My understanding is that feminists have said that a rape is 100% violence and sex has zero to do with it.
Okay. So, given the fact that no feminists have suggested that Julian Assange used violence when he had condom-free sex, why is it a “rape”?
I mean, surely feminists don’t wish to throw men in jail for bad sex, right?
According to some of the reports, Assange is allegedly held down one of the women before or during the sex. Setting that aside, the feminist definition of rape does not just focus on violence, but also female consent. So if a woman changes her mind, whether or not the man is aware that she did, any sex following that counts as rape. Likewise, any sex act a woman does not agree to counts as rape. The definition is very broad as it includes any unwanted sexual act. Granted, that is not the legal definition of rape nor does that broad defintiion apply to males victimized in the same fashion. That is, however, how feminists can consider not wearing a condom during consensual sex rape.
So, then, the mantra that “rape has nothing to do with sex” but is part of a campaign of terror that men run against women cannot simultaneously be held to be true if it also includes men who wanted consensual sex but the woman withdrew it mid-coitus. The man does not flip from wanting sex to wanting to terrorize women in an eye-blink because someone else changed her mind. They’re kind of mutually-exclusive.
Why, it’s almost as if feminists are trying to fabricate as many pretexts as possible to throw men in jail.
But that would be suggesting that feminists are acting in bad faith. And for that, I denounce myself preemptively.
Why, it’s almost as if feminists are trying to fabricate as many pretexts as possible to throw men in jail.
While some feminists want to do that, I think the real problem is that feminists change their theories to suit their needs, which is a classic example of doublethink.
Sorry this is a long time in the making, but I just noticed this comment from Saurs in the first “Dose Of Stupid” entry.
“To point what out, dude? That men can be raped? You actually believe you’re the first folk to conceive of and voice the notion that men can be victimized by women and by other men?”
Actually, no, we’re not the first to conceive of the notion that men can be victmized.
However, we are the first ones to conceive of the notion without:
A) Calling it patriarchy or Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too.
B) Trying to find ways to excuse or exonorate the pepretrators, especially when women do it to men. “She was mentally ill.”, “It was self-defense”, “Women have no power. Sexism and abuse is based on power”.
C) Downplaying the abuse because it doesn’t happen on a level compared to what women go through or via statistics.
So, you conceived it. We explored it further from other angles other than “Men opressing women” and are trying to do something about it, unlike those in the feminist sphere who only give it a passing glance at best.
I do think the problem lies elsewhere, Eagle. I think most feminists do accept that, yes, of course, men can be raped, by other men and (even) women. That is a general principle; however, whenever an individual case is discussed, many will then doubt the rape survivor’s story or will want to give the whole situation a more nuanced perspective than simplistically calling it rape.
This is pretty much what you say in B; it’s just that I don’t think there is some general principle they consciously hold (i.e. “if women force men to have sex with them, it’s because they are mentally ill/ it’s less bad than the other way round because women aren#t abusing their power when they do it”) rather than a knee-jerk reaction to stories of female-against-male rape (i.e. “this individual case of a woman having forced a man to have sex is not comparable to a man raping a woman, because *insert reasons*”).
Which means that those feminists can agree with all your general principles, while one wouldn’t know from the way they react to female-against-male rape stories. And I think this is one point where severe misunderstandings take place: Feminist doesn’t see what you’re complaining about as what you are trying to say is totally accepted and undisputed amongst feminists, which frustrates said feminist and convinces him/her that you are pretty much just trolling. You see the feminist needing far more evidence by a male rape survivor than a female rape survivor to be believed by her/him, and are frustrated by the way her/his actions contradict so strongly the general view expressed that, of course, men can be sexually violated.
I think it would be good in general to consider more strongly whether one talks about generalities or individual cases; jumping from one to the other makes for a lot of bad logic in the world.
elementary_watson: Or, to put it less politely, a lot of them “hate” men.
According to their own rather loose definitions of “hate” I mean.
it’s just that I don’t think there is some general principle they consciously hold […] rather than a knee-jerk reaction to stories of female-against-male rape […].
I am not sure of that, and the reason is because several feminist theories are built around the idea that sexual violence is a crime against women. Saying that men can be raped is much different than acknowledge that it does happen and that it happens with enough frequency to warrant concern. I would say that in general feminists accept the possibility for men to be victims of sexual violence, but they do not acknowledge that men and boys are victims of sexual violence, let alone accept that it likely occurs at same rate as sexual violence against females.
