Feminists, support services, and male survivors

When I write about feminist bias against male survivors, many feminists object. They claim that no feminists they know are like that. Some of the bolder ones will claim no feminists harbor such biases at all.

However, when one talks to male survivors and their advocates, one hears a different story. It is common to hear about rape centers hanging up on male survivors, referring them to abuser treatment programs, or accusing them of being rapists. One will hear of rape centers lacking any services for male survivors, from pamphlets to counseling. One may hear of extreme cases of open misandry.

The back and forth between advocates and feminist can go on forever because no one has really looked into how the services actually treat abused males. Until now. Glen Poole wrote about a study that covers this issue:

The CEO of Mankind UK has produced a fascinating report on male victims of rape and sexual abuse.

Martyn Sullivan, won funding from the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust to travel to Australia, the US and Canada to explore how other countries are dealing with male victims of rape and childhood sexual abuse.

One of the key themes to emerge from his report – which you can read by clicking here is the challenges of supporting male victims within the context of a predominantly feminist sector.

The study, An Exploration of Service Delivery to Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse, found that feminist-run and gender neutral services experienced problems with treating male survivors.

Sullivan visited two feminist-run rape centers, Centres Against Sexual Assault and Service Assisting Male Survivors of Sexual Assault. His findings match the complaints I mentioned on this blog numerous times: the perception of male survivors as abusers, failing to acknowledge female abusers, ignoring men’s specific needs, and treating male survivors as lesser or not “real” victims of rape.

From the study:

In all three meetings, discussions on the male victim invariably led to discussion on male perpetrators and there were concerns about male clients being at a higher risk of being aggressive, violent and/or disclosing sexually abusive behaviours than female clients. This seems to be influenced by two factors. Firstly, with regard to male clients becoming aggressive or violent, I have to admit that reflecting on this after the meetings I felt a bit insulted. I understood where the concern came from and that it was influenced by societal beliefs about men’s potential for aggression. However this is a stereotypical view and not based in fact. The service is for male victims of violence and it raised concerns for me how such beliefs consciously or unconsciously may adversely affect the engagement and understanding of these clients seeking support for their own victimisation.

Sullivan noted that the “Vampire Syndrome” stereotype was born out of research on male sex offenders who reported experiencing childhood abuse. Many people, particularly feminists, then assumed that any abused male is at increased risk for becoming an abuser. Ironically, this narrative also prevents male survivors from coming forward out of fear that they are dangerous or will be labeled a sex offender.

(Coincidentally, many female sex offenders also report experiencing childhood abuse, yet to my knowledge no one suggests that there is a link between women’s violence and the abuse they experienced, nor do any feminist-run organizations entertain the notion that the women they treat may have, are, or will abuse others.)

Sullivan noted that feminist groups find that acknowledging female offenders conflicts with their core belief that only men commit sexual violence. This is something else I often mention. When people bring this issue to feminists, feminists will often balk at the idea, and yet:

This can affect a man who has been sexually abused by a female as he may feel that a feminist based organisation may not believe his story or want to hear about his experience. This can be reflected in agency literature, websites and advertising that advocate a pro-feminist stance, which does not include the possibility of female abusers. Like feminism, profeminism does not have an absolute meaning, it is open to interpretation, and in it’s most negative interpretation may deter men from engaging. In the literature that was given to me at SAMSSA and on their website is a profeminist statement that reads:

SAMSSA acknowledges the gains and challenges of feminism and women’s movements that have made possible the communication, discussion and awareness of the sexual assault perpetrated against men and boys. SAMSSA is unequivocally pro-feminist, and seeks to remain accountable to, and respectful of, women, women’s services and feminism (feminist theories and practices)

This statement could be read as containing mixed messages as it firstly states that feminism has helped the male victim to come forward but also reinforces that if you do come forward you need to always be accountable and respectful of women. For the man that has been abused by a female this stance may set up a conflict about his ability to honour this statement in light of his experience and question whether it is a place that would be accepting of him.

Sullivan gave feminism some leeway, yet was still forced to admit feminism is not exactly “male friendly”:

Feminism is not a static theory or movement and is constantly producing a series of ‘waves’ that build upon previous conceptions and present new understandings about the unequal positions of power between women and men. My discomfort is that at its core, feminism is not ‘pro male’, or as the points above highlight, treats males differently which is usually in the form of negatively questioning or anxiety about male behaviours. This can result in a split or conflict of interest when delivering service to both males and females within a feminist informed agency that can negatively affect male clients.

