I wrote earlier about my exchange with Jamie Utt on his blog. It appears he took to Twitter to complain about it. However, he was vague in his complaint, tweeting:
If you come to my blog with your MRA-lite version of advocacy for male survivors of sexual violence, you will get blocked. #sorrynotsorry
— Jamie Utt (@utt_jamie) July 2, 2014
This prompted James Landrith to question what Utt was talking about. Below is the exchange:
Note how Utt dismisses that I am an advocate for male survivors, but quickly takes offense when asked by Landrith if he is a male survivor. Utt’s reaction is completely disproportionate to the question.
Utt suggests that Landrith should read his work to see his position on male survivors. Very well. Let us do that. Here is a post Utt published last year about rape statistics. Schala mentioned in the comments that the recent CDC study contradicts the “only men are rapists” framing Utt used in his piece. Utt’s response was to initially give lip service to male survivors. He then dismissed the CDC report as it applies to male victims, incorrectly claiming that the results were based on a one-month snapshot, and then stated:
You missed my point. The question was whether men would say yes that they had experienced sexual violence if it were called something else.
This is not just something that men experience. Women regularly do not call their experience sexual violence or rape because of the shame that is placed upon any person who experiences this trauma.
When Schala challenged Utt on this, Utt dismissed her a men’s rights activist and wrote:
The vast majority of programs are training their advocates and professionals to serve male survivors. Now we need to transform patriarchal masculinity that tells men that they cannot seek help.
Never mind that people who actually research, work with, and serve male survivors find the opposite is true: feminist-run programs typically do no train their volunteers to assist male survivors and do no offer services for male survivors. Those are just three links out of the dozens of articles, studies, and accounts linked to on this blog alone.
This is how Jamie Utt views male survivors. This is what he stated unprompted. Schala did not trick Utt into dismissing male survivors. Utt dismissed them all on his own. Yet he takes offense when someone asks him whether he is a male survivor, despite the purpose being to say that neither Utt or anyone else should use male survivors to score political points.
Landrith was not asking if Utt was actually a male survivor. He was asking what right does Utt have to use male survivors to attack someone else.
Utt claims that he is “tremendously concerned with triggering trauma,” yet had no problem attacking me despite that I mentioned I was a male survivor on his blog (a comment Utt deleted). He also had no problem attacking Landrith.
This is why feminists should not be involved in advocacy for male survivors. They are completely incapable of removing their ideology from the situation, and only make the discussion about them.
Utt, like many feminists, is simply trying to score points. It should never be about scoring points. It should always be about helping people. However, you cannot help people by silencing them, dismissing them, or attacking them when they say something you do not like.