Heresy, Rape Statistics, and Getting Away from the Poles

Until we regulate rape statistics, Julie Gillis writes, sexual violence will never be accounted for what it really is: diverse.

First of all, I believe men and women both are raped and sexually assaulted. I also believe that men and women both can act as perpetrators of sexual violence. I find any and all combinations of such violence horrifying. As a human being, I want to intervene and help promote a more peaceful world, a world where people do not attack each other with or at their genitals.

I have no idea where on a bell curve one would see the distribution of male victims and female perpetrators. I’m not sure we’ve ever, at least in the U.S., collected truly accurate stats on incidents of sexual assaults across multiple variables (ages, genders, races). I would love to see an accurate bell curve. I really would.

As many of you know there was a recent CNN report on broadening the old definitions of rape for statistical purposes. There have been several articles already here at GMP on rape, including a commentary by founder Tom Matlack, a piece on Rape Culture by Soraya Chemaly, and several others, each with many comments and arguments over what exactly constitutes rape.

These definitional revisions should provide an even greater incentive to find more accurate stats. In years past, I would have been satisfied to think that we’d come a long way, that we’d succeeded as a society and government to change the definition of rape in such a way that men and women’s experiences could both be accurately counted.

This would lead to the aforementioned Bell Curve of Truth.

In the past, the definition of rape was the forcible penetration of a woman, by a man, with a penis. Now, for the Justice Department, rape means any kind of vaginal, oral, or anal penetration, whether by a penis, hand, or implement. It does not however take into account envelopment of say, a penis by a mouth or a penis by a vagina. I’m not sure if it takes into account a mouth on a vulva either (which would omit women who had been forced to endure oral rape by a man or woman in the lurch, statistically speaking). Penetration is the name of the game and discounts the experiences of men (and perhaps women in the case of oral without penetration) who have had sex against their will in a way that does not fit the description.

To this, I call bullshit.

Why is envelopment, and oral on penis or vulva, not part of the definition? If it’s forcible oral sex when a penis or object penetrates someones mouth, why wouldn’t it be forcible oral sex if a mouth envelopes a penis no matter the mouth’s owner?

This is me going down a rabbit hole. Want to see what it looks like?

“Why is sex defined as penetrative at all?

What is, exactly, sex?

The standard, heteronormative version of how sex is defined? Sex equals penis in vagina (PIV)? Oral sex isn’t really sex? Hand jobs are just a warm up? What about the trans-experience of sexuality and gender—where does this fit in? When does sexual activity equal sex? When is it sexual assault and when is it rape? Is there ultimately a difference? Is the difference all based in penalty? How does one quantify suffering and enforce an adequate punishment if a forced oral sex experience led to more trauma than a forced PIV encounter?

Why have we created a world where we do not believe men are capable of being assaulted and where women are not capable of assaulting?”

It’s hard to come out of that rabbit hole. I get empathy overload. I read stats and figures and feel overwhelmed. I get angry that human beings can be so bloody horrible to each other and yet I realize that sexual violence has likely always been used as a powerful weapon throughout history and we are actually at a place where things may be at a point of change. Maybe. I hope.

That helps. Realizing that sexuality, power, and the way we talk about it, question it, helps.


Sexual activity is a continuum at best, and, depending on your history and point of view on sexuality, sex might be defined as getting naked and touching genitals, or as a penetrative act, or as tantric breathing.

We don’t talk about sex in this country in a way that leaves room for a continuum. We don’t talk about or teach about boundaries and consent that leaves both men and women open to saying no or yes based on where they might be in any sexual situation. We don’t teach or talk about how men can not want to have sex, can feel overwhelmed by sexual pressure, suffer in silence around assault, and we don’t often discuss how women can be sexual aggressors.

We don’t define sex in a way that leaves room for non-normative sexualities, erasing swaths of individuals. We create a deepening morass of polarizing discourse around who gets to have sex when, to what roles we are to play, and to claim what suffering one gets to have when things go badly instead of looking at the situation from a completely different angle.

(And that’s just a U.S.-centric Western perspective. There certainly are other issues at play here throughout other regions of the world—for example, sexual violence systematized as torture in wartime in El Savador, Chile, Sarajevo, and Uganda, and sexual violence as pecking order and dominance displays in prisons.)

Some of the arguments about why things are considered in statistics are quantitative. If there is only so much funding for rape prevention, then you focus on the greatest number of people affected by the crime. Stopping there becomes a choice between quantitative and qualitative experience. But how many men are enveloped? Does it matter to the ones that have been, if someone says, “Well, there are more cases of penetration so we aren’t funding envelopment prevention?”

As MediaHound, put it, quoting “And The Band Played On,” “Tell us what to do so that we don’t annoy you—and give us the qualitative barrier that even one man has to exceed so that he is not a number but a Human Being!”

I wish it were that easy. Maybe it could be that easy if it weren’t for funding—funding that is in short supply, funding that is dealt out depending on numbers of people affected by any given problem.

Funding. Funding something usually requires statistics, yes? Which brings us back to the CNN report and the Justice Department definitional change of rape.

Statistics are everything. In today’s world, should you want to gain the political leverage and power needed to get government funding, grant money, friends in high places, you need data.

When one is dealing with government funding, there is often only a limited amount available. Getting that funding is a priority and thus there are competitions to make sure Group A gets what Group A deserves, even if it is at the expense of Group B. This in and of itself bothers me because it creates a division between people. Why should A in one part of the world get more money than B in another? Because A’s number of issues is bigger?

Or because B had it’s moment? Is it because the country with the money is allied more strongly with the country that has A and at odds with the country that needs B? Is it because A has better PR? Stronger lobbyists? Better stats? Cultural dynamics in place as well, that cause A to be a better recipient of funding that B?

Most likely, all of these things account. This is why we might see (trigger warning for extreme examples of sexual violence) Ugandan men getting little to no treatment for rapes incurred through the Congo Wars, for example.

That’s politics for you. It is never about an equal distribution of resources. There are quantitative barriers in place for qualitative experiences. I don’t know how that changes, save with dogged, loud, fierce political action. And ironically, actual accurate statistics.

But then, as I’ve said, I’m not sure we’ve ever, at least in the U.S., collected truly accurate stats on incidents of sexual assaults across multiple variables (ages, genders, races). Can we actually get those stats? The real ones? Is it possible to define real at all?

If you have them, share them, please!


Data can be collected in a number of ways, by a wide variety of people and used for a multitude of things. Sometimes the same data can be used against itself. The dynamics are such right now, and feelings and tensions are so high between the MRA and Feminist communities, that I fear no one would believe factual information if it were even collected, that the Bell Curve of Truth would be ripped asunder depending on who disagreed with it, leaving the people whose stories made up that Curve floating in the void.

And again, I call bullshit on that.

Is there no way to throw the poles and group-think ego out the windows and deal with the cumulative and collective human guilt/shame/bad feelings/defensiveness? To support the idea if anyone is utilizing sexual violence as a way to control, manipulate, torture or dominate anyone, whether on a date or in time of war, it’s a bloody bad thing?

That human beings should not use our genitals as weapons?

That any political group that covers up the human rights abuse of others for their own ends is actually part of the problem?

What do we want, people? Do we want to do things the same old ways, fighting over definitions to get funding to prove points, or do we actually want to make a substantive social and cultural change in which human beings can live lives without fear of sexual assault and abuse and have justice for those who experience it? And can we do one without the other?

Getting the most accurate facts and stats on hand would be one good way to start. I’m totally on board with including envelopment if it means getting stats to focus on stopping rape. Looking past stats towards the bigger pictures of how social structures support war or violence or prisons would be another way. Revamping how we do or don’t talk about sexuality with our partners, families and children would be yet another. Dealing with a culture that places more value on corporations and stock holders than education and keeping people well fed (thus leading to crime and poverty and profitable prisons!) would be yet another.

It can’t be poles. It can’t be MRA vs Feminists.

Maybe that’s heresy. I just don’t have a lot of tolerance for poles right now. I envision these social justice moments more as a sphere-like wheel with spokes all connecting to each other and influencing each other.

To do this work, which is vital, moral work, there needs to be room for everyone at the table to help expand the continuum of dialogue around sexuality, peace, gender, and stopping violence. To look at the biggest picture possible and to make the biggest change.

If that’s heresy, I’m all for it.

—Photo woodleywonderworks/Flickr

About Julie Gillis

Julie Gillis is a coach, writer, and producer focused on social justice, sex, and spirituality. She is dedicated to sexual freedom and education, equality for the LGBTQ community, and ending sexual violence. Julie intuitively helps people live their fullest lives, navigating terrain from relationships to sex education. She writes at The Austin Chronicle, Good Vibes Magazine, Flurtsite and Connect with her on Facebook and Twitter@JulesAboutTown


  1. This may be a little dated now but it is very good. Being a male victim of female sexual violence was a horrible wake up to how bad my marriage relationship had gotten. Because when you are raped you are no longer a person but a thing!

    Also, the satatistics are very homophobic because they don’t touch on gay sexual violence. Yes, women are raped by women and everyone that has any contact with prison also knows that sexual violence of all kinds is very common in prisons!

    The real issue behind all the numbers is turning other people into things that don’t count. For the attacker the victim is no longer a person. Far worse, that the agencies and groups that are supposed to help say, “Oh, you can’t be a victim because”.

  2. John Anderson says:

    I just recounted an experience on another GMP blog where I’m pretty sure I was drugged and I’m pretty sure I had sex without the ability to consent. I agree envelopment should be considered rape, but how do you count it if you’re not sure that it happened? It just probably did.

    • @ John

      “..but how do you count it if you’re not sure that it happened?”

      That actually breaks down into two meanings.

      1) law enforcement. That depends upon evidence. In drug rape that can be very complex. The use of such drugs as “Rohypnol” has been a big issue, and as the drug is rapidly metabolised and excreted there is a narrow window to test and prove usage after the sexual assault – or even plain common assault has occurred. Using “Rohypnol” on a person without consent is assault itself. If drug rape is suspected – at the very least, urine samples need to be collected promptly so that the excreted metabolites can be checked for. I have had to assist in that – and it has taken some time to get law enforcement to act – but once the evidence is in from the lab it does count.

      It’s also worrying that eduction programs about use of Drugs for assault has been focused more or less exclusively on young women. I have had to personally intervene to stop men who were drugged being taken away by an unknown woman – who was publicly stating her intent to take him home and have none consensual sex with him. There has been wide spread eduction on the matter ion the GAY community, with developed strategies of how to avoid being drugged – and what to do if you believe you have been drugged. There is no equivalent for men in general, which leaves many wide open to predation and abuse. It’s been made a False Gender issue and not a Crime Issue.

      2) The second way to count – well that comes down to being used as a statistics outside of the Criminal Justice system. Your experience can be counted if you seek support from groups such as Rape Crisis centres, support groups who report on patterns and Modus Operandi of offenders – and if you are extraordinarily lucky if a statutory law enforcement agency contacts you at random as part of a survey and you get to answer some questions.

      If you are worried about what happened – seek support – Talk it through.

      I know of at least two cases where doing that led to Police actually listening. They had received multiple reports which had a pattern and one possible offender. That led to the offender being put behind bars.

      All the best.

  3. I just wanted to say thank you for this. As a male survivor of rape, thank you.

  4. Schwyzer being leery of calling what happened to Ian rape is just him showing his true colors. In order to reconcile two incompatible positions: “women are the overwhelmingly majoruty of rape victims” and NISVS 2010 reporting that just as many men reported being made to penetrate someone else in the last 12 months as women reported being raped in the last 12 months he chose to throw Ian and all who’ve experienced something similar under the bus.

    It was hard arguing that we should count when there was very little high quality research on our existence and it’s unfortunately still hard even though the numbers now are in. I am glad you understand the anger.

    Imagine how it is to be called a rape apologist when one bring up the existence of male rape victims (because they buy into the male stereotype that men always want sex and hence the only reason for bringing up male rape victims must be that the person bringing it up wants to do the same thing to women. The irony of course being that holding that stereotype is exactly what prevents women from realizing that they haven’t got good consent from their male partner). Imagine being told that only men can stop rape when one is a victim of rape by a woman. Imagine being told that the telling of my individual story of being raped by a woman obscures the qualitative differences between rape of men and rape of women. Yes, I have been angry a lot the last month or so.