This can be seen on a broader level within the feminist movement such as when feminists play the “who has it worse” game, paint sexual violence as something only men do to women, or argue that the way to stop sexual violence is to “teach men not to rape”. All those ideas make it difficult for male survivors to come forward in a feminist space.

Sullivan’s findings about gender neutral groups did not fair much better. He visited Family Services of Peel, an organization in Toronto, Canada. He focused on a steering group created to assess the needs of male survivor, and found that the female-centric attitude again became a problem:

Male survivors that contributed to the group spoke about when asking for help as a victim, they would be directed to men’s violence programs or not understood and have to be explicit about what had happened to them. Other issues about engagement revealed that in many agencies females would be asked about sexual abuse experiences but males were not so not given an opportunity to disclose. When males were asked, there was concern over how they were asked which led to thinking about re-wording such questions from, ‘Have you ever been sexually abused or raped?’ to more male friendly questions such as ‘Have you ever had any unwanted sexual experiences? This emphasized further how language around sexual violence was always focused towards women. Rape as a concept is largely understood as something that happens to women so men may not be able to identify with this way of describing their experience. The use of different language allows for this barrier to be addressed and enable men to disclose what has happened to them.

It got worse. Despite the group finding that there was a need for a change in how they treat male survivors, it took 18 months for anything to happen. Once FSP received funding, the organization cut the steering group, including all the male survivors, out of the project and ignored all their recommendations.

When Sullivan visited male-centric agencies, the only issues he found were whether men would seek help from agencies that referred to their experiences as “sexual violence” or “abuse” and that the limited services meant that fewer men could use those services.

He also noted how personal the creation of the services were:

What really struck me about my meetings with the men’s agencies was how they all shared a similar theme in how they came about. At the heart of each of the stories was an individual who was instrumental in starting the agency and took on sole responsibility for its success. This stands in stark contrast to the other stories I had heard, especially in the Women’s sector where there was more a sense of collectiveness and a togetherness that was borne out of having a shared history within the Women’s Movement. Of course there were other individuals involved and the success of the agency was very much based in this team however, with the men’s agencies there was a named individual who was recognised as being the founder and continued to be the driving force or leader.

That stands in excellent contrast to the common feminist complaint that men do not step up and help abused males.

Some of the key findings he made were the need for community partnerships, i.e. different groups that treat men with various issues referring men who disclose abuse to the right services, identifying different client demographics, actually advertising about the services, and assessing and meeting men’s needs.

Again, these are the basic things I have brought up numerous times on this blog and in other spaces only to have of feminists roll their eyes.

None of this is an attack on feminists or feminism, as I am sure some feminist will regard it. Certainly all feminist-run/leaning places do not end up this way. However, Sullivan traveled from Canada to Australia and found the same problems half a world apart. While I will accept all feminist-run/leaning groups do not cause these problems, it is clear these problems are hardly unique. The underlying issue in every case where male survivors were marginalized or poorly treated was feminist doctrine.

The way to solve this problem is by doing exactly what Sullivan suggests: removing the politics and focusing on the specific needs of male survivors. It is only by actually listening to male survivors and addressing their specific problems that we can help them. That really should be the goal here, not one-upping someone or playing politics. We should be committed to helping male survivors because it is the right thing to do. Perhaps if we help them more will come forward.

About these ads

22 thoughts on “Feminists, support services, and male survivors

  1. (Coincidentally, many female sex offenders also report experiencing childhood abuse, yet to my knowledge no one suggests that there is a link between women’s violence and the abuse they experienced, nor do any feminist-rub organizations entertain the notion that the women they treat may have, are, or will abuse others.)
    I think it is also worth noting that when talking about female sex offenders experiencing abuser themselves is that instead of suggesting the Vampire Symdrome that is often attributed to males their abuse is usually brought up a context to generating sympathy for said female abusers. Look at news coverage of women who abuse and you can see how media sources seem to reach for any sort of abuse or attack against her to point at as “why she did it” without directly saying so in those words.

    Sullivan noted that feminist groups find that acknowledging female offenders conflicts with their core belief that only men commit sexual violence.
    It may not be so much a core believe that only men commit sexual violence. I’m thinking it might be a core belief that when men commit sexual violence it is influenced by a cultural directive that leads men to believe that for various reasons their sexual violence is okay. On the other hand when women commit sexual violence there is no cultural directive that leads women to believe that for various reason their sexual violence is okay. No someone (usually a man) made them do it by abusing them in the past.

