A Dose of Stupid v.55

It happens every day. In fact, it is pretty hard to avoid it. There are some things that can only be understood with a slap on the forehead. Things so mind-boggling that one wonders how humans managed to evolve thumbs while being this mentally inept. Case in point:

What if Penn State’s Coach Had Victimized Girls?

Imagine this: For the last week the media has reported on a horrific case of people covering up child rape. The individuals involved either knew about the abuse or knew about the allegations of abuse and did nothing. They instead allowed a man to use their university’s facilities as a place for him to rape boys.

Usually, the media would not cover cases of rape against boys. It might get a passing mention, and then disappear. Even then, it is needs to be involve a major institution or famous person. If it is something like hundreds of warlords systematically raping boys in Afghanistan, no one cares. The only reason the Sandusky case made news is because involved Penn State and Joe Paterno.

But Erin Gloria Ryan thinks it otherwise:

A sexual abuse case of this magnitude should always be taken this seriously, but sexual abuse is simply not taken as seriously when the victims or victimizers are female.

Right… Sexual abuse against males is taken so seriously that a) it is rarely reported, b) people put terms like male rape in quotes, c) it is made into late night fodder, d) people claim the victims either wanted it, are gay or are lucky, and e) it inevitably turns to talking about female victims.

Ryan goes on to state:

If Jerry Sandusky had victimized little girls, right now discussion of the case would be decidedly different. There would undoubtedly be a vocal public contingent that placed some of the blame on the victims. What were they wearing? Did they, like the 11-year-old who was gang raped in Texas, “dress older” than their age and try to “talk ghetto?” Did the victims act “slutty”? Were they virgins? Maybe the rapes of young sexually advanced tweens was actually just poor hapless Sandusky misreading cues, maybe the rapist was actually not a rapist at all, but a “Clumsy Don Juan” just trying to find some romance when “sex was in the air.” Maybe they’d say that what he did was okay, that he deserved to be exonerated because he’s a good football coach, kind of the Roman Polanski of defensive coordinating.

If Sandusky’s victims were girls, people might doubt the assaults took place at all, as many female victims of sexual abuse are doubted. Whispers would suggest that the girls were being paid by a rival school to sabotage Penn State’s recruitment efforts by seducing the coach. Intrepid sports bloggers would dig relentlessly to uncover the identities of the girls and attempt to find something, anything, that would validate their theory that they somehow tempted their beloved defensive wizard. There’s be a horrible nickname for one of the victims involving the word “honeypot.” If a young girl were victimized by a giant in the world of college football, would she even have the courage to come forward, knowing what sort of scrutiny and character assassination awaited her?

Two points. One, all the above nonsense does get directed at male victims. The only reason we are not hearing much of it in this case is because the media is not covering it. But that does not mean the nonsense is not happening. Already an attorney for some of the victims is concerned about the potential backlash Paterno’s firing could have against them. This is only the start of it. What happens if the next game goes bad? Will the community turn on the victims? Will they blame them for losing Paterno?

More so, plenty of cases result in people blaming male victims. Go and read some of the comments directed at boys abused by priests or any of the Michael Jackson accusers and see how people accused them of lying about the abuse. Look at how many times boys who come forward are called gay or told they must have liked it because they kept going back. Go and read the comments claiming that abused boys cannot be trusted around other children. This idea that male victims hold some honored place in the media and society while female victims get trashed is absolute bullshit.

Two, Ryan just had to make it about women. No feminist could not just accept this situation as the horrific act of child rape and bureaucratic cover-up that it is. No, she just had to claim that women have it worse, because apparently no one takes the rape of little girls seriously.

She went on to write:

However, the world we inhabit is not ideal, and the difference in response to male versus female victims of sexual abuse leaves a disturbing, but nagging question unanswered: Does the Penn State case resonate so dramatically with the public because of a fear of homosexual male aggression, or because the public is actually horrified over the sexual victimization of children?

Or is it because the media has reported that Sandusky had a 10-year-old boy pinned against a wall raping him?

It is stupid, infantile, sexist and incredibly disrespectful to try to make this case about girls. Child rape is bad whoever the victims are. Pretending that male victims are immediately believed is Grade-A bullshit, and it is ironic for Ryan to even try to make that argument in a case where almost half a dozen people did nothing when they found out about Sandusky raping boys. It is even worse when the image the leads Ryan’s article is of a bunch of students at a riot in support of Paterno, a man who ignored child rape.