    Julie here seem to get it and I think more people will get it over time. As James Landrith (another male survivor of rape by a woman) said about Schwyzer:

    Male survivors of sexual violence are not going to sit idly by while people who aren’t stakeholderrs in our healing peddle misinformation and half-truths intended to minimize, re-wound and silence actual, living, breathing sexual violence survivors for the sake of their academic or political arguments. We are done sitting in the corner and in the dark, with our heads hung low.

    He just might as well get some better earplugs. While only recently have we begun to find our voice, some of us can be pretty damned loud.

    There is a storm brewing in the male survivor community and things ARE going to change. You can help or you can ignore us, but you can no longer expect to brazenly hinder us without consequence. Those days are officially over.

    ht tp://

    • “Imagine how it is to be called a rape apologist when one bring up the existence of male rape victims ”

      I don’t have to Imagine – it was done to me for years, even by Police Officers whilst I was sitting on “Lesbian and Gay Policing Initiatives” to break down barriers and have police enforce the law in Equality.

      I was also called a Domestic Abuse/Violence Denier Too, along with many other nice little “Thought Terminating Clichés”.

      It was funny having to educate some Most Senior Police Officers as to what the law said – what it meant – and also how they were involved in Criminal Harassment each time they verbally abused us. One Major Disciplinary Hearing against a most senior police officer, with him demoted and resigning from the police was all it took to cause a national change of attitude. After that, “THEY”didn’t dare deny anything!

      It would have been easier for them to listen – but if they want to be deaf that is a choice and the consequences are all their own.

      … and I have been laughing as I have been given yet another label to add to my expanding collection of badges. When I corrected Historical Errors by Hugo – I am now apparently an “Anally Retentive Scholar”. So I’m supposedly Feminist, MRA, Ludicrous, Creepy and now A.R.S along with so many other badges that people keep handing to me.

      I’m so proud of my achievements in such a short period of time! One day they may think to call me human too – but I’m not expected that to happen any day soon! P^)

      I wonder how some would take being labelled “Human Denier”?

      It would be seen as almost as bad a “Holocaust Denier”, but without the religious overtones.

    • Amen to that. It’s great to see people fighting back at such behaviour and I truly believe it will lead to people understanding especially when enough get onboard. There is a lot of pain in the world and all people have to be aware of not hurting some to help others.

  5. How to Reduce the Polls and Distances – a solution.

    Oh Boy – It is getting interesting to see how the Polarities Play out here!

    I keep looking and wondering at how to defuse the tensions and the Overly well developed tendencies some have to see a “Name” – “See A Subject” and see a term such as “Feminist Conspiracy” and just Walk On By without considering there may be validity and accuracy in the concerns expressed.

    There are so many “Thought Terminating Clichés” being used it’s a master class in Brain Washing.

    I have been watching and analysing very carefully – and I have to say the term “Usual Suspects” comes to mind.

    That is not “ONE” sided, so no-one can read it and feel SMUG. If smug is your reaction, you are part of the problem and clearly not interested in any solution! That may seen harsh – but it is reality. Tough – get Over Yourself and your own tendencies. If you have the courage to change, read on!

    There are clear patterns of The Usual Suspects on both side of debate and the patterns of Ignoring, Not reading and Jerking Knees and responding with the equivalent of “You Have Cooties”.

    It’s Tiring and Frustrating and is a pain in the Ass! People spend time writing explaining and answering questions, and all the time the people they are addressing matters to don’t care. There is an old saying “Don’t Wrestle With A Pig – You Will Just End Up Dirty, And The Pig Will Enjoy It.”

    People are Wrestling with Pigs – It’s a waste of time and the Pigs on both sides just Walk On By feeling ever so smug! And then they say the other side are Dirty Humans. It’s Loose – Loose and of little value.

    The Biggest Human Pig Wrestling matches are when it’s all revolving around Feminism and what ever the other side is to be called – MRA, Masculist, or some other term that gets thrown about.

    So we need a way to stop the Human and Pig Wrestling on both sides – both sides viewing the other as either covered in dirt or even enjoying the muck and less than human.

    It seems quite simple really – how to solve it, but it needs people to want to! I have seen a way to achieve this and am interested in Evangelically Spreading the word.

    So once 12 people have asked me How to do it, I will tell you.

    I am not interested in people Turning this idea into more Humans and Pigs and More Muck, so that it gets buried before it even has a chance to start – It’s also deceptively simple – anyone can do it – and it’s a meme that can go viral and become self maintaining in a short period of time. It’s WIN – WIN and it also is a control mechanism for any pigs or humans who try to start a wrestling match in public and then throwing Muck.

    So when I have 12 people who want to know what it is I will tell you.

    I see no point in revealing it if there are not at least 12 Good Men and Women who believe they can and even want to make a difference. That is all it should take to start the change and make a difference.

    Any takers, Just let me know!

  6. ht tp://
    “Ian came from a conservative Christian family; he wanted to be a virgin until marriage. Like many, Ian had a rather literal definition of abstinence: He was willing to do “anything but” penis-in-vagina intercourse.

    Shortly after returning from winter break, Ian had hooked up with a female friend in his dorm room. Both had been drinking a little bit; clothes came off. While they were fooling around, this young woman told Ian she wanted to “pop his cherry” and take the last vestige of his virginity. He reminded her (they’d known each other for a while) that intercourse was off limits. But at one point, she suddenly straddled Ian, grabbed his erection, and slid his penis inside of her. He ejaculated within seconds.

    Ian was devastated with shame. Though he was never sexual with this woman again, he couldn’t name what had happened to him as rape. Neither could I. He and I—and, from what I could tell, the woman involved—all operated on the assumption that when it comes to heterosexual sex between adults, an erection is evidence of consent.”

    No it’s not the FBI definition rape, but it is a sexual assault, and what most of us here on the GMP at least define as rape. If a woman had told a man that she didn’t want to have intercourse/ penis in vagina sex, and they fool around and he penetrates her vagina with his penis then that is considered rape. Same situation with a different gender of victim. Is he arguing it was a misunderstanding? Denying it’s rape? It illustrates of course men can be raped but I want to know why he can’t admit that? Die hard sticking to the FBI definition?

    “For the sake of the small but suffering number of male victims—and for the far greater number of women who are the victims of men—we need to shatter this pernicious myth about the male body.”

    There is absolutely NO need to mention “small but suffering” and comparing it to females, you cannot in good faith try to compare male and female rape due to biased definitions of the word rape. If we have an equal level of men being forced to penetrate, and women being forcibly penetrated then with the definition in place that the FBI, even the CDC stats used, women will always being the larger portion of rape victims because those men forced to penetrate mean 0, zip, nadda, to the word rape.

    How on Earth is anyone who has been to a college let alone studied there not comprehend this? I swear it feels like I could convert evangelists to atheism easier than getting some people to acknowledge the most easy to understand bias in a statistic.

    “We need to avoid the twin errors of claiming false equivalence on the one hand, or denying the reality of male vulnerability altogether on the other. ”
    We need to stop ignoring envelopment as a way to dishonestly portray women as more victimized in sexual assault, I don’t recall a single article on those stats even reporting the 1 in 21 men will be forced to penetrate someone in their life, or the fact in the last 12 months 79.2 of those men report females leaving about 40% of rapists as female for that time-frame. Why is there such a need to minimize the number of female rapists/sexual assaulters? What good does it do? I hear so often “It’s not a zero-sum game” but it sure sounds like it if people cannot point out the severe increase in female sexual abusers.

    “Ejaculation is not evidence of enthusiasm. Orgasms (both male and female) can be coerced. Those are truths that bear repeating. They are worth remembering not because we’re witnessing an epidemic of female-on-male sexual assault. They’re worth remembering not only for the sake of preventing the rare but real incidences of female on male rape, but for teaching all of us— especially men—that a partner’s physical arousal is not a sexual blank check. ”
    The way the original sounded without the only made it sound like there wasn’t an epidemic, or sharp increase of female-on-male sexual assault so I would make it read “…They are worth remembering not ONLY because we’re witnessing an epidemic of female-on-male sexual assault…” because it sounds like you’re in denial with this.

    And seriously, of course the experience of female on male rape is rare, they have to penetrate with either their hands or an object. (Definition in the CDC stats you used – “Among men, rape includes oral or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also includes anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object.” ) How rare is it Hugo for men to be forced to penetrate someone? Lifetime 1 in 21 men. For the last 12 months 1.1% of men, with 79.2% of those men report a female abuser, so with the 1.1% of female rape and 1.1% of male forced-to-penetrate, it’s about 40% female and 60% male abusers. So based on some quick math, 1,267,000 estimated victims total, 1,003,464 male victims of FEMALE sexual abuse/rape/envelopment in the last 12 months in America alone. You call that rare? That’s more people than some countries, wars have been fought over less death.

    Hugo, please read this, or someone tell him. The way you write is helping to minimize male rape and sexual abuse. If you go around saying how high women suffer rape and how “small” the number of male victims is, Unless you are going to tell people that envelopment isn’t considered rape and the number of male victims shoots up much closer to female victims of rape then you are directly supporting the harmful stereotypes around sexual abuse for men. Please PLEASE change the style of writing so you don’t have you mention the levels of rape between the genders, nor compare them whilst bias exists and is pointed out. I can see you’re at least trying to write on male sexual abuse but you have to do it much better than try paint the % of women as higher and % of men lower than the reality seems to be and that I feel is very dishonest. If you want to mention the levels together, add envelopment stats to the mix and explain why it isn’t included, a lot of people do not realize envelopment isn’t included in the rape definition and will think it happens much less than rape of women happens.

    There is no reason to fear pointing out a much higher level of female on male rape, or sexual abuse. Abuse happens by both genders, against both genders, and if we really want to make a difference in sexual abuse we need to portray it properly. First thing that needs to go when discussing rape is the bias of leaving out envelopment, until that is addressed I don’t think I can in good faith trust anyone comparing the 2 genders for rates of rape.

    I really am not surprised the level of anger these articles cause, I feel much of it right now just reading that one.

  7. Julie, Thanks for this. I know it must not be easy to put your ideas and thoughts forward when there is a chance of having them torn down. I am one of those lurkers mentioned earlier…I read a lot here but have never commented. I am a male survivor of childhood sexual abuse and rape as an adult. The crimes perpetrated against me were done so by both Males and Females and I have to say that some of my best and most cherished allies are Feminists. On the other hand, some of the absolute worst secondary wounding and invalidation I have ever experienced has come from Feminists. I always wonder why it is that more people who call themselves feminists don’t speak up when male survivors like myself are marginalized and our experienced invalidated?

    • Julie Gillis says:

      Thank you for this comment and please accept my good will on your behalf. Peace.

    • Julie, I just want to echo everything 24KAuGuy says above with the exceptions that I fortunately haven’t been a victim of childhood sexual abuse and that I certainly have not been a lurker since I read the NISVS 2010 report. Just know that what you are saying and doing are appreciated.

  8. derek rose says:

    I call bullshit on your bullshit!

    Julie, you write, “Why is envelopment, and oral on penis or vulva, not part of the definition? If it’s forcible oral sex when a penis or object penetrates someones mouth, why wouldn’t it be forcible oral sex if a mouth envelopes a penis no matter the mouth’s owner?”

    Um… it is! Here is the new definition of rape: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. ”

    Use firsthand sources, people! There is NO EXCUSE for writing a whole essay based on a CNN report and not being sure what the facts are, when there is so much information available firsthand on the ‘net!

    • Derek – Julie has already been corrected and sent to her room! P^)

      She came back and said sorry to!

      • Julie Gillis says:

        Huh guess I should eaten bon bons instead of wasting time writing :)-

      • derek rose says:

        Where? I’m not seeing that at all. It kind of invalidates everything she had to say about people using a “heteronormative” definition of sex, given that the DOJ’s thoughtful definition is not heteronormative at all… nor does it exclude oral sex.

        • Derek – lets get drunk together – I wait for you to pass out – you get aroused – as a gay man I ride your pony by sitting in it. Do you feature in the rape stats? NO – rape by “envelopment” does not feature!

          How Heteronomative is that? I’m angry that as a Gay man I can’t be a “RapisT” statistic. P^)

          Heteronomative bias is like that!

          A passed out male can’t be penetrated – but he can still be raped by envelopment.

          A male child made to penetrate a female perp through coitus is not being raped – even if he’s sitting there saying no no no as she sits on his pony! Use an orifice other than your mouth and it’s not rape.