I think it would be good in general to consider more strongly whether one talks about generalities or individual cases; jumping from one to the other makes for a lot of bad logic in the world.
In my experience, that has not been the issue. I have been treated far worse by feminists for speaking about my own experiences than when speaking in general about sexual violence against males. I think the issue is that by acknowledging an individual case feminists would have to acknowledge that sexual violence against men is a larger problem than their theories propose. It seems like most of this boils down to agenda and politics, which makes the whole thing rather odd because one would think feminists, of all people, would know how dismissive language can hurt victims.
I concur wholeheartedly with Toysoldier on this.
When it comes to issues regarding girls or women as instigators or perpetrators of violence, bullying or sexual abuse, every feminist I’ve read or spoken with is hesitant to even acknowledge it without trying to use the “Individual Case” excuse so often.
Just a few weeks ago, I spoke with one I know in real life about what happened to me in high school, when that girl sicked her boyfriend on me to threaten me with violence as she stood there grinning. The feminist said “You should really be mad at the boyfriend. He threatened you.” I mean, what? Isn’t it pretty obvious who told him? Even if she didn’t, she certainly got her rocks off by the way she smiled at every curse word coming out of him. I mean, that’s pretty much making excuses for her, pure and simple.
Why should she be excused?
“Feminist doesn’t see what you’re complaining about as what you are trying to say is totally accepted and undisputed amongst feminists, which frustrates said feminist and convinces him/her that you are pretty much just trolling.”
So simple acknowledgement is trolling to them? Speaking out and putting the blame where it should lie is being a troll?
“That is a general principle; however, whenever an individual case is discussed, many will then doubt the rape survivor’s story or will want to give the whole situation a more nuanced perspective than simplistically calling it rape.”
Yeah, always when it comes to male survivors. Never when it comes to female survivors.
That’s my frustration right there. I’d feel better if their ‘Individual Cases” thing was applied across the board.
By the way, I should qualify that this high school girl tried to force me into playing a risque game with the others and when I wouldn’t comply, she laughed and ridiculed me. Then the boyfriend incident followed.
Hmmm … I guess many feminists would agree with the following statement: “Sexual violence against males by females happens, but it is not systemic (opposed to sexual violence commited by males against females).” They don’t believe that female-against-male rape never happens, but they have doubts about every single individual’s story (which goes along with what you, TS, wrote about getting harsher reactions when talking about your own abuse than about generalities).
Eagle: When one vehemently argues that people should accept something they think they obviously do, it will occur to them that one is simply trolling/attacking a straw person. Just think of the many times feminists argue that men should stop feeling entitled to having sex with any woman they want; men in general don’t feel entitled to it and react hostile, while the feminist is sure she sees attitudes common amongst men that indicate otherwise (this could be due to the kind of persons she associates with, the men in her family, a focus on offensive messages in the media, or sometimes a warped imagination).
Hmmm … I guess many feminists would agree with the following statement: “Sexual violence against males by females happens, but it is not systemic (opposed to sexual violence commited by males against females).” They don’t believe that female-against-male rape never happens, but they have doubts about every single individual’s story […].
But is that not just equivocation? If I say that I do not believe that there are no good cops, yet I have doubts about every single individual arrest any cop makes, does that not imply that I actually do think there are no good cops? What reason is there to question every single male victim’s story, but not question any female victim’s story?
What you said about feminists not viewing sexual violence against males by females (or by males) as systemic goes back to my point about theories informing the bias. We have no clear idea of how common female-perpetrated sexual violence is. The numbers vary from 2% to 40% of all sexual violence, depending on the sex and age of the victims. How can one determine whether something is or is not systemic based on such loose information? I think the broader issue is that the theories feminists use define sexual violence as something men do to women, and those theories are so core to the feminist position that anything that challenges them must be dismissed or force-fitted into the theory (not unlike fundamentalist Christians creating a Bible theme park that features dinosaurs with saddles on them).
When one vehemently argues that people should accept something they think they obviously do, it will occur to them that one is simply trolling/attacking a straw person. Just think of the many times feminists argue that men should stop feeling entitled to having sex with any woman they want; men in general don’t feel entitled to it and react hostile, while the feminist is sure she sees attitudes common amongst men that indicate otherwise
There is a difference: most of the men who object that feminist generalization can understand or at least see how their behavior could be construed as “entitled.” In other words, those men are willing to see the other side’s perspective in a way that most feminists do not appear willing to do. I think that is the most common disconnect, i.e. that there is no attempt to see it from the other side’s perspective. I am not sure if that is because many with hardline views seem to think that acknowledging the other side’s perspective means agreeing with the other side’s views (it does not) or that they do not feel they should have to come to an understanding. However, it is that lack of understand that seems to be the problem.