    This may be why for the most part whenever a man abuses a woman it is treated like a link is a long running chain of events meant to oppress women but when a woman abuses a man its just a random one off (and remember it was caused by some trauma she experienced in her past).

    This can be seen on a broader level within the feminist movement such as when feminists play the “who has it worse” game, paint sexual violence as something only men do to women, or argue that the way to stop sexual violence is to “teach men not to rape”. All those ideas make it difficult for male survivors to come forward in a feminist space.
    I also think this is part of why some feminists don’t want to talk about these issues outside of feminist spaces.

  2. Feminist groups would still deny male victimization had it not been for the priest and Sandusky headlines. Now they are forced to act concerned to keep their government funding. To say they’ve changed is the same as saying David Duke is the new face of the KKK, and they don’t hate blacks anymore…honest.

  3. To say they’ve changed is the same as saying David Duke is the new face of the KKK, and they don’t hate blacks anymore…honest.

    I am going to let this comment stand, but I will say that I find it to be an egregious comparison. The KKK has a much more sordid, violent history than the feminist movement, and such comparisons are unfair to those who suffered at the hands of bigots like those in the KKK.

  4. I think it is also worth noting that when talking about female sex offenders experiencing abuser themselves is that instead of suggesting the Vampire Symdrome that is often attributed to males their abuse is usually brought up a context to generating sympathy for said female abusers.

    I agree, and I think that stems from our seemingly universal view that something, typically a man, made women behave that way.

    It may not be so much a core believe that only men commit sexual violence. I’m thinking it might be a core belief that when men commit sexual violence it is influenced by a cultural directive that leads men to believe that for various reasons their sexual violence is okay.

    I would agree except that there is not much feminist acceptance that women do commit sexual violence. Typically they will concede it can happen, but they do not agree that it does happen, at least not on a level worth addressing.

    On the other hand when women commit sexual violence there is no cultural directive that leads women to believe that for various reason their sexual violence is okay.

    Which is ironically untrue. There is the cultural narrative that their sexual violence is okay because it is not really sexual violence. Either males want the sex or the sex is harmless.

    I also think this is part of why some feminists don’t want to talk about these issues outside of feminist spaces.

    I do not believe many feminists think it out that far. It seems to boil down to control and to maintaining their comfort narrative. The control is obvious: since feminists paint themselves as the “oppressed”, it becomes important for them to exercise some power, and controlling a topic like sexual violence gives them that power. The comfort narrative is my phrase for victimology that results from a traumatic experience. People find something that explains “everything” for them, and it provides some emotional protection for them. It becomes their safety blanket, and as you may know, it is very hard to take away someone’s safety blanket.

    In some instances, I do think the reaction is deliberately misandrous. However, I think most of the time it is the result of pure, unfiltered ideology. It becomes so rote that they do not even realize they are doing it.

  5. I would agree except that there is not much feminist acceptance that women do commit sexual violence. Typically they will concede it can happen, but they do not agree that it does happen, at least not on a level worth addressing.
    And that’s the key. By acknowledging that it can happen but not really acknowledge that it does happen (on a level worthy of addressing) they seem to say that women are not being influenced by this culture that says violence is okay. And you know how that plays out? Their regular denial that there could be any larger overreaching cultural influence on women that commit violence.

    Its pretty confusing I know.

    Which is ironically untrue. There is the cultural narrative that their sexual violence is okay because it is not really sexual violence. Either males want the sex or the sex is harmless.
    Exactly.

    The control is obvious: since feminists paint themselves as the “oppressed”, it becomes important for them to exercise some power, and controlling a topic like sexual violence gives them that power.
    Not themselves but women in general but yes. Women are oppressed and since feminism is about helping women they must keep control over the discourse on sexual violence.

    The comfort narrative is my phrase for victimology that results from a traumatic experience. People find something that explains “everything” for them, and it provides some emotional protection for them. It becomes their safety blanket, and as you may know, it is very hard to take away someone’s safety blanket.
    Ah good name for that.

    In some instances, I do think the reaction is deliberately misandrous. However, I think most of the time it is the result of pure, unfiltered ideology. It becomes so rote that they do not even realize they are doing it.
    Which is also ironic because how they so often point out how men do things to women in such an unfiltered unquestioning way that we don’t even realize we are doing them.

  6. >The KKK has a much more sordid, violent history than the feminist movement,

    Unless, of course, one includes feminism’s sordid history of proxy violence. Why didn’t you?

    >and such comparisons are unfair to those who suffered at the hands of bigots like those in the KKK.