          Nice Try FBI – FAIL!

          • derek rose says:

            No, obviously a passed-out male clearly can be “penetrated,” and the way in which it would be done is obvious, and probably far more common than your “envelopment” scenario. (Hint: IT INVOLVES THE ANUS).

            As I read the definition, if there is *any penetration* without the consent of “the victim” then it would be classified as rape. The victim does not have to be the one being penetrated.

            • Derak – you are in catch up mode!

              “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

              How do you penetrate a penis? It clearly says Penetration of a Vagina or anus or oral penetration by a sex organ without consent!

              We will have to get drunk together on night …. P^)

              Rape by envelopment has been quite a Hot Topic since the definition was first prosed! There has been months of debate, discussion and even legal opinions!

              • derek rose says:

                the way i read it is, if anyone gets penetrated without the consent of both parties, then the person who is not consenting would be considered raped…. okay, if I’m wrong, I’m wrong – but can you point me to some of this hot debate?

                • ht tp://
                  ht tp://
                  These are the 2 recent articles that it was discussed on, read through the comments sections and posts by others and myself talk about it quite thoroughly. It’s also debated quite a bit on Toy Soldiers blog which is very informative of male sexual abuse.
                  ht tp://

            • Actually envelopment was more common than penetration for male victims I believe in the cdc report, 1 in 71 for rape and 1 in 21 for envelopment/forced to penetrate for just the lifetime stats.

              Envelopment by a vagina, anus, or mouth/being forced to penetrate someone is not included as far as I can tell in the updated definition of rape, but CDC stats clearly show it’s extremely common, equal with rape of women in last 12 months, and pretty significant numbers for lifetime.

    • DavidByron says:

      Um… no she was correct. Forced bj not rape according to that definition.

      • derek rose says:

        To be clearer they should have written it as “oral penetration OF a sex organ BY another person”, not “oral penetration BY a sex organ OF another person,” since no sex organs can “orally penetrate” another person. But what else could they mean here other than non-consensual fellatio and cunnilingus?

      • Julie Gillis says:

        Thanks DB, MH.

        • Don’t worry Julie – it offends my Equality Blood when I’m told that I can’t be a “Rapist” statistic! P^)

          No-one tells me I don’t count – should I ever choose to! P^)

    • “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. ”

      This says explicitly that the sex organ penetrating the oral orifice must belong to another person than the victim. Hence a person giving a man a blow job without his consent would not count as rape according to this definition since the penetrating sex organ belongs to the victim and not to another person. It’s very carefully worded and it is very easy to think that unconsentual oral sex is included when only giving it a cursory read. I strongly suspect that this ambiguity or rather obscuring wording will be used as a misdirection when the next statistics based on this statistics is reported (forced oral sex on men will not in fact be counted while plenty of people reporting the statistics will write that they were counted).

      Who worded it precisely this way and why are pertinent questions. But more important is making people aware of real the constraints of this definition – only that wy can we have any hope that real knowledge will be gained from the forthcoming statistics using this definition. Getting the FBI to amend the definition would be even better, but given the time FBI took before they even changet it into this I wouldn’t hold my breath.

      • derek rose says:

        I don’t read it that way. It’s saying if a sex organ gets in someone’s mouth without the consent of the victim, then that is rape. That would include nonconsensual fellatio and nonconsensual cunnilingus, whether the victim is on the receiving end or is being forced to perform an act.

        • Julie Gillis says:

          The thing is, that the law is so specific right? They could argue those points for years. I think to be completely inclusive it should have included evelopment and maybe even avoided the word penetration to begin with. What if a lesbian tied up another woman and went down on her, not penetrating anything? Would that technically fit the bill? Media Hound?

          • Technically, as case law accepts female on female oral without penetration as being oral itself and penetrative it gets caught!

            On the other hand – if the woman was to “Force” another to Penetrate her as opposed to having the penetration forced on her there would be a big issue for the courts to decide – and they would find GUILTY – but it would not fit the criteria for the stats!

            I was looking at the Encyclopaedia Of Rape today – and it is interesting. It gives a full legal time lines for significant cases and there is not one dealing with Envelopment – only penetration. I do have funny reading habits!

            On a state level envelopment should count – but for the stats it does not. I was looking at the stats criteria a few days ago – I will have to go back and dig!

            • Easier than I thought

              19. Sex Offenses, Forcible – Forcible Rape, Forcible Sodomy, Sexual Assault With An Object, Forcible Fondling

              20. Sex Offenses, Nonforcible – Incest, Statutory Rape

              The nearest stats reference is Forcible Fondling – which is not quite the same thing!

              Unless you define it as “Sexual Assault With An Object” where the object is the body used to envelope with.

              It gets ever so messy – and given the savvy of some in law enforcement when it comes to IT – It could just end up as shop lifting!

              The whole mess is basic Institutional Bias.

          • David Byron says:

            Well the tongue might be said to be penetrating in that case.

          • derek rose says:

            “What if a lesbian tied up another woman and went down on her, not penetrating anything? ” Isn’t this like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?? All this is used for is reporting how many crimes occurred in a jurisdiction… it has nothing to do with how crimes are prosecuted. And “oral penetration by a sex organ” is considered rape — e.g., if someone’s vagina went in another person’s mouth.

            • derek rose says:

              the statistics only matter if you’re dealing with things that actually happen more than once or twice a year. weird hypothetical scenarios that oh-so-very-rarely happen in real life aren’t going to alter the crime stats at all and are rather pointless to debate. (and honestly I don’t see the humor in them).

              But yes, as I read this new definition, if someone puts their tongue or finger on someone else’s vagina or penis, that would not be rape. It doesn’t matter whether they are lesbians or what have you. If any body part goes inside the anus or vagina without consent, then that is rape… the same if a penis or vagina goes inside someone’s mouth without consent.

              • “the statistics only matter”… in the future of awarding federal funding!

                If the Stats are skewd – the funding gets skewed… and the massive increase in reported crime that is known to be coming will also runs the risk of being media spun to demand yet higher funding!

            • Julie Gillis says:

              There doesn’t seem to be an emoticon for cynical resigned bitterness which is getting close to what I’m feeling at the moment, so the wink had to do. You don’t think that if a case like that came up some prosecutor or defender wouldn’t take it to the most ludicrous extreme?

              Do you remember the whole McDonald’s case where a woman sued them and they had to label their coffee hot? She had terrible terrible burns, but the media circus was like “ooh things are hot!” Well, I feel cynically that there would be a fundamental circus for any woman or man tryiing to make a case for their assault.

              Not ha ha funny at all, but humor is often used to figure out the rest of it. If I don’t laugh I cry, and I’ve been doing plenty of crying about all this stuff lately. Because it’s damn serious stuff.

              • Julie Gillis says:

                Shit, it wasn’t a wink. Oh well.

              • derek rose says:

                Um. Okay NOW please tell me you are kidding. You do realize — this new definition just involves how police departments code crimes for reporting them to the FBI as part of the Uniform Crime Reports. Police departments need one simple, uniform definition of crimes so statisticians can compare crime nationally. For example one state may define grand larceny one way and one state another way. This has nothing to do with how things will be handled in the courtroom — which will of course be according to state laws, that vary from state to state.

        • Derek; You read it differently than me so I suspect you must think the words “another person” in that sentence means/does something else than what I do. Can you explain what you think the words “another person” does/means in that sentense in the FBI definition?

          I did noticed that your re-phrasing did not include the words “another person” as used in the original definition. Why were these words not omitted in the FBI definition if it were meant to include forced oral sex performed on a man’s sex organs? A lot of effort were being put into this definition and words don’t end up there by chance.

          • It can perhaps be read as talking about the penetration OF another person rather than the sex organ OF (belonging to) another person.

            But wait, that would exclude penetrating a victim’s mouth with a sex organ since the erson being penetrated could not be the victim since the penetrated person is another person (than the victim).

            It seems like it extremely ambiguous because the meaning changes dramatically depending on which words (“penetration” or “sex organ”) OF relates to. I intuitively connected it to the closest applicable words – “another person”. English is not my first language so I am not sure if there are gramatical rules which says which words OF refers to. Perhaps any native speakers can enlighten me.

            So, it can include male victims of women or include female victims of men (for simplicity sake I’ve constrained sex organ to mean penis), but not both at the same time. It’s mind boggling.

            • derek rose says:

              I think that this definition is badly written, because it’s so confusing. Okay, by “oral penetration” they must mean “inside the mouth” — so “oral penetration by a sex organ of another person” occurs when someone’s sex organ is inside another person’s mouth. But “victim” is confusing here. If they meant to exclude envelopment they could have just written, “without the consent of the person being penetrated.”

              As it stands, I think it’s ambiguous whether victim can refer to a situation where someone is forced, without their consent, into penetrating another person.

              • Yep, that’s the big issue we have with it. Also we have a major issue with it women being raped being compared to men being raped when the definition excludes quite a lot of male victims. It can leave people assuming women are much much more likely to be raped, instead of the reality which seems to be still more women are raped but the rate for males is much higher than previously thought IF you include forced to penetrate/envelopment.

                People can still go around claiming pretty much all rape is perpetrated by males because even in that CDC report it says that by the definition, with the expanded definition for the last 12 months it becomes about 60% male and 40% female rapists. That is a huge huge difference to the commonly said most/nearly all rapists are men line.

                • derek rose says:

                  I just read the CDC report — which concludes far more women and men are rape victims than the Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey. Looking at the questions the CDC used to define rape, it’s easy to understand why. (Read for yourself here, page 106.

                  “When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever …[various sexual questions]

                  “How many people have you had vaginal, oral or anal sex with after they pressured you by …a) doing things like telling you lies, making promises about the future they knew were untrue, threatening to end your relationship, or threatening to spread rumors about you? b) wearing you down by repeatedly asking for sex, or showing they were unhappy? c) using their authority over you, for example, your boss or your teacher?”

                  Are you kidding me? Pressuring someone into having sex by repeatedly asking for it makes someone a rapist? Just having sex when you are “drunk” — no further qualification — makes you a rape victim? Ugh.

                  • Derek – suddenly penny drops!

                    Are you aware that the CDC report kept on being delayed until after the FBI had decided a new definition of rape?

                    It seems that some did not want some of the data to highlight that men can be raped by women – and so question if the FBI had got the definition right.

                    There seems to have been a lot of politics going on.

                    This is also very well timed;

                    “Rape in the United States: The Chronic Failure to Report and Investigate Rape Cases”
                    Senate Judiciary Committee
                    Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs
                    DATE: September 14, 2010

              • “As it stands, I think it’s ambiguous whether victim can refer to a situation where someone is forced, without their consent, into penetrating another person.”

                And because it’s ambiguous and the definition is not clear, sub-definitions which are needed to the design and operation of Statistics gathering tools are not clear, and so any statistics being gathered are not clear – unless penetration by the perp is involved, which Skews the Data to make it focus on forced penetration – and makes it all misleading about being forced to penetrate.

                You have raw data with identifies sex/gender of both perp and victim – and that also gets skewed when analysed with the other data.

                It’s called Institutional Bias – the systems and data gathering can’t but be flawed, because the basic definition is flawed. It all goes back to basics – and it’s odd how such groups as GAY rape crisis advocates were excluded from the working group on writing the new definition – in fact it seems all men were excluded from the working group, which gets even more questions of bias being asked!

                • derek rose says:

                  In the next version of the Uniform Crime Reporting handbook the FBI will no doubt make clear exactly what incidents constitute rape and what does not. Read the current handbook here; rape is mentioned on pages 19 and 20.

  9. Thanks for Julie and Lisa for all the work recently in tackling some thorny issues with grace and balance. Hopefully, your continued work will allow the voices of reason and compassion on both sides of all these contentious issues to have a place to flourish for years to come.

    I truly appreciate all the recent efforts and know it is incredibly challenging at times. Heartfelt thank you from someone trying to be a good man.

    • Rick – Often Trying just gets in the way.

      I don’t agree with you that you are Trying – You Are! P^)

    • Lisa Hickey says:

      Thanks Rick! Thorny issues, heck, we expected those. This is clearly a conversation worth having. The coolest thing about it is that we are developing a vocabulary *together*, so we can all talk about these issues which are clearly, clearly important in today’s ever-changing world.

      Appreciate the shout-out and kind words.

  10. The bottom line is that many (not all) of the most popular MRA websites regularly condemn and even ban their own members for blatant misogyny. Meanwhile, I’ve never heard of Jezebel or Feministing castigating someone for too much misandry.