People do not support boys more than girls.

23 thoughts on “A Dose of Stupid v.55

  1. Let’s take Ms. Ryan’s twisted “it’s all about us” premise a step further. What if Sandusky had established a “charity” for underprivileged girls? Would he have been allowed to have unsupervised sleep-overs with them as well? Had the 10 year old victims in the showers been girls, the graduate assistant and janitors who witnessed the rapes may have been more likely to intervene immediately. And been hailed as heroes.

    Had the victims been girls, school administrators would have been more likely to report the incidence to police. They would fear retribution from vindictive feminists and their federal watch dogs for not doing so.

    Had the victims been a girls, the riot in the streets would have been fomented by every women’s advocacy group in the country. Look at their unwavering solidarity for the false accuser in the Duke rape case. Had the victims been girls the Penn riots would have demanded heads to roll and been another media opportunity to exploit, and spew more venom about the patriarchy and male privilege. They’d still be camped-out having vigils on Paterno’s front lawn.

    Had the victims been girls they would have been encouraged to tell. Thirty years ago.

    I have to hand it to you TS. For a guy who’s had profanity dished on him profusely, especially over at manboobz, I can’t recall you ever cursing. But in this case you’re completely justified. Ms. Ryan’s typically narcissistic feminist slant can’t be described as anything but pure, unadulterated BULLSHIT!

    And with more than just a capital “B.”

  2. Thank you for this. The Jezebel article made me furious. The site has yet to comment on the overwhelmingly negative response it received (with, of course, a few positive commenters who also missed the point).

  3. “If Jerry Sandusky had victimized little girls, right now discussion of the case would be decidedly different.”

    You tell ’em girlfriend! And if men could get breast cancer, there would be a cure for it by now!

    Oh hold on, you say that men CAN get breast cancer?

    Well, sheesh, must be some kind of fluke.

  4. Rev, I think profanity should be used sparsely, otherwise it loses its impact. In this case, it is ridiculous to try to claim that male victims have it easier or get more support, and just wrong to try to make this horrific situation about women.

  5. Frankly, I’m outraged that the Jezebel article didn’t blame patriarchy enough.

    There can never be too much of that.

  6. False Rape Society loves Toy Soldiers!

    This is a brilliantly written piece, and it would be foolish for us to try to add to it.

    It is bad enough that a screeching progressive rag feels compelled to play Oppression Olympics about a matter so serious; it’s worse that it can conjure up no support for its inane thesis beyond tired cliches and the usual victim fetish blather.

    The rape of females is widely regarded as a national crisis; the rape of males is almost always a punchline. Finally, a case of apparent male rape surfaces where no one is laughing, and some twisted woman has a hissy fit.

    If this woman ever has something legitimate to say, can anyone blame us for tuning her out?

  7. “PM, I am glad that some of the people took issue with Ryan’s article over there. It is just inexcusable to play politics with this”

    I’m going to estimate that about 80-90% of commenters were bothered or straight-up outraged. A couple starred commenters (don’t ask, it’s a stupid system Gawker has) systematically moved all the complaints to the “Complaints” section of the site. A starred commenter, and the star is hard to get, renounced her/his star in disgust at the whole thing. Jezebel is a well-read site among left-leaning women, and it is heartening to see the majority of them criticizing the article. A few have demanded a retraction and an apology.

  8. Victoria, Australia, amended it’s sexual assault laws in the late nineties in ways which made it possible to charge and convict female perpetrators. Previously it simply couldn’t happen. In the intervening decade our courts have hosted a female perpetrator every few weeks or months. The handful who abused girls went to prison. With one exception the vast majority who had abused boys were set free.

    I suspect Ms Ryan would be quite happy with our approach.

  9. TS: I have to tell you– yes, I do think this is a necessary and well-written post, but my only problem is this bit:

    It is stupid, infantile, sexist and incredibly disrespectful to try to make this case about girls.

    Well, I am in total agreement about this. But… the person who wrote the offending piece– and the people who think the offending piece is worth reading– don’t give a shit.

