When a Man is the Victim: Feminists Defining Male Victimization

Originally posted March 29, 2009 – TS

On The Curvature, Cara wrote a post about Jimmy Kimmel’s interview with Lil’ Wayne a few weeks ago. During the interview Wayne mentioned that he first had sex when he was eleven-years-old. Based on how he said it and his body language, it is somewhat obvious that the sex was not consensual. Wayne’s discomfort did not stop Kimmel from joking about it or the audience laughing, despite how visibly it bothered Wayne. Cara made a valid point about how people tend to view male rape:

In the majority of sexual assault cases, where a woman is the victim of a man’s violence, rape apology is rooted primarily not in the denial that male violence exists, but in the denial that male violence means something and needs to be stopped.  Conversely, in cases where a man is the victim of a woman’s violence, rape apologism is strongly rooted in the denial that women’s actions can count as violence at all — and especially that their actions can count as sexual violence against men, who are routinely construed as incapable of being victims.

In cases of both of these two types of sexual violence (though hardly the only two that exist), the victim is accused of “wanting it.”  But while the female victim is also, when that reasoning fails, accused of deserving it, this seems to not be the case with men.  No, they just always wanted it.  (Again, talking only about male victims of women — gay male victims of other men are routinely portrayed as “deserving” it as well as “wanting” it.)  There are no sneers about what he should and shouldn’t have been doing.  Just jokes about how awesome the assault must have been for him.  Like we see Jimmy Kimmel engaging in above.

There are several errors in the above statement and in the rest of Cara’s post, however, the underlying point is that people in general consider female sexual violence against males as harmless. Society treats it as a rite of passage and does not allow  male victims to say or suggest anything other bravado for having “bagged a woman.” Cara goes on to tie her opinion of why this occurs into the feminist theory of rape culture and “philosophy of rape apologism.”

While I wanted to address many of the errors made in Cara’s post, particularly those regarding how male victims react and what male victims face in terms of ridicule, I did not have the time. I posted a smaller comment that focused on the issues I thought were most important, specifically how feminists treat male victimization, how the lack of support coming from support groups and how framing sexual violence as a women’s issue plays a major role in how people react and respond to female-on-male rape. Unsurprisingly, my comments were not met with much pleasure. Although I was not expecting a polite or positive response, I certainly was not expecting what Cara posted. Specifically, I was not expecting to be accused of attacking her because I spoke openly about my own experiences. I certainly was not expecting to be told to basically shut up and “take a shit all over your own blog” for stating that the afore mentioned issues have an effect on how female-on-male is perceived. Against better sense, I responded again.

What Cara did in her response to me is unfortunately rather common in discussions about sexual violence. Many feminists like to control such discussions. By this I mean I that feminists prefer to define what the issues are, who is effected and how those people are effected. Cara does this in her post by defining for male victims of female sexual violence what their experiences are, how they have been treated and why they are treated in that way. Despite Cara mentioning in her response to me that she took great efforts to see things from the male perspective, what she presents in her post is a feminist perspective, and being such it is technically off limits for questioning, even by male victims of female sexual violence.

Supreme Court gives victory to white firefighters

This was an interesting case to follow:

The Supreme Court handed a victory Monday to a group of white firefighters charging racial discrimination, while also giving some fodder to critics of President Barack Obama’s pending nominee for the high court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a court split 5-4 along ideological lines, reversed an appeals court ruling Sotomayor joined last year that rejected a claim that the City of New Haven, Conn. discriminated against white firefighters by throwing out a promotional exam after all the African-American firefighters who took it scored too poorly to be promoted.

“Whatever the City’s ultimate aim—however well intentioned or benevolent it might have seemed—the City made its employment decision because of race. The City rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white,” Kennedy wrote on behalf of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

“Courts often confront cases in which statutes and principles point in different directions,” the Kennedy opinion noted.

Sotomayor and her supporters might have a very different view of the decision, but I am inclined to agree with it. This case has been called the “reverse discrimination case,” however, there is no such thing.  Either there is discrimination or there is not. In this instance there was clear and apparent discrimination –  against white men.

Woman gets 13 years for sex assault of boy

Female sexual violence is often treated as a victimless crime. The social expectation is that male victims, regardless of their age, should like and enjoy any sex offered by women. While society still holds less than positive views about female sexuality, the conventional wisdom is that female sexuality is harmless, as is the female body. This view is not limited to those who cheer when they hear about a woman molesting her student, but also those who profess concern for victims of sexual violence. The notion that women cannot physically or sexually harm anyone is a very pervasive idea. That idea, however, tends not to be true:

A Canton woman was sentenced to 13 years in prison Thursday for sexually molesting a 6-year-old Peoria County boy a decade ago.

Bonnie J. McDonald, 49, of 642 N. 12th Ave. apologized but admitted there was really nothing she could say to the boy, now a high school senior, that could make things better. And indeed, the victim confirmed that, saying that he wished the death penalty were an option for McDonald.

“I will never forget what you did. I hate you,” the teen said during the hourlong hearing.

—-

Although the assault occurred sometime between May and August 1998, the statute of limitations was extended because the child, now 17, had not reached 18 yet, which allowed charges to be filed.

According to court records, McDonald was watching the child, who was home sick from school, when she allegedly fondled him and performed a sex act upon him. The incident came to light recently when the teen, who told Shadid he had tried to kill himself as a result of the abuse, told his parents.