    To equate the two is to make a false equivalence.

  11. Anonymous Rex says:

    I’m convinced a lot of the extreme messages are actually caricatures of feminist or MRA positions, designed to make that group of people look bad. Some of the online commentary is suspiciously exactly like what one group stereotypes the other as being like – feminists as castrators, MRA’s telling women to be barefoot and pregnant, etc. It’s like some sort of discrediting propaganda masquerading as the other side’s propaganda.

    I’ve written onto blogs under more than one persona and have even had debates with myself under multiple names. If I can do it for entertainment value, surely others could do it for political agendas. I am sure I’m not the only one who plays around with various identities online.

    Don’t assume the person self-identifying and writing as a radical feminist really is one, and don’t assume the MRA author really is who he/she says he is. You never really know. That’s why I try to evaluate the commentary on a message-by-message basis, based on what is actually written there, not based on who I think the author is.

  12. Richard Aubrey says:

    Julie. One solution is to realize that there are two separate entities. One is the activist movement for whatever and the other is the source of the money, usually the government but sometimes foundations. The latter have to be influenced by the former. The former use inflated stats to inflame a sufficient number of potential voters that the government has to pony up.
    So, try to shortcircuit the inflammation process by, among other things, publicly disputing the numbers and any illogical conclusions. Contact congressworms who might be on the point of caving and assure them there are actually intelligent people who are preparing to vote and they don’t have to be spooked by the latest activist screed.

    You might, for example. be prepared for the tactic of accusing somebody who was against VAWA and for keeping such crimes at the state and local level of being okay with violence against women. Point out to the gullible that there are already laws against such things. Now, I expect that supporting VAWA even knowing such would make somebody feel good, but that’s a lousy way to vote or run a country. But it’s possible that one or two folks with the IQ of a cabbage could actually be reasoned with, if you have patience.

    David. Wrong again. I know it makes you feel good, but that’s not my problem. I know Infantry, tankers and cavalry guys who were at the sharp end. Wrong again. Keep trying. You might convince somebody who’s on the loose from a group home.

    • DavidByron says:

      Here’s two different Googled eyewitness accounts by journalists which both include women civilians being allowed to leave but men being turned back. I think they also both include ambulances being shot up. I’m sure more accounts could be found easily enough.

      After a while, the Marines opened the bridge allowing hundreds of women and children to stream out, but stopped the boys older than 16 and men younger than 60 from leaving the city.

      the military was allowing women and children to leave the city, but none of the men.

      • That’s quite a severe indictment of the U.S. armed forces.
        However, I have one wrinkle.
        There would be a distinction if in scenario A:
        The U.S. armed forces engaged those (remaining) men who resisted with armed weapons and arrested the non-resisting men versus
        Scenario B: in which they just shotup all the buildings killing all men inside.

        Either way is bad (due to the mass assigning of any adult able-bodied male to be a combatant) but if innocent non-resisting men were arrested and released I would say this would be much less worse than just saying “kill em all and let god sort them out”.

    • American politics…sounds so strange, they’re trying to pass S.O.P.A (A potentially very harmful law imo) and it’s interesting following the funding moneytrail…Would any of these BAD feminist groups be using campaign contributions and other fun feelslikecorruption donations to buy their laws?

  13. Richard Aubrey says:

    David Byron. Ref. Fallujah. Wrong. Although I’m sure you know better, you apparently think nobody else does, so let me run through it.
    The US forces were on the point of taking Fallujah and for some reason decided to let the locals take care of it. Sort of like it was to be an Open City–see Halle in Germany, 1945–but the locals were actually the Baathists. So it didn’t work. The US decided, once again, to take the city and said so. All locals who wanted to leave left. The insurgents had time to set up defenses. Unless there were some particularly dense sillyvilians there who hadn’t left, the only folks the Marines found were combatants. Now, David, as I said, I know you know. But you ought to know that everybody else does, too.

    The idea that activists lie with figures shouldn’t be some new and upsetting concept. If you haven’t known that since the age of sixteen, you’ve been taking some serious fibs as gospel. One way is redefinition. WHO doubled the number of AIDS cases in Africa by redefining it to mean any number of syndromes, with our without HIV. Africa being Africa, there are plenty of diseases and parasites, combining with poor nutrition, to look like the “wasting disease”.
    The NYT ran an article saying that 51% of American women aren’t married–implicitly because they don’t like the instituion–but they had to start with women aged fifteen, widows, and married women whose husbands were deployed.
    See Climategate I and Climategate II.

    Of course activists lie. They all do. During the Reagan recovery, we were told to be particularly, excruciatingly attentive to the discouraged workers who “didn’t show up on the numbers” and the “burger flippers”. We apparently have solved that problem under the current administration.

    I could go on, but you see my point. If this is the first time you’ve twigged, you’re late to the party. And the primary reason is money.

    • Julie Gillis says:

      What’s your suggestion then, Richard, for how to step up and over the poles/lies/activism and get more towards a truly human focused collaborative solution.

      And I may be late to the party, Richard, but at least I’m here.

      • This seems to escape most feminists, but I can answer your question…

        A human-focused solution will only come about when feminists are rooted out of positions of power, and when need, not color or sex, determines eligibility. It’s been said that as long as women vote, men will suffer…frankly I don’t have that dim of a view of women, but it’s hard to deny the years so far where this has been shown to be true.

        Feminism must be utterly destroyed for society to rebalance. Given feminist refusal to even acknowledge the basis of their ideology (I’m a feminist, but I don’t believe THAT! I’m not like those other, hateful ones!), or correct injustice done in their name, I’m not going to lose any sleep over potential ‘over balancing’.

        Hell, I’d like to see feminism viewed in the same light as nazism, complete with career loss and prosecution for human rights abuses.

        No apologies needed. Just go away.

        • “Hell, I’d like to see feminism viewed in the same light as nazism, complete with career loss and prosecution for human rights abuses.”

          Hmmmm – isn’t that awfully close to taking the view that any person from a group has to be guilty by association? I’m thinking Racial Stereotypes.P^/

          As I deal in Human Rights Abuse, I’m interested is hearing of any relevant cases you can cite. I’d like to know about them. P^)

          • DavidByron says:

            You don’t volunteer to be black.

            • David – I have been looking for context to make sense of your comment as part of the dialogue – and it’s not clear what your point is. There are many things in life you don’t Volunteer for – age – sex – sexuality – disability status – racial origins – etc.

              • Julie Gillis says:

                I think he’s saying people volunteer to be feminists, that one can’t opt out of being a feminist.

              • DavidByron says:

                Sorry. I’m trying to comment less/shorter on this thread.

                You suggested that guilt by association was wrong because of racial stereotypes. The analogy is flawed because people don’t volunteer to be of a certain race and nor can they cease being that race. Same for men / women. People of the same race may believe completely different things.

                With a political group like feminism someone has decided voluntarily to associate themselves with others in the same group. It is reasonable to assume that they agree with a lot and specifically with the stuff the group is best known for. If the group should become well known for immoral behaviour that person can simply elect to disassociate themselves. If they fail to do so it is reasonable to conclude that even if they don’t agree, they are tolerant of whatever the larger group were doing that is considered immoral.

                • “It is reasonable to assume that they agree with a lot and specifically with the stuff the group is best known for.”

                  Is it? That gets awfully close to attempting to enforce a stereotype! P^)

                  I do find it odd that the people I actually count as friends of many years – and Feminist – are some of the most outspoken people about extremist views within Feminism – whether that’s defined as a group – ideology – political movement etc..

                  I still have the words ringing in my ears when a certain female politician, Minster For Women would appear on TV “Oh No! Not That Dumb Bitch Again” – and that from a woman who is recognised as a leading Feminist Thinker and activist in the UK. I have to point out that they were also at University Together. My Friend was all about getting things done. The Politician had a history of being drunk in the student bar – and then dancing on it. Odd what power can do!

                  By your analogy a person who supports a specific Political Party has to take it all Hook Line And Sinker. I know one Die Hard Socialist who thinks that Wealth is the ideal goal to motivate all people – and he can prove it as a Millionaire. We do have fascinating dialogues over the issues of poverty, and I enjoy it immensely as he pops another bottle of champers! I call him the Bollinger Marxist!

                  So do I use him to assume views on all Millionaires, Marxists, Socialists or Champagne Drinkers?

                  The only thing I would say against him is he plays Golf – a good walk spoiled.

        • Feminism may have lost direction but the majority of them entered with good intentions. You have to understand that to understand them. The possibility for some feminists that they might be wrong is never considered. So the more angry you get the less they are willing to listen because you end up confirming the prejudice they might have about mras. If you to win the image battle being angry at people who are willing to listen won’t help. If you do the opposite of their prejudice they will be far more willing to engage in good faith. In the end it doesn’t matter if mra or feminists win as long as we win the battle of ideas.

    • DavidByron says:

      re. Fallojeh, battle aged men (about 8 to 80) were assumed to be insurgents. They were not allowed to leave and they were exterminated even if they were eg driving ambulances. Genocide but specifically gendercide of men. Women were allowed to leave.

    • Richard

      I have to agree that activists are not always truthful about stats. I always look at the Mother of Medical Stats, the Angelic Florescence Nightingale.

      She came up with all sorts of ways to show how to improve nursing, and survival rates after what she had seen during the Crimean War. It was popularly reported that where ever she went with her lamp she slashed death rates. Her stats proved it.

      Actually, she was very clever to use stats to illustrate issues, but she did not show stats which related to her own work. When the base stats were looked at some years later it showed everywhere she went death rates went up.

      Lies, Damned Lies and Stats with a nice lamp!

  14. I understand the disconnect between the level of funding and level of antagonistic discourse, and that equivalency may not apply across the board for both.

    But – the antagonism is rampant, enough so that I feel comfortable taking a swipe at both with a cute joke I heard the other day:

    Q: How do you get a feminist/MRA off your porch?
    A: Pay for the pizza!

    Humor = tragedy + time (Mark Twain)

  15. “It can’t be poles. It can’t be MRA vs Feminists.”

    I don’t think you understand how it works. Feminism uses funding to tell lies with stats. and uses those lies to generate more funding and libel, slander and legislate against men as a group.

    What other way is there to go about this other than destroy feminism’s monopoly on the truth by refuting it and advocate against it?

    • Julie Gillis says:

      Well, I think that’s what I’m saying. I do understand how politics work. I do understand that all groups that want to gain power, use funding to get what they want and keep the funding going. Maybe I was unclear in my wording.

      If feminists are doing it (and I only use if because it’s an example), and let’s say MRA does the reverse, does it turn into a cycle of each side one upping or one downing each other?

      What about stopping and losing some of the ego (which I am trying to do) and working for humanity. Naive perspective, I’d agree, but is there a way to get to that sphere, rather than the poles.

      “What other way is there to go about this other than destroy feminism’s monopoly on the truth by refuting it and advocate against it? ”

      Fine, so long as another set of monopoly doesn’t happen. How does anyone ensure that the place of truth is humanity and not “men” now and “women” again in 50 years?

      • “If feminists are doing it (and I only use if because it’s an example), and let’s say MRA does the reverse, does it turn into a cycle of each side one upping or one downing each other?”

        The model the mra groups advocate for doesn’t divide victims into factions based on gender. The current situation, the stats war if you like, is being caused by the feminist gendered abuse lies model. The model that mra’s advocate for is evidence based and non gendered, according to this model there are no factions for funding, no abusing stats to advance a political agenda.

        But before that model can exist, feminism’s monopoly on the truth and funding has to ended.

        It all started in Cheswhich in the 1970s. When the abuse movement that was recognizing female on male abuse was hijacked by radical feminists.

        “Erin Patria Margaret Pizzey (née Carney, born 19 February 1939, daughter of a diplomat) is a British family care activist and a best-selling novelist. She became internationally famous for having started one of the first[2] Women’s refuges (called women’s shelter in the U.S.) in the modern world, Chiswick Women’s Aid, in 1971,[3] the organisation known today as Refuge.[1] However, Pizzey reports that she has been the subject of death threats and boycotts because of her conclusion that most domestic violence is reciprocal, and that women are equally as capable of violence as men.”