    Unless, of course, you include their suffering at the hands of bigots like those in mainstream modern usa culture. The suicides. The genital mutilations. The false convictions and imprisonments. The paternity deprivals. The paternity frauds.

    The list goes on and on and the only way you can post what you did and believe it is because you are deliberately applying a double standard and ignoring vast swathes of feminist oppression of men and boys through proxies.

  7. I counted 17 feminist dogma perceptual errors in less than a minute of reading. Mankind is one very interesting group who are (due to Brit and Euro Bias) getting on with that Human Rights and Equality thing. I do wonder if the seed funding for this study could even have come from a US institution with the ingrained fear of upsetting feminist politic allies a major road block to Equality based research! I would expect a rush of funding applications for similar research now that there is evidence to support the money being spent.

    I can’t wait for the 2013 Rape Season to start with all them Students being Indoctrinated through the Campus Rape Industry.

    This study and in particular the attitudes exposed is likely to prove very useful in inoculating against a number of manifestations of the idiocy, even over at the Good Rape Project.

    So denying rape, trivialising it and denying victims reality is Rape Culture – and the Industry built on tax money on the rape meme allows Women to abuse men and show just how pernicious this Rape Culture is?

    You have to love it for it’s Schadenfreude – thriving upon the misfortune of others and deriving pleasure from that. It’s exactly what so many have done and still do – getting off on abusing male rape victims and getting paid to do it!

  8. Jacob – ref the Vampire Syndrome/Effect (a person who has been sexually abused as a child becoming a sexual abuser later in life) – there is, as you have identified a great deal of controversy around this idea and the use of it mainly by feminists. It has a long history of being used to falsely stigmatise men. there is simply no valid research that supports the dogmatic view being propagated,.

    There is a lack of research to support any view as to the validity of this vampire effect – and the main cause of that has been the exclusion of female sex offenders due to the researchers own politics and dogmas. Two factors are significant in this. Ongoing gender neutral research into sex offenders keeps on exposing the significant and larger than expected reservoir of female sex offenders – those who target adult males and adult females – those who target children of any sex or gender. Second, It has become Dogma that females are not and can’t be sex offenders and of course that Dogma’s teeth are being pulled and the bark of the Dogma silenced. The effect of that is slow to progress and cause real change, primarily due to so many feminist gate keepers having got themselves ensconced in positions of power where gender is involved.

    However, until there has been proper research into the vampire effect and women it is not possible to dismiss it 100%. Research that has been ongoing since the 1950′s into human sexuality shows that female sexuality is markedly different to male sexuality – as is human female sexual response. Contrary to the view that men are aroused sexually by anything – That is actaully a Trait In Women, and it is far more likely for any woemn to be sexually aroused by say a child (male or female) than it is for a man. Women actually find animal sex ( that is one humans having sex ) stimulating whilst men don’t. In fact women find so much sexually stimulating and yet report negative knowledge that it is not clear if some know the difference between sexual activity and not.

    I have been asked about how to check adult human sexual response to children – whcih I have had to point out may be literally responsible due to ethics in research. It is rather unethical to be invoking a paedophile sexual response which would require the researcher to use sexualised images of children – and legal issues abound.

    The historic and current research also shows a marked disparity between what women claim to find stimulating and what is actually stimulating and causing physical and psychological responses. It’s not clear if these marked discrepancies are due to socialisation – or if women quite literally are not aware of their own sexuality – if there is not some Biological/Evolutionary imperative at play. It is massive difference from men.

    As such there is concern that this Vampire effect may well exist, but the reality of it as a female sexual trait and not male – with repeated transference by feminists from the female to male showing two factors.

    If men accurately report a lack of stimulation to sexual stimuli that does not agree with their sexuality – and yet the total opposite is true for women with full physiological response showing sexual arousal and the frmale adult stating that there is none … who is more trustworthy around sexualised children – or children who have been sexualised through abuse?

    That the presumption of gender equality has been a driver and in gross error coupled with an innate denial of female sexuality which has simply skewed gender reality because on sex and sexuality issues mother nature has left female reality deliberately ambiguous as a way to encourage natural selection.

    The false and gender biased research that is being used by certain ideologues and dogma carriers is based upon research that is gender skewed … it’s Woozled – so until there has been proper gender neutral investigation into the exposed and known reservoir of known female sex offenders, the vampire effect should be ruled off limits and only to be addressed by medically qualified individuals in the fields of Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry. Any tin pot paper weight councillor or supposed rape expert who raises it comes under the heading of charlatan.