Bulletin Board v50

Black widow woman who drugged, raped ten men — The police were shocked that 32-year-old Valeria K., a quiet good-looking woman from the city of Tambov, was the mysterious rapist who abused 10 local men after poisoning them with clonidine, Life.ru reports. Valeria, who has already been nicknamed the Black Widow for her love of spiders, would get acquainted with men and invite them to her place. She gave them drinks with clonidine, which almost immediately sent them to sleep for almost 24 hours. After that, she undressed her victims and raped them, tightening a rope on their male organs to keep them erect.

Domestic violence: Women abusers on the rise — New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics figures show that over the past eight years, the number of women charged with domestic abuse has rocketed by 159 per cent. In 2007, 2,336 women fronted court on domestic violence charges, compared to around 800 in 1999. Preconceived ideas of gender roles have led a lot of people to believe it would be virtually impossible for a women to physically abuse a man. But co-director of Men’s Rights Agency Sue Price says it is exactly this stereotype that leads to battered men hiding in shame, fearful of being ridiculed, or even prosecuted. “I’ve had SAS soldiers in tears because the wife is a black belt karate expert and yet they know that if they even try to restrain her he might be charged with assault and domestic violence,” she said.

Former Boise teacher gets jail time and 10 years of probation in sex case — Michelle Farley apologized to her family, friends and “family of teachers” for having an inappropriate relationship with a 17-year-old student last year. “I want to apologize to (the teen) and his family for the embarrassment and hurt I caused,” the former Borah High philosophy teacher said. “It hurts me that I have hurt so many people because what I did was so wrong.” Farley left the courtroom in handcuffs Friday, on her way to the Ada County Jail, where she could spend the next six months after pleading guilty to a charge of felony sexual battery of a minor.

Former Rochester woman gets up to 20 years for sexually assaulting minor — Francine Barron, 34, formerly of Logan Street in Rochester, pleaded guilty in Strafford County Superior Court to six counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault, two counts endangering the welfare of a child and one count of an enhanced simple assault for engaging in sex acts with the boy between March and May of last year. For the sex assaults, she received 8-20 years in state prison. Four years can come off her minimum sentence if she completes the sex offender program at the prison. She was also sentenced to 5-10 years in state prison, all suspended for a period of 10 years consecutive to the eight-to-20-year sentence. Another suspended state prison sentence, for two-to-five years, runs concurrent to the other suspended sentence.

Rethinking Gender Bias in Theater

Aych emailed me an article about theater bias. Female playwrights have complained for years about sexism in the industry, so Emily Glassberg Sands conducted a study to determine the nature of the bias. She found that there was sexism; however, it was not exactly what she expected to see:

For the second study, Ms. Sands sent identical scripts to artistic directors and literary managers around the country. The only difference was that half named a man as the writer (for example, Michael Walker), while half named a woman (i.e., Mary Walker). It turned out that Mary’s scripts received significantly worse ratings in terms of quality, economic prospects and audience response than Michael’s. The biggest surprise? “These results are driven exclusively by the responses of female artistic directors and literary managers,” Ms. Sands said.

Amid the gasps from the audience, an incredulous voice called out, “Say that again?”

Ms. Sands put it another way: “Men rate men and women playwrights exactly the same.”

Ms. Sands was reluctant to explain the responses in terms of discrimination, suggesting instead that artistic directors who are women perhaps possess a greater awareness of the barriers female playwrights face.

It seems extremely unlikely that anyone would actively and intentionally discriminate against their own group just because their awareness of the barriers their group faces. By playing to what appears to have been a skewed audience, Sands misses an opportunity to challenge the conventional wisdom that all the barriers women face are because of men. Her own studies suggest that women are more likely to discriminate against other women. The appropriate response should have been to ask why.

The National Prison Rape Commission Released Its Final Report

I have not had the chance to read through the complete report yet, however, I thought it was worth providing the link to it. Once I read it I will write something more substantive.

Equally Othering

One can generally determine the intent of an idea by its supporters’ explanation of. This is particularly true when it comes to politically loaded issues where the greater importance is maintaining political correctness rather than respecting conflicting positions. A blogger recently provided a good example of using political correctness to bolster an untenable. When questioned about the meaning of “cisgender,” the blogger responded with:

[Cisgender is] not mental and physical [gender]. Rather, it’s that the gender you were assigned at birth, and the gender you identify as, are the same.

The poster later stated that “cisgender” is essentially the norm, so there is no need for a special term in normal (i.e. general) discourse, to which the blogger replied:

Maybe it doesn’t come up in your “normal” discourse, Ron, but I find that the term is useful in my day to day discourse.

Plus, as a political matter, it’s important that the unmarked “defaults” have names. Imagine if, instead of the words “Jewish” and “Christian,” we had only “Jewish” and “normal.” Or if, instead of “heterosexual” and “homosexual,” we had only “normal” and “homosexual.” We can’t discuss things on an equal basis without an equal vocabulary.

The issue is not actually the term or the usage of the term “cisgender,” but what the term represents, i.e. its political motivation. The notion that a person is assigned a gender at birth and that biology plays absolutely no role in a person’s gender is a political belief, and those who agree with that belief seek to enforce it on everyone. The problem, as is true with all beliefs, is that they cannot fully explain it. It is something that is just accepted outright, leading to the conflict about identifying terms or transpeople defining everyone else’s identity as “cisgender.”