        “Pizzey said that militant feminists – with the collusion of Labour’s leading women – hijacked her cause and used it to try to demonise all men, not only in Britain, but internationally.[8] After the hijacking the demand for a service for women survivors of domestic violence grew and soon public funding became available. Today the movement has been rebranded as Women’s Aid and garners millions of pounds a year from a variety of sources, the primary one of which is the state. Pizzey has lamented that the movement she started had moved from the “personal to the political”.

        “Pizzey says it was after death threats against her, her children, her grandchildren, and the killing of her dog, all of which she states were perpetrated by feminist activists, [13][14] that she left England for North America. She returned to London in the 1990s where her insights were sought by politicians and family pressure groups.”

        (From Wiki, and Its the same situation in America with the VAWA monopoly worth 1.25 billion a year)

        And the battle against feminism’s lies about abuse has been going ever since.

        • Julie Gillis says:

          Thanks for that, I’ll do some additional study on it.

          • Ok here Julie is a more detailed version of how feminists co-opted the abuse movement by Erin.

            And here is paper by a renowned domestic violence research expert on the history of and tactics used those that have been covering up abuse and misleading the public.

            • Julie Gillis says:

              Thanks, I’ll read.

            • DavidByron says:

              Good old Murray Straus. He always has to try and whack down the MRAs even as he feels obliged to point out that his research shows they are essentially correct. He’s a feminist of course. I loved this comment in his report:

              Third, the article does not cover sexual assault because there is no controversy concerning the fact that almost all heterosexual rapes are perpetrated by men.

              Wrong again Mr Straus. Or should I say you were correct to say there was no “controversy” just completely incorrect in assuming no controversy meant the assumed facts were actually true?

              Because the truth is nobody ever bothered to ask men if they were raped so their lack of answers may not have caused any “controversy” but didn’t give any evidence that men were not being raped, and now we know of course you were wrong.

              Not that there was any reason for you to specify “heterosexual” rapes when you knew that would neatly cut out male on male rape which was certainly very “controversial” let’s say. Controversial in the sense that there’s a ton of male victims not getting help from the feminist state. Will it matter that they were raped by women instead? I do not think so.

              Always have to whack down the MRAs.

          • DavidByron says:

            Yes Pizzey is good on the DV movement. She’s essentially a founder turned whistle blower.

      • Julie Gillis: For all the comments mentioning the results from the NISVS 2010 Reports I’ve luckily seen preciously few which explicitly said the numbers for female rape is unbelievable, unimportant, doesn’t exist and that their rapists can’t stop the rape they do. All points which were made about women “making men penetrate someone else”(them) by a feminist in a article on this site. Not by merely omitting them, but by explicitly denying male victims the right to count and even exist.

        It is a valid concern that dislodging the pendulum from the apex where only women can be raped and only by men (in mainstream media, in research, in feminism, in the public mind) may cause it too swing too far and end up in the other apex. However, the risk of that happening increases the more one tries to keep the pendulum at it’s present apex. More resistance means more force is needed to dislodge it and the risk of it swinging past the equilibria on the lowest point unfortunately increases. But the current status quo is no longer tenable either. The inclusion of the category “made to penetrate someone else” (however miscategorized) in the NISVS 2010 and the new (although still not perferct) FBI definition of rape are steps in the right direction and momentum is building. Many men who have experienced rape are seizing this opportunity to say: See, now you can’t dismiss us anymore with the “the vast majority of rapist is men and the vast majority of rape victims are women”! Yet, they still do.

        Please, all, let go of pre-conceived notions and participate in ensuring that the pendulum is stopped at the lowest point equilibria which would benefit us all.

        I imagine that the conversation would be totally different if feminists at large had read the NISVS 2010 report with a critical eye and acknowledged the weaknesses and acknowledged the results one gets for the last 12 month prevalency numbers if one adjust for that particular weakness (“being made to penetrate someone else” is not classified as rape) rather than the silence or denial or even attacks one sees now from many feminists.

        • DavidByron says:


          However, the risk of that happening increases the more one tries to keep the pendulum at it’s present apex

          Yes this is how humans work. If men have to do this all by themsleves they will hate women for it. If society cops to the problem and instead says “Sorry! My fault for listening to those feminists!” then men in the MRA will get over it quickly. That’s just human nature. The best and fastest way to calm someone’s feeling of hurt is to recognise them, not dismiss them. If society says to the MRA “Oh you’re no better than the feminists” that is dismissing their claims to be hurt. It will stir up the Sex War all the more.

          • DavidByron says:

            Also of course this dynamic has been going on for decades and the result is that many MRAs are extremely hostile to women. It’s important to note that this is the fault of society for failing to repudiate feminist sexism earlier (or at all).

            If you’re a victim and you keep getting re-victimized by a society that takes the side of your attacker then DUH you’re going to be negative and emotional. And then other people come along late to the party and say, “Oh well we’d agree with those MRAs except they are just soooo negative and emotional”.

            THAT IS NOT HELPING.

            I’m not MRA, I am not “angry” (sorry if I sound like it), I have not been “hurt by women”, I have no axe to grind here, and I don’t like these “poles” either, but I know human nature.

  16. “Why is envelopment, and oral on penis or vulva, not part of the definition? If it’s forcible oral sex when a penis or object penetrates someones mouth, why wouldn’t it be forcible oral sex if a mouth envelopes a penis no matter the mouth’s owner?”

    It would destroy the narrative. The new definitions, create more male perpetrators, and more female victims – and so more money for the feminist lobby that pushed the new definitions. They will produce the most horrifying statistics and use the them to access more funding , rabble rouse, fear monger and preach misandry.

    • Julie Gillis says:

      All the more reason to talk about sexuality in a way that breaks down old narratives and shines a light on new ones. That’s what I do on a daily basis with my sexuality stuff and with storytelling. Women have toxic narratives. Men do too.

      As for the funding issues, well, I’m not yet connected to that politically speaking. Don’t quite know where to start, but here is as good a place as any.

      • In all seriousness, Julie, try calling Vice President Biden’s press office, given your position as a published author on GMP, and see if they will answer the question for you. I will be quite surprised if you get more than a quick brush-off.

        Just in case they do engage on substance with you, perhaps you could ask this follow up: why is being the penetrator if both the penetrator and the penetrated are drunk within the definition of rape, while being the enveloped if both the enveloped and the enveloper are drunk not rape? Should the “sexual assault” characterization presumably given to the later situation be less harsly punished because it is “only” assault and “not rape”?

        • Julie Gillis says:

          Sounds like a good thing to do. Not today, but I’ll find the number (if you have it pass it to me) and I’ll call tomorrow.

          • DavidByron says:

            I’d suggest trying the Women’s Law Project. They claim it is their doing that led to the changes.

            This change is the result of a campaign initiated by the Women’s Law Project a decade ago. On behalf of more than 80 state-based sexual assault coalitions and national organizations concerned with violence against women, the WLP wrote to FBI director, Robert Mueller, requesting a change in the definition of rape because the current definition, unchanged since 1929, was narrow, outmoded, steeped in gender-based stereotypes, and seriously understated the true incidence of serious sex crimes.


            So basically they wanted the FBI’s numbers increased so they can get more funding I guess. But they decided they didn’t want male victims of female rapists included for some reason. Why? Wouldn’t that boost numbers even more and therefore increase their funding more? But it would mean saying women rape men and perhaps even admitting it happens a lot.

            You know I am also doubting the claim it hasn’t been changed recently but let me research that more….

  17. Peter Houlihan says:

    I found it hard to find anything in there I could disagree with. Theres so much wrong with both MRA and feminist treatment of rape statistics that you’ve picked up on. Just to add my own two cents:

    As a word rape derives from the latin “rapio” meaning an abduction, but this fails to cover a whole swathe of sexual violence.

    Additionally I feel that theres problems inherant in creating lines in the sand between different catagories of sexual assault. Why is it necessary to say that vaginal rape is a fundamentally different thing to oral rape? For that matter, is there any point on the sliding scale of sexual violence where we can reasonably draw a line and say “everything from here on in is very different and severe.” I can’t help but feel that doing so is somewhat dismissive of victims whose experience falls outside of whatever margin we draw to define rape. I also feel that it potentially implies a false parity between victims of some of the most extreme and deliberate violence out there and (in some cases) victims of circumstance.

    Why is it necessary to compare, grade and rank these experiences at all? On these bases I propose that rape be abandoned as a concept entirely, and that we should instead use mroe neutral and non-loaded terms such as “sexual assault” and “sexual violence,” without attempting to group or compare what are, fundamentally, individual experiences and trauma.

    Legal systems and statistical analyses will always need to grade and compare different catagories for crime, but in terms of more open discourse I feel that this terminology has, in many ways, helped create an unhealthy oppression olympics and distracted from the real issues.

    • Julie Gillis says:

      Thanks Peter, I agree with your comment.

    • DavidByron says:

      I wouldn’t even bother with sexual assault. Technically getting kicked in the balls is sexual assault. Someone cutting your eye out is just assault I guess. Why is being raped said to be worse than being beaten up? Well I mean I know why – it’s because of the Victorian idea that a woman’s entire worth is her chastity and therefore rape steals her entire livelihood, which was therefore a very serious crime. But that’s not true now so mostly it’s feminists pushing the idea that rape is the worst thing ever even in cases where EVEN IF IT IS RAPE technically (and even ignoring drunk sex is rape) its a pathetic sort of crime. Like if a married woman wakes her husband with a bj that’s rape OK (even if he asked for it)? Or if a husband and wife are having consensual sex and he says oh get off me and she says hang on a sec that’s rape too. It’s pathetic which is presumably why feminists countered by saying “rape is violence” which is simply false.

      People need to get over the idea that if an assault has a sexual element that automatically makes it the worst thing ever. It’s ridiculous and to a certain extent becomes a self-fulfiling prophecy because it makes victims of rape ashamed. It’s re-victimising people by saying “what happened to you is something you need to be ashamed of”. If someone breaks your rib nobody tells you to be ashamed. And some assault really does mess you up mentally but its not limited to sexual assault, nor does everyone who gets assaulted sexually get mentally messed up.

      This whole hang up with sex parts in an assault seems like a script to keep feminist power of men running along at the expense of victims of both sexes. If a woman sexually assaults a kid nobody believes it. The victim would be better off if it got classified as an ordinary assault (and often it is). I really don’t see any reason to bother to keep a classification of sexual assault these days.

      • Julie Gillis says:

        I want to ask a few questions here David.

        I suppose that Victorian ideal was true at one point. And it was true in the 50’s where “good girls” didn’t. Being a virgin is still to this day touted as a huge deal in the South, so I don’t know where you are saying those days are over. We have abstinence programs all over the place in my city. Women who earn too high a “number” are sluts, considered so by some men (and women).

        Also, what about how non western non christian women in other countries feel about being raped. In some places being raped will get you stoned for adultery. The victorian ideal, does it hold true for any woman who has a vaginal fissure due to rape in the Congo or Bosnia? And men too, but the Victorian issue is different, if I understand what you are saying.

        So the sex part of assault seems different to me.

        Are sexual parts different than other body parts. If so, why? If not, why not. Does our culture make it so? If so, how is it different now, than in the 1890’s.

        But besides the idea of sex/virginity as currency and ownership, our bodies like sex and intimacy.

        Having a part of your body attacked where the primary purpose is sex, intimacy, pleasure and birth is kind of hard core. Any assault is, yes, but leaving aside Victoriana, my vulva has more nerve endings than my arm. AND, my genitals are considered private, hidden as are mens (though I assume there are some other issues and toxic narratives there too. It’s identified with privacy in our culture.

        Any rape or sexual assault, no matter the form or gender combo, I think would be seen as a total invasion and somehow different than getting punched in the gut. Especially in the kinds of rape that are systemic and used for torture. Taking a place of pleasure and turning it into a weapon/torture is a mind fuck on purpose.

        Anyway, just a few thoughts late in the day.

        • DavidByron says:

          I don’t mind recognising that some assaults are more humiliating or even that they might lead to societal disapproval leading to a measurable loss. I just don’t see that you can reduce that sort of calculation down to something as simple as “did someone touch a sex organ without consent?”

          Do you think a wife who wakes her husband with a bj has committed a crime worthy of many years in jail? Shouldn’t it be of some relevence that she uses no violence? That she is in a stable sexual relationship with him? That she had every rational expectation of his approval? That he wouldn’t be at all humiliated or lose face if people found out?