I think of it this way: Feminists tend to reiterate traditional stereotypes and assumptions about gender in collectivized forms. The relevant units of analysis are “Men” and “Women” as categories; people are treated as instantiations of the class they’re a member of, rather than individual human beings with their own individual traits, circumstances, and history. These collectivities are defined in more or less the same terms that people with more traditional views stereotype individuals- men are aggressive, strong, and predatory, women are frail and helpless and innocent. Hence the bizarre- and often obscene, frankly- insistence of many feminists that a man is “privileged” over women even if he’s been treated far worse then the vast majority of women, and even if the mistreatment happened because he was a man and not in spite of it.
If someone viewing the world through that lens believes that male-on-female sexual violence is very common and the reverse is very rare-and I agree that this is a dubious assumption, but it’s more or less an article of faith for most people, and most feminists are certainly no exception- then, at the level feminists treat as primary, Class Women is the victim and Class Men the victimizer. Feminists (usually) understand that individual men are unique individuals and not literally identical drones linked into some sort of collective, but if someone’s ideology tends to treat men and boys that way then they’re still likely to think of the rape of an individual male primarily as part of a comparatively minor harm inflicted on a very powerful (and perhaps feared, disliked, or hated) entity, and only secondly (if at all) as a very serious evil inflicted on someone who lacks powerful. This is especially the case if, as they often do, the feminist in question regards rape as a primarily political or ideological phenomenon rather than a crime committed by and against particular individuals.
To the extent it is acknowledged as a serious crime against a person it is treated, as Eagle33 said, as an isolated anomaly- the fact that an individual man was harmed doesn’t change any of the assumptions about Men as a Class, so it can’t matter the way violence against a member of Class Women matters.
“To the extent it is acknowledged as a serious crime against a person it is treated, as Eagle33 said, as an isolated anomaly- the fact that an individual man was harmed doesn’t change any of the assumptions about Men as a Class, so it can’t matter the way violence against a member of Class Women matters.”
And then these feminists whine and complain about being treated with disrespect while bemoaning the name has been given a bad reputation.
I agree with the bad reputation part. But not with their reasonings behind it:
“Men are afraid of independant women”
“Men are holding on to their priveledge”
“Men want to turn back the clock to when women were barefoot and pregnant and property.”
Maybe its the fact they say one thing and then do another that contradicts what they say, explaining it away with a retcon of their original saying.
Toy Soldiers 
Odd thought about the Assange case.
My understanding is that feminists have said that a rape is 100% violence and sex has zero to do with it.
Okay. So, given the fact that no feminists have suggested that Julian Assange used violence when he had condom-free sex, why is it a “rape”?
I mean, surely feminists don’t wish to throw men in jail for bad sex, right?
According to some of the reports, Assange is allegedly held down one of the women before or during the sex. Setting that aside, the feminist definition of rape does not just focus on violence, but also female consent. So if a woman changes her mind, whether or not the man is aware that she did, any sex following that counts as rape. Likewise, any sex act a woman does not agree to counts as rape. The definition is very broad as it includes any unwanted sexual act. Granted, that is not the legal definition of rape nor does that broad defintiion apply to males victimized in the same fashion. That is, however, how feminists can consider not wearing a condom during consensual sex rape.
So, then, the mantra that “rape has nothing to do with sex” but is part of a campaign of terror that men run against women cannot simultaneously be held to be true if it also includes men who wanted consensual sex but the woman withdrew it mid-coitus. The man does not flip from wanting sex to wanting to terrorize women in an eye-blink because someone else changed her mind. They’re kind of mutually-exclusive.
Why, it’s almost as if feminists are trying to fabricate as many pretexts as possible to throw men in jail.
But that would be suggesting that feminists are acting in bad faith. And for that, I denounce myself preemptively.
While some feminists want to do that, I think the real problem is that feminists change their theories to suit their needs, which is a classic example of doublethink.
Sorry this is a long time in the making, but I just noticed this comment from Saurs in the first “Dose Of Stupid” entry.
“To point what out, dude? That men can be raped? You actually believe you’re the first folk to conceive of and voice the notion that men can be victimized by women and by other men?”
