As the title suggests, the thread on Alas that was intended for male survivors has been derailed. One cannot escape the irony considering that it was implied no feminist would ever derail a thread about male rape. However, rather than focus on this interesting contradiction, it is important to examine what was stated.
In keeping with my previous statement, I am posting this on my blog as non-feminist views appear to be unwelcome on the thread and in lue of the site owner’s new stance on his moderation policy, non-feminist male survivors are precluded from participating on the thread.
As I stated on my other thread, there continues to be a misrepresentation of what male survivors want in terms of inclusion. The notion is that we* desire to be part of the feminist discourse when in fact we simply want to be included in the general discussion of sexual violence. These two positions are often conflated because–rather unfortunately–feminists control the overall discussion of sexual violence. This contributes to, but does not create, the misconception that male survivors and their supporters want to undermine or even prevent female survivors from receiving assistance or discussing their experiences openly. (What creates this is the unbalanced, politicized way feminism views males and females. While this is a worthy topic for discussion, it would be out of place here.) (* ‘we’ refers to non-feminist male survivors)
The end result of that misrepresentation is the us-versus-them phenomenon. Male survivors and their supporters either follow the rules and positions as presented by feminism or have their efforts construed as an attack of female survivors. And it is because of that position that the thread for male survivors has derailed, and most likely why no non-feminist male survivors have shared their experiences, either on that thread or the original.
Part of this comes from a sense of entitlement, even at the expense of others. While Abyss2hope talked of creating common ground through alliances, just shortly before that she stated:
Because of this focus of not letting others circumscribe our experiences, people who try to power their way in to feminism or programs that help women are going to be met with resistance. The message that gets received is that women don’t deserve anything just for them even if that thing counters harm that is mostly directed at girls and women.
Her position that male survivors seek to “power their way in to feminism or programs that help women” is not only a gross misrepresentation of the efforts of male survivor advocates, but also an interesting way of phrasing those efforts. In the early days of feminism, feminists “powered” their way into previously male-only programs and services not out of an attempt to undermine the needs of men, but because those were the only programs and services available. And in much the same way, feminist-run sexual assault networks are generally the only support available. This leaves male survivors to either try to get assistance from feminist-run networks that feel violated by a male’s presence or deal with the affects of the assault on their own.
One key issue when men ask feminists to support their needs and goals is whether there is a good faith effort on the part of the men to support what feminists are doing for women in a particular area. The feeling of being a commodity to be exploited for men’s benefit is a huge trigger for many women who have a history of being raped or abused by men.
Firstly, it is an unfair for feminists to expect anything of male survivors considering feminists do not make or even attempt to make the same good-faith effort. Male survivors are not obligated–nor should they be–to support any political ideology or philosophy. This tit-for-tat position has nothing to do with providing support. Secondly, no one is exploiting female survivors. If female survivors feel exploited, that is a reflection of their perceptions, not reality. The reality is only that male survivors would be given equal access to sexual assault services and support. This access does not harm female survivors in any way.
However, it does take the control of the discussion and defining of sexual assault away from feminists.
Many men accidentally set off these triggers when they demand inclusion and then react to the trigger behavior by escalating.
The italics are mine. One wonders what exactly asking for assistance triggers, and why it is a justified response to berate a man, teenage or small boy who is asking for that assistance. What have male survivorsdone to deserve this kind of reaction? It would be nice to have an answer, but that is not likely to come.
Tit for tat may feel good in the moment, but it is ineffective. If a man verbally abuses me or calls me names or throws accusations my way, I’m going to treat him with suspicion.
This is interesting because male survivors who have been subjected to verbal abuse and biased accusations had our suspicion mocked. It was not treated with the respect nor was it considered a fair or appropriate response.
I don’t deserve verbal abuse and I won’t stick around for more. That doesn’t make me anti-male or disdainful of male victims. I’ll wish that man good luck, but from a safe distance.
And here lies the difference for male survivors: they do not have the ability to go somewhere else. There is nowhere to go. If he wants help, he cannot wish the women who abuse him good luck from a safe distance. He must either suffer more abuse or deal with the affects of his initial abuse alone.
The core issue here is the total, unyielding misrepresentation of what male survivors ultimately want. It is not that the position has not been explained so much as it the explanation has been wholly ignored. None of the links to male abuse resources on my blog express anything remotely close to the positions it is claimed they purport. There is not a single element of their efforts that undermine–let alone harm–female survivors. It is almost as if the misrepresentation is an attempt to reverse the criticisms of feminism and current support networks.
This undermines any goals of finding common ground or forming alliances. While that does give credence to the adage “With friends like this who needs enemies,” it should not be aspired to and frankly has no place in addressing the needs of survivors, male or female.
Toy Soldiers 
Why did you strike out “supposedly”? I assumed it was so intended, and pointed out the language used by RJN that lead me to that assumption, but his use of scare quotes around “for” on my blog now lead me to doubt that this was his intent. Until he clarifies, I can only suppose that this was the intent.
Pingback: Survivor Story « Toy Soldiers
Actually I think both are important. That is to say, it is also important to document the fact that it was derailed, and how this happened. The processes by which feminist threads become derailed (both by contrafeminists and by the feminists themselves) are different from the way feminists derail male victim’s/survivor’s threads[*], and it is harder for them to see what has happened.
However, I think your post serves this function admirably too. Nitpicks aside, I find myself in complete agreement with your analysis, as usual.
[*]Men are also perfectly capable of derailing their own threads and blaming it on female posters, but that’s neither here nor there.
I assume the second thread was intended to include non-feminist male survivors, but considering how the thread has gone, that is no longer the case. Regardless, the comment is snarky and insulting, so I will remove it.
Pingback: An Ironic Derailment « DaRain Man
My post certainly is a derailment… of a derailment of a thread that was the result of an assumed derailment of a thread that resulted from another derailment… what was the original topic?
Abyss2hope responded on the original thread, noticeably without quoting my comments directly:
One cannot learn if one fails to listen.
That is the reason for the failure of that thread. Instead of listening, feminists persist in misrepresenting male survivors and their advocates’ concerns and efforts and minimizing the hostility and animosity male survivors are subjected to by feminists. More interestingly, feminists continue to hold sexual assault as “their” discussion. In other words, the topic must be discussed on feminist terms, which were admittedly inadequate for including and discussing the male experience.
One also cannot be educated if one assumes to already know the answers.
The ultimate irony of this attempt at including male survivors is that there has actually been no such attempt. Feminists already assume that they know what males experience and why they experience it, hence the noticeable absence of male survivors on the thread. This preemptive commenting on the male experience to the exclusion of male survivors is indicative of feminists’ disinterest in hearing from male survivors. That is perhaps part of the reason why Abyss2hope chose not to quote me when she misrepresented my position.
This attempt at including male survivors demonstrates the problem faced by male survivors and their advocates. Feminists wish to foster alliances, but on only feminist terms. Not only is that not an alliance, it is not conducive to addressing the problems within feminism that foster and justify hostility towards male survivors nor does it address the needs and problems male survivors face. And this position of “only on feminist terms” ignores the fact that the majority of male survivors and their advocates are not asking for feminists help, so there is no need to abide by feminist terms.
What is being asked is that male survivors be included in the general discussion. And yet even on a thread meant to include male survivors this is not happening.
And that, folks is the one-line summary of one-line summaries.
Pingback: Toy Soldiers Pro-feminism and troubled boys «