    I have noted a number of marked differences in dealing with survivors of Sexual Abuse/violence along sex difference lines. Men have been told they are likely to become sex offenders, but once the reality is presented they are reassured and re not preoccupied by the concept (Unless Pressured to accept it by others dogma). On the other hand, women do stay preoccupied with the idea and need excessive reassurance that it’s not correct – and they will not become sexualised towards children.

    I’m now very agnostic about this vampire effect because all on my experience and research points to it not being a factor in men – but I am not in any way convinced it is not a factor in women.

    In fact, as a gay man who has had to repeatedly fend off women who simply can’t grasp social and rational limits I do have to wonder at the patterns of female human sexuality and any limits that are claimed to exist. No means No – but all too often not to a female human – only about a female human. It is marker disparity. It is odd having to ask a women why she keeps on insisting that a gay man is attractive to her and that she is sexually stimulated by the unavailable. That they respond with denial of attraction and even of poor social conduct is very odd – and indiactes a blind spot in female views of the self sexually. Once is an accident – twice co-incidence – after that it’s called a recurrent pattern.

    Of course so many feminists will be screaming that I’m just one big nasty women hating man – to which my response remains, address the premise and leave the adhominum out of it – it’s what adults do, so behave like one. The issue is actually child safety.

    I wish those who keep abusing the safety of children would stop – and when they can’t be stopped they should be exposed for the social danger and abusers that they are.

  9. In some instances, I do think the reaction is deliberately misandrous. However, I think most of the time it is the result of pure, unfiltered ideology. It becomes so rote that they do not even realize they are doing it.

    Before 2005, my only contact with feminism were the slogans and “for equality” stuff. When I first came in contact with internet feminism, in 2005, I swallowed whole the narrative. I thought this patriarchy, men dominate women, male privilege (but no female privilege), etc made some sense. Rape culture made a bit less sense, but I let it pass as a domain I didn’t get (much like racism, I don’t see racism or anti-racism activism in my day-to-day dealings, so I’m inexperienced about it).

    I questioned the doctrine from a trans standpoint, first from the common “I’m a trans woman, I don’t have male privilege” angle, rather common to trans women who get with the internet feminist community – mainly against TERFs (Trans-Exclusive Radical Feminists).

    But later on, my critical thinking skills went on to critique the absence of female privilege from the narrative, being explained it away as “not really sexism”, and FF101′s nugget that sexism against men cannot exist, because institutional power (I got news for them – you don’t need to be a woman, or to wield institutional power to be sexist against men, only to wield situational power of any kind).

    Then the term patriarchy, and the Marxist angle of “class man” vs “class woman”, which doesn’t make sense, because genders are in NO WAY parallel to Bourgeoisie vs Proletariat, where one has all the financial power (and the power to starve you), while the other has only the power to ‘not work’ (until they die). It just didn’t make sense to see the sexes as oppositional classes who are unified fronts. Even less to see one class working to end the other when they both need each other for sustenance and life. Even without the concept of romantic love, we’re not fungible like slaves were considered so, we tend to attach (regardless of how you call it) and are equals.

  10. This amounts to nothingless than feminist rapae apology.

    “discussion and awareness of the sexual assault perpetrated against men and boys. SAMSSA is unequivocally pro-feminist, and seeks to remain accountable to, and respectful of, women, women’s services and feminism (feminist theories and practices)”

    Just breathtaking hypocrisy and double standards – they would never tolerate anything simialr that explicitly stated that servcies for female rape victims had to remain respectful of men and men’s services.

    “Acksion, there really is no comparison between the two groups. None at all.”

    Although the ideological similarities and connections are pretty obvious, especially on the subject of rape.

  11. My previous post is to demonstrate that “it takes time” and motivation to question dogma, to examine the feminist issues. I was a victim of unfiltered ideology.

  12. Although the ideological similarities and connections are pretty obvious, especially on the subject of rape.

    I do not think so, unless one went the most radical feminists one could find.

  13. Schala, I agree it takes time and motivation to question dogma, but I also think it takes another reason you mentioned: cause. Because of your experiences as transperson, you questioned the aspects of feminism that rejected you. Absent that, you may not have questioned the ideology at all. That need to question must be there, otherwise one will just go for a tamer version of the ideology or come up with catch phrases like “hate the sin, not the sinner” to excuse the bias.