          If the very fact of “rape” is such a big deal then that rape — that least of rapes, that most inconsequential rape — STILL ought to be a big deal but the opposite is true. It’s ridiculous. What this is saying is that when all the incident involves is rape and nothing else, then rape is nothing to be concerned about.

          All that other stuff? The humiliation? the intimacy with a stranger? the force or violence? the fear and pain? the physical damage or death? None of that is part of the definition of rape and yet that contains all that we actually think is wrong with rape.

          You mention privacy but if you just get stripped while drunk and have a bunch of people photo you and put it on the internet you haven’t been raped. The cops will charge them anyway but they can’t charge sexual assault because technically it wasn’t. And you talk about torture but again if someone water boarded you that would be a lot worse than rape but it’s no sexual assault.

          Why are we saying sex AUTOMATICALLY makes it all much worse. We know it’s not true and there are common examples where it isn’t.

      • Peter Houlihan says:

        Few thoughts:

        Attitudes to sex in victorian times compounded the suffering of rape victims, but its not exactly peachy nowadays in terms of how they’re unfairly treated. I think that theres still problems there.

        I also think there are issues that attach themselves to sexual violence that don’t come up, or don’t come up as much, with non-sexual violence. This isn’t to say that sexual violence = worse and non-sexual violence = better, they’re both varying degrees of very bad with different complications attaching to each of them.

        To yourself and Julie I’d propose what I said above: comparisons about this kind of thing shouldn’t be made. Whether you argue that rape is worse, or assault is worse or they’re both the same thing you’re bound to be right about some individuals and wrong about many more.

        There’s caveats and limits on that: I wouldn’t say that getting punched in the gut (once) is anyway near as bad as being held down and forced to have sex with a stranger. If I was called upon to pick which of those had to happen to me I know which one I’d choose. But if I was asked whether I’d prefer to be beaten to the point where I loose sight in one eye for a few months and have to go on dialysis, or to be raped at knifepoint… now I’m not so sure.

        At the extremes of violence, comparisons and victim dick measuring (particularly by people who haven’t been through these things) just seems surreal, and wrong.

        • DavidByron says:

          No, in Victorian times the attitude was completely proportional because the damage of a rape was potentially to lose her lifelong economic support. It wasn’t bad for the violence or humiliation but the $1 million loss or “earnings”. And that’s basically true in many cultures the world over.

          I’m not saying one is worse than the other. I’m saying that you can’t tell. I am saying that finding that it was sexual or not isn’t going to help determine how bad it was. Other things ought to determine that. How much damage? How much lasting damage? How much pain? How much humiliation? Any social impact like losing your job? These are all good questions for determining how bad an assault was. I don’t think “Did it involve bumping uglies?” should be one of those questions.

        • A good punch in the gut can cause a miscarriage, internal injuries and possibly even death. A single punch or slap to the face can knock someone out, falling and dying when they hit their head on something. Even things that seem minor can become severe… A single kick to the testicles can cause torsion (very bad pain there and damage), trauma most definitely, and quite a few health problems.

          But comparing forms of violence gets silly, a rape victim and an assault victim are still victims, be careful in assuming too much of an act of violence because it can vary wildly. Most of my trauma and harmful effects stemmed from words alone, and has had a very detrimental effect to my life. It really varies person to person, but either way it’s all bad.

  18. One of the best articles I’ve read here, Thank-you so much for it and I hope ALL people read it. Mega high 5 for you Julie!

    David, could you write an article going in depth on that congo issue or know others that can write one here, I think it’s extremely important to highlight how ideals can get in the way of helping people and how some groups do think it’s a zero-sum game.

    • One example is Eve Ensler’s and Christine Schuler Deschryver’s use of the word femicide for the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Here is an excerpt from an interview with Deschryver:

      CHRISTINE SCHULER DESCHRYVER: They usually come at the end of the day or during the night. They just come and circle the villages. Most of the time, they killed all the men, and they take all the children, the girls, the mothers, the grandmothers as the sex slaves into the forest and steal—what can I say—everything they have…

      CHRISTINE SCHULER DESCHRYVER: Yeah, it’s a femicide, because they are just destroying the female species, if I can talk like this, because can you imagine now—in Africa, woman is the heart of family.

      They chose the word femicide to describe this?! Is it possible to be more blatant in erasing male victims?

      Eve Ensler and her organization continues using the word femicide, for instance in her testimony for the Senate Foreign Relations in May 2009,an article in the Guardian in 2010 and on the V-Day site section on DRC.

      (Links will be posted in a follow-up comment)

  19. The Bad Man says:

    It depends on how the study defines rape, includes both genders and if it is a societal survey or justice statistics which are prone to under reporting.

    The only societal survey that I know of that included both genders and other nations is Predictors of Sexual Coercion Agains Women and Men: A Multilevel, Multinational Study of University Students by Denise Hines, where 2.8% of men reported forced vaginal sex compared to 2.3% of women in a relationship in the previous year.

    However, it’s all a moot point anyway. Regardless of the gender, race or age of the perpetrator, there are victims of all genders, races and ages that need help. Does everyone have to line up in their category or is somebody going to step up and help all victims regardless of their gender or the gender of their perpetrator.

    Interesting point to note about the difference between Men’s Liberationists and Feminists is that Men’s Liberationists use statistics for both genders, while feminist statistics usually rely on justice statistics or gender specific societal surveys.

  20. I want to say something about funding.

    I read somewhere that one of the main differences between male rape victims who went on to perpetuate the cycle of abuse and those that didn’t was intervention. The second group got help.

    Wouldn’t it be just hilarious if the people benefiting from the money stream know this and don’t help male victims _because that might mean fewer female victims to make money off of_?

    I’d like to say that human beings aren’t that horrible… but I continually get the feeling we’re all being farmed like livestock.

    • Typhon

      The point you make may appear to some to be absurd, but The Reality it is not. I have seen it in action, and involving sexual violence. There is such a thing as Sociopathy/Psychopathy.

      I will give you a real world example. Group is set up to outreach to young gay men, target age range 12-21, to provide support and cut suicide rates. Group us funded by Government and other sources. Group shows figures that are very promising, and it is indicted that they are uncovering and epidemic of sexual abuse and targeting of young men. Calls to telephone help lines are growing exponentially – more outreach workers are engaged – more funding.

      Only problem is that the people in the group were the ones targeting the young men. They were being funded and using money and resources to locate, access and sexually abuse their target group, and making sure that the targets knew of the groups services fro follow up.

      Some victims reported being targeted and abused by the group’s main public figure, but these reports were dismissed – it could not be possible – how dare you say such a thing about someone who is going so much good etc.

      It took three years and the work of 6 other organisations, some national charities dealing in child abuse, to get police and funders to listen and take notice. They only listened when it could be shown that one member of the group was involved in identity theft and fraud, and was using this to purchase server space in particular country, and hosting child porn. The funders were then actually more worried about damage to their own reputations, than the victims.

      Do you want the other worked examples too? … involving managers who have been employed by organisations because they are seen as focused, determined and motivated around core issues and values to the exclusion of all others – and who will and do manipulate funding, funders, data and even clients experiences to maintain power.

      The term “Corporate Psychopath” is not just for Wall Street.

      One of the biggest issues is that when you have incidents, which involve supposedly vulnerable target client groups, matters get brushed under carpets and hidden so as to not damage the Charitable Sector and stigmatise the vulnerable – Oh and to protect Funding and Charitable Income.

      Power can also be expressed by denial of access. I saw one case recently. It involved a client of a Support Charity dealing with domestic violence. The client was subjected to abuse by an employee of the charity. Formal procedures followed. It then became necessary to involve an attorney. Not one was available within 150 miles. Reason? The Charity Manager had put out an appeal for very specific funding and then asked for contributions of just £10.00 – and has made those requests to just Attorney Businesses, who responded as the figures could be reclaimed against tax – and there was a mass response – and they all had conflicts of interest and could not support the potential client. Denial of Justice and legal protection followed. The client could not physically get out of the geographical area, some 300 miles across, to get legal support.

      “I continually get the feeling we’re all being farmed like livestock.” – yup, and there are some very nasty farmers out there who see people as just that. Unfortunately, they don’t come with a big badge saying “I’m Dangerous to all forms of Animal Welfare!”.

  21. David Byron says:

    Julie I do love and appreciate you but I have to call bullshit on this piece.

    So you read the Congo report. It’s pretty damning isn’t it? For folks who have not yet read it (it’s quite long) I’ll extract a pertinent quote:

    Stemple’s findings on the failure of aid agencies is no surprise to Dolan. “The organisations working on sexual and gender-based violence don’t talk about it,” he says. “It’s systematically silenced. If you’re very, very lucky they’ll give it a tangential mention at the end of a report. You might get five seconds of: ‘Oh and men can also be the victims of sexual violence.’ But there’s no data, no discussion.”

    As part of an attempt to correct this, the RLP produced a documentary in 2010 called Gender Against Men. When it was screened, Dolan says that attempts were made to stop him. “Were these attempts by people in well-known, international aid agencies?” I ask.

    “Yes,” he replies. “There’s a fear among them that this is a zero-sum game; that there’s a pre-defined cake and if you start talking about men, you’re going to somehow eat a chunk of this cake that’s taken them a long time to bake.” Dolan points to a November 2006 UN report that followed an international conference on sexual violence in this area of East Africa.

    “I know for a fact that the people behind the report insisted the definition of rape be restricted to women,” he says, adding that one of the RLP’s donors, Dutch Oxfam, refused to provide any more funding unless he’d promise that 70% of his client base was female.

    So basically it is saying that feminists deliberately cover up male victims for the money. This is not news. We saw this with VAWA and the field of domestic violence for decades. It’s not an aberration. It’s what feminists do. And yes that’s a generalization but these are issues where over many decades the great majority of feminists have all agreed with the cover-up. And then you write this piece and your charcaterisation is that somehow this is all a 50-50 problem. Somehow the MRAs are just as bad as the feminists who have been deliberately lying to cover up male victims for money and doing it for forty years at a level that reaches right across the entire movement.

    Why couldn’t you simply admit that feminism sucks on this stuff?

    • Julie Gillis says:

      I’m calling bullshit on all of it David.

      “And again, I call bullshit on that.
      Is there no way to throw the poles and group-think ego out the windows and deal with the cumulative and collective human guilt/shame/bad feelings/defensiveness? To support the idea if anyone is utilizing sexual violence as a way to control, manipulate, torture or dominate anyone, whether on a date or in time of war, it’s a bloody bad thing?
      That human beings should not use our genitals as weapons?
      That any political group that covers up the human rights abuse of others for their own ends is actually part of the problem?”

      That any political group that covers up the human rights abuse of others for their own ends is actually part of the problem.

      Those are my words David.

      At this point? When I read feminist blogs and I read MRA blogs I see the same thing. I see people using politics to further their own ends. If that means I lose my feminism card so be it, but I’m not interested in labels or poles right now, I’m interested in learning how to stop looking at things from such a limited view.

      Would it make you personally happy if I wrote an article that just said, “Feminism sucks eggs.”? Well if I did, I’d say the same thing about MRA at this point. Because all I see is a trap of sides, and that’s what I’m trying to see around, over, in or however else.

      Honestly. At this point in the entire conversation I have such empathy overload from reading stats, and hearing stories, and feeling/seeing pain that I don’t know what to do anymore, David other than take a big freakin’ break from all of it, not because I can’t take the critique but because nothing I say will wind up changing anything.. I nearly didn’t post this piece, not because I figured the feminists would respond negatively to it, but because I knew that no matter what I said, it probably wouldn’t be enough.

      Anyway, my position stands.

      Any political group that covers up the human rights abuse of others for their own ends is actually part of the problem.

      • Julie Gillis says:

        Finally, do you think reading those reports and realizing money is not being given over to human beings in need makes me happy? It makes me sick. Do you think coming upon information that women I had at once admired, may well be (and I’m sure you’d say they are), complicit in keeping money away from people in need makes me feel anything less than sick?

        And do you think it’s easy to square my experience of day to day feminism, with political machinations that I have no control over? No it isn’t. Is political/in power feminism getting things like the Congo wrong? Sure seems like it, David. That’s why I wrote the piece.

        I want accurate information. I want men’s voices to be heard, as well as women’s, I want people to figure out a way to stop hurting each other. That’s what I want.

        I’m going to bed as I’m ill with a terrible plague they call Cedar Fever. All the benefits of flu, none of the cure. One of the joys of living in Central Texas.