    The word “sexist” here is particularly ineffective because sexism, in their minds, is something that men only do to women. Despite their oft-repeated claim that “no, they don’t think that/PHMT” or whatever really, the operative core of their worldview is that women always have everything worse and that men can go suck shit.

    So, yes you can fairly charge the author of sexism.

    Unfortunately, the charge has no meaning to the author because, with her own definition of the term, her own behavior is forever exempted.

    Frankly, she’d find it amusing that some impudent MALE like you would even try to use it against her because you clearly don’t understand that, in proper feminist usage, it’s a single-edged sword to attack men only.

  10. Maybe it is just me, is anyone getting a ‘Yea, we sorta agree, but you are being insensitive bringing it up so soon’ vibe from a lot of the comments?

  11. Solo: Oh, you should’ve seen the feminist reaction about a year ago to the Vatican getting heat for covering-up the abuse of boys. Suddenly, amazingly, feminists expressed concern about abused boys…

    …but only as a lead-in to complain about the Vatican’s policies towards abortion and the lack of female priests.

    So the rape of boys is just a minor, teeny follow-on pea-sized speck next to the gigantic, looming, ultra-vast suffering of women throughout all space and time.

  12. Not just that Solo, what gets my gall is they’re always talking about Privledge particularly bringing up male priveledge.

    You DO NOT bring up male privledge or discussions of priveledge when boys and men have been seriously abused. It is the worst form of invalidation ever, to be implicitly told “You still benefit from the systematic oppression of women” and “you still have privledges women never have” when you were the victim of abuse. I’ll bet they would be outraged if a man were to go into a safe haven for female victims and say “Well, you ladies still have it good in many areas”.

    Sadly, I’m not surprised. Some commentators just can’t keep their ideology out of it.

  13. You DO NOT bring up male privledge or discussions of priveledge when boys and men have been seriously abused


    Says who, Eagle?

    Says YOU?


    Womyn can say what they please.

    Even if it makes no sense whatsoever.

  14. Aych, I know.

    I’m a priveledged white man. Ergo, my opinion won’t count to them since I’m an official member of the oppressive class.

  15. This item reminds me of a (UK) discussion some years ago about prostate cancer. All of the participants were female – and the theme was that prostate cancer was essentially a ‘female problem’ – as they would have extra work looking after husbands with the condition.

    By the way – readers in other countries might note that, although covered by seperate Laws – in the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, and Scotland, the insertion of a penis into specified parts of another person’s body is an essential element of the crime of ‘rape’ – so it can ONLY be committed by a man. A number of different offences exist for other types of sexual assault.

    This Wiki entry appears to be reasonably comprehensive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_rape#United_Kingdom

  16. The following is from the website of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape. They were the ones collecting 5 gal. buckets of cash for Penn sexual abuse victims at yesterday’s big game.

    “Why do people think this way?
    Men are told to play very specific stereotypical roles in our society. Those stereotypes include being physically strong, emotionally absent and always in control. When men are put into these types of boxes, there is little room for them to admit that they have been a victim of anything, let alone sexual assault. Many people believe that men should have been strong enough to fight off their attacker; that men are not able to be sexually assaulted by women; and that men are simply incapable of being sexually assaulted.”

    The fact is…..
    “About 3 percent of American men – a total of 2.78 million men – have experienced a rape at some point in their lifetime” (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006). Men and boys’ responses to their victimization are important to take care of in respectful ways.
    Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2006). Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Rape Victimization: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey, NIJ, CDC.”

    I think a better question would be, “why do WOMEN think this way?” Afterall, everything in the first paragraph complies with female sexual expectations of men. Football has incorporated those expectations into the educational system as a cultural mandate. The school unions, NEA & ATF, are comprised of approximately 80% women. Hmmm.

    “About 3 percent of American men – a total of 2.78 million men – have experienced a rape at some point in their lifetime”

    Considering the Oprah accepted statistic is now a debatable 1 in 6 men were sexually abused, I wondered where they came up with this 3% crap. Oh, from a National Violence Against Women Survey. Huh? Double Hmmm.

    Makes me wonder where all that undocumented cash they hauled in the other day is really going to go.

    Link to http://www.pcar.org and ask them.

  17. Pingback: Top posts of 2011 | Toy Soldiers

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s