober person (or two) in our group, even when we walked to a party. How hard is that? How is that suggestion demeaning to women? Isn’t it more demeaning to assert that women can’t do anything or, worse, that they have some obligation to increase their chances of harm so that blame may be “properly” placed?