        • David Byron says:

          The real problem is that feminism is getting the Congo right — from their point of view.

          Flu! And you’re in the middle of your play too 🙁

      • David Byron says:

        No Julie it’s just me that dislikes this piece (so far anyway).
        And for good reason – it’s a great piece for many reasons. “But” I’m the only one who’s a big enough ass to say “but”

        You know it reminds me of the five steps of grief.

        The grief in this case being the death of feminism as decent movement to belong to. I wonder if feminists who are on the fringe of the movement and actually disagree with all of it go through those five stages too?
        (1) Denial
        (2) Anger

        Well we sure see a lot of that from feminists. Denial that there’s anything wrong with the movement and anger at anyone rude enough to point it out.
        (3) Bargaining

        That’s what you are doing in this essay. You are bargaining. You’re saying “Well I’ll agree to say feminism sucks if we all agree that the MRA sucks equally, OK?” Sorry. I can’t agree to that deal. And I’m not even MRA. I just insist on the truth at inconvenient times. The MRA are not feminism’s opposite. They don’t influence government. Their slogans are not repeated by millions. They don’t lie because if they did it would immidiately be pointed out. Lying isn’t functional for the underdog. Cheating and corruption aren’t possible. The MRAs are not in charge of billions of dollars they use to cover up female victims. You know all of this.

        I don’t think I’d agree that the MRA would even do that shit if they could but we both know they are just far too tiny and pathetic to do any of it. They have zero power. And they actually have good reason to be angry don’t you think? It’s like you are telling me to condemn equally the rapist (feminism) and the rape victim. I won’t do it.

        And I’m sympathetic with your rhetoric here. Long term? Yeah I think the MRA approach is a bad idea. I certainly don’t want to see two groups fighting it out and the MRA then bound to become as sexist as feminists are now. Poles are bad. I agree with your theory but the fact remains that you are bargaining here.

        Would it make you personally happy if I wrote an article that just said, “Feminism sucks eggs.”? Well if I did, I’d say the same thing about MRA at this point.

        You just DID write that essay. All I am pointing out is that it’s not true because the MRAs have never done any of that stuff.

        Maybe they will and if they do I’ll go after them too. You can help me kick their asses. But let’s wait until they actually do the bad stuff before we call them the equivalent of feminists?

        • Let the dust settle first please.

        • Julie Gillis says:

          I’ve walked a lot of people through death. I’ve witnessed a lot of people go through the stages. They all have to go through them at their own pace. It does no good to badger them, or encourage them to hurry.

          I can’t say this is grief. But if it is, I’ll go at my own pace.

          MRAs may not be politically monopolizing money, I don’t know, I’ve not checked, but many of their websites say as many egregious things about women as the radfems say about men. Perhaps that’s a different topic.

          • Interesting, I guess those particular feminists have power in their monopolizing of money and the mra’s have none in that respect. What an interesting flip of the genders in power…

            • Julie Gillis says:

              And I’m happy to admit being wrong on that point. What I have to go on so far are websites, reading and comparing commentary. MRA sites can say terrible things about women. Radfems, about men. If Feminism is owning the money, then the playing field is imbalanced, certainly.
              Again, it winds up being poles though, which will lead us to 50 year cycles of this stuff.
              Thanks for your comments Archy!

              • Well this site seems to be quickly becoming a hub for good male rights activism, but not exactly just mra’s as feminists are on board too. I have hope in this site and that’s a rare thing for me in equality sites.

                And no probs, thanks for adding your voice to help men and women.

            • David Byron says:

              I’m sure there are a bunch of men in those organisations. The point is more that they are operating using the ideology of feminism than that they are male or female. Same thing goes for the MRA as their are many women, especially women who are close to men who’ve been screwed over somehow. But the MRA don’t have a dominating ideology that basically informs the way hundreds of NGOs operate and even how government offices operate.

              I’m not really sure of the MRA dynamic. With feminism the guys can be some of the worst for it. And equally they can be some of the best. They have a different feel but I wouldn’t point out one gender and say “It’s their fault”. People are people. It’s not about gender but ideology.

              So there’s no “flip” here. It might even be mostly men at the top of those feminist inspired organisations. That’s simply a human gender dynamic and there’s no particular reason to believe it would be reversed in a feminist inspired group.

        • Would ANYTHING make you happy that represented any sort of human, non-polarized approach, or is your sole raison d’etre in life to bash feminism, even when someone like Julie writes perhaps the most fair, human and balanced post on rape I’ve ever seen? Total, 100% MRA viewpoint–or should I say “DavidByron viewpoint”–is all you would consider acceptable at this point? Is it something you expect of a woman like Julie–to throw 100% of her own gender and their pain and suffering under the bus because for you, NO article, NO POV, NO effort at collaboration is the goal?

          When you go on feminist sites, there are women way out on the fringe writing EXACTLY the kind of stuff you write here. I don’t expect you to be able to see it–you are completely blind to that David. It’s your way or the highway, right? Every writer who puts himself or herself out there on GMP needs to be wordsmithed by you, the all-knowing God of what should and should not be written on every topic in the history of humankind. You can’t even thank Julie for her work or give her any credit for trying at all because her work is crap to you unless she writes EXACTLY what you yourself would write.

          Two things:

          1) Thank you Julie. Full stop.
          2) I wonder how many readers would venture into these comment threads and let their more moderate voices be heard if they were not afraid they’d get firebombed when they did so? Who are we not hearing from while we hear the same rhetoric from the same individuals all day every day on every post? I bet you’re out there, and I bet you have fabulous, unselfish, collaborative, unifying things to say we all need to hear. Please accept my personal apologies on behalf of GMP that it is so hard for you to express your opinions when every thread gets gender-charged, even the ones that explicitly set out to unify. Unity is fought tooth-and-nail here, and so I know it is hard for you to jump in, and I’m sorry.

          Anybody else out there feel like me? Have the courage to say so? I don’t expect so, but thought I’d ask just for kicks and giggles.

          • Julie Gillis says:

            Lori, thanks for caring about me, also though, David and I are ok. We fight and I’m ok with that. He teaches me things and I suspect hed say the same about me. I’m not scared to post here, in the sense I’ll stop. I don’t as I think I am a valuable pov to the community. I get nervous though sure. More later, let’s not fuss about me, let’s talk about the topic xo

            • Julie Gillis says:

              And I serious, let’s stick to the topic. We can and should do that.

            • I’m concerned about you, Julie, and glad you’re ok, but I’m even MORE concerned about all of the moderate, unifying voices we might be able to hear from other readers if threads were not constantly hijacked and monopolized by the same most extreme and repetitive voices. We are all losing something precious. I’m glad you and David are ok with each other. I’m wondering about *other* people, though, and how we can tone down the repetitive, angry rhetoric and make room for them. It’s about more than you and your ongoing dialogue with a few of the readers here. That is all great, BUT. We need A LOT of seats at the table for this discussion especially, from a broad array of people, if we’re to get anywhere…we need people who talk a lot to scoot over, quiet down a bit, and make room for other people who are afraid to wade in. GMP is not only about a few people. There are lots of people reading quietly afraid to weigh in. We need them.

              • Lisa Hickey says:

                I totally agree Lori, we are doing a lot of work behind the scenes to make that happen. Expect noticeable changes in the next couple of weeks.

              • Julie Gillis says:

                Im fine. More thoughts on this later. Back to the topic! As Lisa would say, onward!

              • To those who are afraid to speak up, say what you have to say, don’t be afraid. Many of those who speak a lot actually listen a lot too, the most active commentators I’ve seen have engaged with many different people, some good and some bad of course but it’s kept a discussion rolling along.

                I’m not sure why these people should be afraid to speak up, the beauty online is many different discussions can go on without 1 voice necessarily speaking over the top of others. I am keen to hear from all kinds of people, don’t be afraid to speak.

                I think a forum will help clean up the comments sections since atm people are relying on new articles to keep existing discussions going, it should also allow for a much broader set of topics and much easier to find information and topics you wish to discuss.

                Now hate me all you want for suggesting this but online people do need to toughen their skin a bit with criticism, expect to get it. You don’t have to accept it or even reply to it, no one is forcing you to but if you post an opinion there’s probably someone who will disagree, even feminists disagree with each other at times, mra’s too, it’s natural.

                Of course that said the criticisms should be respectful and not be made simply to troll, or attack others, I believe there is moderation in place already to stop much of this.

                Who is it that talks a lot and needs to quiet down though in particular? There are some people here who comment quite a lot but usually have excellent comments, I wouldn’t want to see them quiet down for fear of being too vocal. Is there a certain post count? Have I exceeded this? Should I self-censor and quiet down and wait for others to get a voice, and how will we know when it’s ok to talk? These are the potential problems here of getting others to quieten down, what exactly is the standard?

                • Let’s say you are a female or male feminist, and you have some good ideas to share that are non-polarized. When you see all the feminist bashing, you might keep quiet. When you see a post like Julie’s still be criticized because it not leaning *far enough* towards the MRA view, people with moderate voices don’t speak up. I agree that a lot of the big talkers listen too. I just wonder who we DON’T hear from. It’s a bit like the old saying about pornography: I can’t define it, but know it when I see it. Julie posted this piece, and within a very short time, David was finding any tiny foothold he could find to criticize it. I’m just saying, is there ANYTHING a woman (or anyone with a view not 100% the same as David’s and others with similar views) can write that simply gets a “Great job” and then discussion that is on-topic and *productive,* period? I don’t know what to say about self-censorship. I believe people should not be censored. Maybe it’s that this behavior seems RUDE. Can we be less rude here? More respectful of views that deviate the slightest bit from our own? Less trigger-happy? That might make “the lurkers” feel more welcome. Saying “Come on in and have a thick skin while you’re at it” does not work for a lot of people. They want a real platform for discussion, not to jump in a shark tank. I think if we stayed on topic, and censored the urge to sniff out any .0001% of feminist particles in the air in such a paranoid fashion, we’d get farther. If we could stop the “I see feminists” (said in the voice of “I see dead people”) attitude we might get farther.

                  • Julie Gillis says:

                    FWIW, I took David’s argument as a critique not a bash. Did it ruffle my feathers, sure. But I feel ok at the moment arguing back with him. There is SO much to cover on this topic that one post would not do it justice. As noted by MH I didn’t touch on race issues at all, and did fail (terribly!) to account for non-hetero examples of envelopment. I don’t mind being called out on that.

                    I do think there are skilled ways to critique and I also think there are people who just like bashing for shits and giggles. I can’t speak for folks who don’t comment. I do know that there are men commenting here who are angry, whose exeperiences are such that I can barely recognize them but I’m trying to do so, to listen. Sometimes, they’ll yell at me. I can choose whether to respond or not. sometimes I’m angry. I can do my best not to snap or snark. Sometimes I fail.

                    Anyway, I still think we should focus more on the topic, and less on whether the way people are commenting is appropriate right now. I think we have some great comments and dialogue going.

                  • Lori, did you know that there was an old English legal writ (I forget the name in Latin) that literally translated was “The Writ of ‘He Lurks’ “? It was an early form of the restraining order. Seriously. I only mention this because of your invitation to *lurkers* to speak up. As I would rather be a *lurker* than a *flamer* in this context, I thought I would speak up. I hope you will not be inclined to seek a Writ of He Lurks against me with the moderators here…

                    I agree with you, Lori, up to a point. And I agree with Julie, more than up to a point.

                    The difficulty is that talking and writing about and naming a problem does not fully resolve the problem. It took a long time, indeed at least three waves, widely spaced within generational cycles over 170 years, to bring women to the point they are at. So I don’t expect things to change quickly. So, until the hard, institutional work is done of fixing the family court system, empowering men to receive help without shame — though not without limit, breaking down double standards, I am not willing to “declare victory and go home.” I am not really sure you are either. But please don’t see comments from men who have been hurt personally and perceive systemic and systematic injustice against them and against boys just for being male, as rage against you. It surely isn’t in my case.

                    • Thank you. I do agree. I’m in favor of this: “fixing the family court system, empowering men to receive help without shame..etc.” I simply feel we can get there better and faster TOGETHER, with fewer pixels devoted to what feels redundant and meanspirited at times, and more to doing the hard work that needs to be done…by a lot of people, including people who do not want to join in as part of the solution if they fear being disparaged.