  14. “I do not think so, unless one went the most radical feminists one could find”

    Well then that would include suffragettes such as Susan B. Anthony who campaigned for [white] women’s voting rights as a makeweight to balance out black votes, and who specifically asked how the country could justify iving black men (and veterans at that) could be given the vote before white women (who had done nothing for the country). It would also include thse femionists who were active in the eugenics movement, such as Singer.

    But to me those seem to be pretty mainstream femijnst icons. Then in the present day you have Amanda Marcotte and that infamuous cartoon book of hers, racist through and through. You have women of color compalining about the racism of white feminism for decades now, to the point they have split off into Womanism.

    It comes out of the selfish self-absorption of white feminists who claim nothing but love and caring for all mankind and then go right on using every manipulative trick they know to bend the world to suit no one but themselves. Women of color, men of any color, older women, and quite obviously even children fit nowhere in their ambit of concern.

  15. “”Women of color, men of any color, older women, and quite obviously even children fit nowhere in their ambit of concern.””

    To that I would also add people with disabilities. The recent insane (I use that word in it’s very literal sense) attempts by the more unhinged and desperate to appropriate disability and require all women to be seen as, presumed to be and treated as disabled goes beyond Offensive.

    Some miss the fact that presenting the false argument that all women should be presumed as having PTSD and treated as such, with all language and behaviour, all written text, all visual media, all audio media such as music and song lyrics… in fact everything they could possibly encounter should be altered and changed so as to no potentially trigger any WOMAN with PTSD.

    Given that under the feminists Patriarchy Bogey Man model the disabled are the most oppressed of all, appropriating that oppression for self aggrandisement goes so far beyond offensive as to be Psychiatric in it’ Insanity!

    It’s fascinating to see in the UK just how upset some fems are over the belated support services put in place for Soldiers with PTSD, and how they are unhappy that the Domestic Violence Industry has not been allowed to provide the services. When they politicise Disability as they have I have no patience left!

  16. What I found interesting with the Australian groups was that they apparently decided to accept male victims mainly to prevent funding going elsewhere.
    Or did I read that bit wrong?

  17. Pingback: DOUBLE STANDARDS – The feminism’s sexist record on the subject of rape | GendErratic

  18. “I am going to let this comment stand, but I will say that I find it to be an egregious comparison. The KKK has a much more sordid, violent history than the feminist movement, and such comparisons are unfair to those who suffered at the hands of bigots like those in the KKK.”

    It is a great comparison. I am a male victim of feminism, who comes from a poor underclass background. Who has been a victim of feminist Duluth model domestic violence policing. I know someone who has been kicked out from his own home under the Domestic Violence Protection Order.

    I was abused by my mother but feminist influenced social workers refused to do anything and enabled it. (This is a systematic problem that affected loads of other boys I met in the care system.)

    Feminists use the same threat narratives that the KKK used. The KKK used to lynch black men in the name of protecting white women. Feminists try to take the rights of all men in the name of protecting women.

    You even get feminists lawyers writing books about how women should be able to kill men legally if a woman claims she is better.

    Feminism is a gender hate movement. If it gains more power it will do more harm to men. Some feminists want to reduce toe male population to 10%

  19. @ tamerlame: “Some feminists want to reduce the male population to 10%.”

    Then who’s going to toil all the long hours of stressful and/or potentially dangerous work and die several years younger as a result?

  20. Feminists use the same threat narratives that the KKK used. The KKK used to lynch black men in the name of protecting white women. Feminists try to take the rights of all men in the name of protecting women.

    Yes, many feminists do use the same threat narratives that the KKK use. So do many religious groups, other political groups, and various apolitical groups. The threat narratives have nothing to do with the group that uses them. They are effective because how the narratives provoke a response. Look at the pissing match between liberals and conservative over the “war on women.” Both use the same language to trash the other side. It has nothing to do with who they are, only that protecting women is a major motivator in our culture.

    You even get feminists lawyers writing books about how women should be able to kill men legally if a woman claims she is better.

    Tamerlame, do you have a source for that claim?

  21. http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-violence/professor-of-law-seeks-legalized-murder/

    Click the link.

    Feminists calling all men rapists is not the standard political discourse. Feminists calling men rapists is the discourse used to inflame men into killing other men.

    In the UK feminists have destroyed the well being of men.Domestic violence policing is out of control, We have something called the domestic violence protection order. A man can be thrown out of his own home for 30 days on a accusation. The police are not obliged to investigate the accusation at all. This is a death blow to due process.

    Male heterosexuality is criminal now, because sexuality harassment laws are completely subjective. I tend to take things like that personally myself.

    Feminism is gender hate, it is the gender version of the KKK.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s