Dear Elizabeth:

I am in receipt of your email stating your forceful objection to my recent column on rape prevention. I understand that you objected to my claim that a woman wearing a Glock tee shirt is less likely to be targeted for rape than a woman wearing a Pink (or Victoria’s Secret) tee shirt. However, I do not understand your claim that the column sexually harassed you. Nor do I understand why it was necessary for you to label me as a “filthy subhuman scumbag” and “a (f-bombing) piece of (poop).” Today, I wish to provide a reply that is more rational and intelligent than your response to my column. Fortunately, that will not be difficult.

As an initial matter, you need to be instructed on the proper use of the term “harassment.” Put simply, ideas are not harassment. This goes against what you have learned in your Women’s Studies classes. But virtually everything taught in these classes is both factually incorrect and ideologically bigoted. No court would ever sustain a charge of harassment made by a woman who lacks the good sense to avoid reading columns she may find offensive. If you knew the column would offend you and you read the column anyway then you must enjoy being angry. That probably explains why you are a campus feminist. Regardless, something cannot be harassment if you actually enjoy it.

Furthermore, someone needs to let you know that despite your best efforts to combat sexist stereotypes, you’ve turned into little more than a walking stereotype. This is unfortunate given what the true feminists who came before you had to experience. A little historical reminder is in order.

When women started to attend colleges and universities in greater numbers several decades ago there were those who objected to their enrollment. Those objectors claimed that women were irrational and emotional and really didn’t belong in a setting where controversial ideas were being discussed. In fact, it was thought that they should stay at home where they could do things more suited to their nature – such as cook, clean, and care for children.

To the extent that you actively seek out ideas that you know will be offensive - and then pretend to be shocked when you hear them - you reinforce stereotypes of women as emotionally weak. When you have the kind of emotional meltdown you displayed in your email you resemble a European soccer player flopping on the ground after being slightly bumped by an opponent. The soccer player would like to be treated like a real athlete. But he cannot be taken seriously because he is a wilting lily. You would do well to consider the analogy before you pollute the intellectual marketplace with another emotional outburst.

Now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, I would like to address the substance of your objection to my column. To show the patent falsity of your broad (no pun intended) assertion that the way a woman dresses does not in any way affect her chances of criminal victimization consider this example:

In 1995, I was visiting my girlfriend in Manta, Ecuador. Because her father was a powerful political figure, we often had an armed bodyguard near us. When we told the bodyguard we were going to take a walk on the beach down below her parents’ house, he made me take off an expensive pair of Cole Hahn shoes I was wearing. He also made me take off my gold watch and my glasses.

When the bodyguard gave me those instructions I did not have an emotional meltdown and call him a filthy subhuman scumbag. I just did what he told me to do. I simply obeyed him because every rational personal knows that one’s manner of dress does indeed impact one’s chances of criminal victimization. It’s just common sense. Unfortunately, your brand of radical feminism has declared war on common sense. Had a single ounce of rationality survived your transition to radical feminism you would realize that my thesis is right (not just far right): A Glock tee shirt is a better way to deter criminals than a public report on your panty preferences.

Your childish response to my column is rooted in both a misapprehension and a misapplication of the concept of the rape myth. When feminists originally coined the term, they were trying to combat the notion that women who were raped somehow “asked for it” by dressing in a provocative manner. Given that rape is by definition non-consensual, no one can ever “ask for it.” If they “asked for it” then it wasn’t rape. No one with an IQ above room temperature ever really thought that a woman was actually asking to be raped by dressing a certain way. From its onset, the feminist battle against so-called rape myths has been a solution in search of a problem.

To say that a woman is not asking to be raped by dressing in a particular way is not the same thing as saying her choice of clothing in no way affects the probability that she will be raped. The first statement is undeniably true. The second one is undeniably false – and it is also dangerous when women use it as an excuse to dress provocatively and then attack anyone who would dare to criticize them for doing so.

Take a look around you the next time you take a walk across campus. Half of the women who pass you have their breasts hanging out of their shirts. About half of them have their butt cheeks falling out of their shorts. This isn’t the way they dress when they go to a nightclub. This is the way they dress when they go to class.

You may continue to believe that walking around half naked doesn’t cause people to have less respect for you and therefore try to lure you into situations where they will try to take advantage of you. You are also free to believe the moon landing was faked and professional wrestling is real. Regardless, my advice remains unchanged: Fire your Women’s Studies professor and get a firearms instructor instead.

In short, Elizabeth, you need to start taking this subject seriously. Surely there is more to feminism than hurling profanity and showing your ass in public.