Actually, no, we’re not the first to conceive of the notion that men can be victmized.
However, we are the first ones to conceive of the notion without:
A) Calling it patriarchy or Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too.
B) Trying to find ways to excuse or exonorate the pepretrators, especially when women do it to men. “She was mentally ill.”, “It was self-defense”, “Women have no power. Sexism and abuse is based on power”.
C) Downplaying the abuse because it doesn’t happen on a level compared to what women go through or via statistics.
So, you conceived it. We explored it further from other angles other than “Men opressing women” and are trying to do something about it, unlike those in the feminist sphere who only give it a passing glance at best.
I do think the problem lies elsewhere, Eagle. I think most feminists do accept that, yes, of course, men can be raped, by other men and (even) women. That is a general principle; however, whenever an individual case is discussed, many will then doubt the rape survivor’s story or will want to give the whole situation a more nuanced perspective than simplistically calling it rape.
This is pretty much what you say in B; it’s just that I don’t think there is some general principle they consciously hold (i.e. “if women force men to have sex with them, it’s because they are mentally ill/ it’s less bad than the other way round because women aren#t abusing their power when they do it”) rather than a knee-jerk reaction to stories of female-against-male rape (i.e. “this individual case of a woman having forced a man to have sex is not comparable to a man raping a woman, because *insert reasons*”).
Which means that those feminists can agree with all your general principles, while one wouldn’t know from the way they react to female-against-male rape stories. And I think this is one point where severe misunderstandings take place: Feminist doesn’t see what you’re complaining about as what you are trying to say is totally accepted and undisputed amongst feminists, which frustrates said feminist and convinces him/her that you are pretty much just trolling. You see the feminist needing far more evidence by a male rape survivor than a female rape survivor to be believed by her/him, and are frustrated by the way her/his actions contradict so strongly the general view expressed that, of course, men can be sexually violated.
I think it would be good in general to consider more strongly whether one talks about generalities or individual cases; jumping from one to the other makes for a lot of bad logic in the world.
elementary_watson: Or, to put it less politely, a lot of them “hate” men.
According to their own rather loose definitions of “hate” I mean.
I am not sure of that, and the reason is because several feminist theories are built around the idea that sexual violence is a crime against women. Saying that men can be raped is much different than acknowledge that it does happen and that it happens with enough frequency to warrant concern. I would say that in general feminists accept the possibility for men to be victims of sexual violence, but they do not acknowledge that men and boys are victims of sexual violence, let alone accept that it likely occurs at same rate as sexual violence against females.
In my experience, that has not been the issue. I have been treated far worse by feminists for speaking about my own experiences than when speaking in general about sexual violence against males. I think the issue is that by acknowledging an individual case feminists would have to acknowledge that sexual violence against men is a larger problem than their theories propose. It seems like most of this boils down to agenda and politics, which makes the whole thing rather odd because one would think feminists, of all people, would know how dismissive language can hurt victims.
I concur wholeheartedly with Toysoldier on this.
When it comes to issues regarding girls or women as instigators or perpetrators of violence, bullying or sexual abuse, every feminist I’ve read or spoken with is hesitant to even acknowledge it without trying to use the “Individual Case” excuse so often.
Just a few weeks ago, I spoke with one I know in real life about what happened to me in high school, when that girl sicked her boyfriend on me to threaten me with violence as she stood there grinning. The feminist said “You should really be mad at the boyfriend. He threatened you.” I mean, what? Isn’t it pretty obvious who told him? Even if she didn’t, she certainly got her rocks off by the way she smiled at every curse word coming out of him. I mean, that’s pretty much making excuses for her, pure and simple.
Why should she be excused?
“Feminist doesn’t see what you’re complaining about as what you are trying to say is totally accepted and undisputed amongst feminists, which frustrates said feminist and convinces him/her that you are pretty much just trolling.”
So simple acknowledgement is trolling to them? Speaking out and putting the blame where it should lie is being a troll?
“That is a general principle; however, whenever an individual case is discussed, many will then doubt the rape survivor’s story or will want to give the whole situation a more nuanced perspective than simplistically calling it rape.”
Yeah, always when it comes to male survivors. Never when it comes to female survivors.
That’s my frustration right there. I’d feel better if their ‘Individual Cases” thing was applied across the board.
By the way, I should qualify that this high school girl tried to force me into playing a risque game with the others and when I wouldn’t comply, she laughed and ridiculed me. Then the boyfriend incident followed.
Hmmm … I guess many feminists would agree with the following statement: “Sexual violence against males by females happens, but it is not systemic (opposed to sexual violence commited by males against females).” They don’t believe that female-against-male rape never happens, but they have doubts about every single individual’s story (which goes along with what you, TS, wrote about getting harsher reactions when talking about your own abuse than about generalities).
Eagle: When one vehemently argues that people should accept something they think they obviously do, it will occur to them that one is simply trolling/attacking a straw person. Just think of the many times feminists argue that men should stop feeling entitled to having sex with any woman they want; men in general don’t feel entitled to it and react hostile, while the feminist is sure she sees attitudes common amongst men that indicate otherwise (this could be due to the kind of persons she associates with, the men in her family, a focus on offensive messages in the media, or sometimes a warped imagination).
But is that not just equivocation? If I say that I do not believe that there are no good cops, yet I have doubts about every single individual arrest any cop makes, does that not imply that I actually do think there are no good cops? What reason is there to question every single male victim’s story, but not question any female victim’s story?
What you said about feminists not viewing sexual violence against males by females (or by males) as systemic goes back to my point about theories informing the bias. We have no clear idea of how common female-perpetrated sexual violence is. The numbers vary from 2% to 40% of all sexual violence, depending on the sex and age of the victims. How can one determine whether something is or is not systemic based on such loose information? I think the broader issue is that the theories feminists use define sexual violence as something men do to women, and those theories are so core to the feminist position that anything that challenges them must be dismissed or force-fitted into the theory (not unlike fundamentalist Christians creating a Bible theme park that features dinosaurs with saddles on them).
There is a difference: most of the men who object that feminist generalization can understand or at least see how their behavior could be construed as “entitled.” In other words, those men are willing to see the other side’s perspective in a way that most feminists do not appear willing to do. I think that is the most common disconnect, i.e. that there is no attempt to see it from the other side’s perspective. I am not sure if that is because many with hardline views seem to think that acknowledging the other side’s perspective means agreeing with the other side’s views (it does not) or that they do not feel they should have to come to an understanding. However, it is that lack of understand that seems to be the problem.
I think of it this way: Feminists tend to reiterate traditional stereotypes and assumptions about gender in collectivized forms. The relevant units of analysis are “Men” and “Women” as categories; people are treated as instantiations of the class they’re a member of, rather than individual human beings with their own individual traits, circumstances, and history. These collectivities are defined in more or less the same terms that people with more traditional views stereotype individuals- men are aggressive, strong, and predatory, women are frail and helpless and innocent. Hence the bizarre- and often obscene, frankly- insistence of many feminists that a man is “privileged” over women even if he’s been treated far worse then the vast majority of women, and even if the mistreatment happened because he was a man and not in spite of it.
If someone viewing the world through that lens believes that male-on-female sexual violence is very common and the reverse is very rare-and I agree that this is a dubious assumption, but it’s more or less an article of faith for most people, and most feminists are certainly no exception- then, at the level feminists treat as primary, Class Women is the victim and Class Men the victimizer. Feminists (usually) understand that individual men are unique individuals and not literally identical drones linked into some sort of collective, but if someone’s ideology tends to treat men and boys that way then they’re still likely to think of the rape of an individual male primarily as part of a comparatively minor harm inflicted on a very powerful (and perhaps feared, disliked, or hated) entity, and only secondly (if at all) as a very serious evil inflicted on someone who lacks powerful. This is especially the case if, as they often do, the feminist in question regards rape as a primarily political or ideological phenomenon rather than a crime committed by and against particular individuals.
To the extent it is acknowledged as a serious crime against a person it is treated, as Eagle33 said, as an isolated anomaly- the fact that an individual man was harmed doesn’t change any of the assumptions about Men as a Class, so it can’t matter the way violence against a member of Class Women matters.
“To the extent it is acknowledged as a serious crime against a person it is treated, as Eagle33 said, as an isolated anomaly- the fact that an individual man was harmed doesn’t change any of the assumptions about Men as a Class, so it can’t matter the way violence against a member of Class Women matters.”
And then these feminists whine and complain about being treated with disrespect while bemoaning the name has been given a bad reputation.
I agree with the bad reputation part. But not with their reasonings behind it:
“Men are afraid of independant women”
“Men are holding on to their priveledge”
“Men want to turn back the clock to when women were barefoot and pregnant and property.”
Maybe its the fact they say one thing and then do another that contradicts what they say, explaining it away with a retcon of their original saying.