                      I think Lisa Hickey’s plans for improving the commenting system will be wonderful. Once that happens and the people who want to debate the evils of feminism have a place to go do that, then everyone else who wants to get down to solutions and collaboration in response to the issues raised in the actual articles will be able to do it. And then I’ll be a lot less frustrated and more productive on behalf of men and this site! 🙂 Thanks for speaking up!

                    • “writ of latitat ”
                      Was used to call people to a Star Chamber. Not nice!

                    • Lori – I have to say I get your concerns. Different medicine to cure different ills are needed. I too get tired when people put themselves out there as examples and just get ripped to pieces – so I’m joining that group.

                      You may have noted that I have been enraged about some referencing Wikipedia as a source to define and explain Rape Culture – it has been wrong and inaccurate for a long time. It has been biased it has been inarticulate, it has been inaccurate and it has been used by two sides to further argument and discord. Note I keep using the past tense, because since I did what so many have had the option to do before me, and used the systems and processes available to them to correct the situation, it is changing.

                      I get tired of people having power they can exercise – and then misdirecting it. Rather than act they prefer to blog badly and comment on other people’s blogs. That is up to them!

                      BUT – and it’s a VERY BIG BUT, when they wish to claim they have no power, no authority and nothing can change – I’m setting myself up as an example – and even a mentor – so they can either start learning or face a few lessons from a Good Man – 100% of the time with no part time option.

                      Just thought you would like to know – so have a drink – two Fukitol – and watch this space! P^)

              • DavidByron says:

                It’s hard for me to judge what might or might not put people off posting. If you think you have a good handle on that sort of thing that would be interesting to hear. I agree with your objectives there.

                Do you really think I intimidate people?

                If so what do you suggest? I’d be happy for example to not reply to people if they asked me not to.

                I don’t know how lurkers feel and what prompts them to maybe post eventually. I had the impression that its like a soap opera with some people. If that’s the case you’re saying I am a bad guy… but I am not sure that would put people off tuning in.

              • You can mock MRAs like someone did at Huffpost but it’s totally unacceptable to criticize/bash/mock feminists. I hope that person doesn’t see herself as one those moderate, unifying voices.

                • I noticed it too beste and felt quite sad about it, I just hope it was a misunderstanding.

                  • it’s not a misunderstanding. She’s a feminist

                    • Is that sort of like, “She’s a murder?” Or, “She’s a child molester?” Can “she” have a complex personality and set of views that fall across a spectrum, and talk about them in different ways in different places, depending on the audience and where she feels safe or unsafe, and can she feel that in some ways women are very wronged, and in other ways men are? And can she advocate sometimes for girls, and other times for boys?


                      Does she need to be a one-dimensional person whose views line up 100% with the acceptable viewpoint as agreed upon by her evaluators at GMP?

                      Because, here’s the thing: She’s a real person with lots of different views. Politically, she’s an independent, get it? She does not spout the party line for anyone. She speaks the truth as she sees it, which differs on different topics and at different times and in different places.

                      She’s HUMAN, not a robot. She won’t be programmed or scripted.

                      And, she cares about her own gender as well as the male gender. She does not feel she must throw women under the bus to be accepted on this website.

                    • I think you have to understand there are good and bad people on both sides. Catholics aren’t all anti gay marriage some a pro gay marriage. There is diversity in feminism it may not seem like it from some angles but its still true. If you want to win the long fight being hostile to potential allies won’t work. Present your evidence rationally and calmly it will be better in the long run. If we have truth on our side that is all that matters. Wait to find someone who has justifably made you angry instead of being angry at the person who is willing to listen.

                    • It’s good, I appreciate the replies there Lori and I’m not sad anymore! Text doesn’t portray tone at all so it can be difficult to gather what someone means exactly, I think the earlier cynicism of mra’s made me wonder what was going on but I can see your point on it. I think many of us are fighting for the same causes in different ways.


                  • Julie Gillis says:

                    Who are we talking about on HuffPost?

                • DavidByron says:

                  I think she meant me and I am not MRA.

              • Who are these “other” people, Lori?

              • Then I’ll bite. I loved it, Julie. This is a well-written piece. Even-handed and worth reading.

          • David Byron says:

            I would not have said that to anyone but Julie.

        • @ David

          “No Julie it’s just me that dislikes this piece (so far anyway).
          And for good reason – it’s a great piece for many reasons. “But” I’m the only one who’s a big enough ass to say “but””

          David as I was reading there were a couple of issues that I was Irked by – “BUT” I did wonder if I should raise them. It was clear to me that Julie was focussing upon tearing down barriers with a view to a level playing field.

          “BUT” here goes – Rape by envelopment does not just mean a mouth or vagina! What to know about the drunk frat guys were one was dead drunk with a stiff one and his room mate wondered what it would be like to have it slip in! Bit of a shock to suddenly wake, still drunk and dazed, to find your male room mate riding your pony! It’s happened more times that I care to mention and not just with frat types – and not just with booze – and even with premeditation and video footage and photos for blackmail purposes.

          “BUT”, I had to look at not just the words by scanning, or be reading for meaning or intent, as Julie had said she was calling “Bullshit” on everything – so that means that Julie is either calling Bullshit even on her own errors and views – or she is a hypocritical madam!

          “BUT” she wonders is calling an end to all bullshit will make her a heretic? I think that being a Hypercritical Heretic would be just too much of a novelty, even for Julie! P^)

          As for how some have abused the situation of gender for funding, freedom, power and opportunity over the last century – Some have used feminism to propagate misinformation and suffering – and some have used government and religion to do the same – and some have used politics.

          Let’s have a look at some bullshit.

          Government banning people from Military Service on grounds of sexuality.
          Military Services failing to address rape amongst the ranks
          Governments allowing the sexual abuse and humiliation of Prisoners of war.
          Governments, due to predominant religious and social norms allowing the sexual abuse, rape and sexual exploitation of children,
          Institutional failings in all forms to address sexual abuse and violence against children and adults.

          When it comes to the Guardian piece I do agree it highlights an abuse issue – involving power by control of money, opportunity, agendas and much more – and the piece highlights just the tip of the iceberg where war torn central Africa is concerned. One of the biggest, if not the biggest issues is racism. It’s not actually mentioned and articulated.

          Many are not aware of how gendered some roles can be. In some tribal ethic groups having a woman force you to be enveloped and raped literately robes you of manhood – and that has been a factor in Rwanda – Congo (FRC) – Uganda – with males being detailed by other males and gang raped by women to rob men of Mojo and manhood completely. It reduced the man to the status of a farm animal. There was also repeated genital mutilation of men as a pattern of genocide so they were either rendered infertile or unable to have any form of coitus and so become a father. It was systematic with a view to wiping out Tutsis – so that women were raped to have Hutu children and Tutsi males could have none. Tribal affiliation was a fraternal line.

          It’s why in The Rwanda War Crimes Tribunal they has to change the definition of rape under international law to:

          “a physical invasion of a sexual nature, committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive”

          It’s not just Power games over money that is all too often an issue – it’s racial and cultural bias that gets overlayed on top of the reality – and big Bias Blind Spots just make the suffering worse for everyone. “I’m from a Foreign Charity/NGO and I know best! I have been wondring if I can get a charity of the ground which supplies baseball bats to the people facing such ignorance and racial abuse – and they can use them to teach the ignorant some lessons and beat the biases out of them – the biases and bigotry that should have been left at the airport when they got on the plane.

          Julie didn’t specifically call Bullshit on Racism and it’s role in the misinform and abuse that comes from it – so I’m sending her to her room now – to make sure she doesn’t get it all wrong next time! P^)

          • Julie Gillis says:

            Thanks for pointing out my heteronormative errors. You are right, I didn’t include that. And I didn’t even begin to touch the race issues, you are right.
            Good stuff to think about MH, appreciate it.

            Your ever faithful, Hypercritical Heretic

            • As I said – the Big Tent is not big enough!

              That Galaxy for rent is trending on Ebay! It seems that some Billionaire is after it for a holiday retreat. .. and such nice Twinkley bits to go with it!

          • Julie Gillis says:

            You are such a mean Daddy ;)-

      • False dichotomy Julie. We simply don’t trust feminists. We also have 50 years of feminists twisting facts, lying, and outright persecuting anyone who disagrees…so I’d say feminists made their own bed. At least now you know why it’s important to police your leaders so they don’t go off the rails…which they did…again and again.

        MRAs are still trying to get truth out there, feminists are still trying to shut us up. By equating the two ‘poles’ you are basically saying the MRM is as illegitimate as feminism.

        Here’s a hint: WE don’t have a decades-long track record of lying our asses off ‘for the cause’.

        Feminists most certainly do.

        Feminists earned every last iota of I’ll-will they are currently receiving…and then some. If you didn’t do it, but didn’t correct it, then you deserve it.


        • So factory – how does that get changed?

          If the way business has been done for say 50 years has created a problem, how do you change the way business is done to get it all sorted out?

          “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
          Albert Einstein.

        • “False dichotomy Julie. We simply don’t trust feminists… By equating the two ‘poles’ you are basically saying the MRM is as illegitimate as feminism….Here’s a hint: WE don’t have a decades-long track record of lying our asses off ‘for the cause’…Feminists most certainly do.”

          I trust some feminists on some issues. For instance, I trust Karma Nirvana on the issue of forced marriages.

          The MRM has a large number of problems and a strong bias which do make it as illegitimate as feminism. And I can also say that the average MRA is about as reasonable as Amanda Marcotte. For instance consider the mainstream MRM term NAWALT. This basically says all women are fundamentally the same and that you can’t trust any of them. Its pretty paranoid view of the world.

          There are feminists who have a similar philosophy but with MRM’s this isn’t a radical fringe. Its the mainstream.

          I also personally have MRA friends and my basic finding is that they are bitter, misogynistic and mal-adapted to living in a normal society. I feel sorry for them because their demented worldview is all that prevents them from having a much much better life. I would feel it would be much much worse to live in a society dominated by MRAs than to live in the feminist dominated society that presently exists.

          • “I would feel it would be much much worse to live in a society dominated by MRAs than to live in the feminist dominated society that presently exists.”
            Quite frankly I think either side dominating is bad, it’s already bad living in a feminist dominated society in respect to male issues being ignored. I’d rather live in a society with more emphasis on egalitarianism then single sided gender issues. You need both to work together.

            Are the average feminists as reasonable as Amanda Marcotte in your experience?

            NAWALT sounds awfully like fear of rape is to women, both sides seem to be quite fearful of the other. It seems to be a backlash against the enablers, NAWALT critics want women to stop enabling other women of committing their crimes, and rape culture advocates want men to stop enabling other men to commit rape.

            I find problems in the mainstream of both, but haven’t found MRM or feminists to be bad as a whole, just the few. If society paid attention to these men’s issues and didn’t treat them like a joke then those men wouldn’t be so damn bitter and angry, they feel left out and ignored and that should be a sign to us all that we should be listening and addressing their issues just like we should listen to feminists and address theirs.

            Just googled nawalt and came up with this ht tp://
            Some of the comments:
            “Until proven otherwise, and you’re female, YOU ARE LIKE THAT.” – Sounds awfully the same as stuff I’ve heard from some feminists about rape culture.
            “Also note that women screaming NAWALT are more than happy to scream AMALT (all men are like that) when it suits their agenda.” – Sadly in SOME cases it does appear this is quite true, but also the same in reverse.

            It’s weird reading some MRM and feminist comments, you can literally swap the genders and it’s near perfect matches. That said, does anyone know the more egalitarian feminist and MRM sites? I’m trying to build a list to read and so far it’s been quite hard to find any on either side that actually try work together, GMP is probably the first place I’ve found for variety. Would love a Goodwomanproject for balance.

            • “It’s weird reading some MRM and feminist comments, you can literally swap the genders and it’s near perfect matches.” Absolutely true, but it seems the extremists of neither side will admit this and will hypocritically point the finger only at the other side.

              “That said, does anyone know the more egalitarian feminist and MRM sites?” I’ve been asking this same question on multiple sites and would also like to know…

              “Would love a Goodwomanproject for balance.” The is one and that’s what it’s called, but it’s a Christian site about how women can be good in the eyes of God, and be “as God made them.” A very upsetting site. But I hear you. Something non-religious along those lines would be great.

              • I think I’ve seen that site, at least a facebook one and it made me slap my face. The one I recall seemed more about shaming you into being good.

                Give the MRM and feminist extremists a mirror, or a hall of mirrors, they’ll eventually get it:P

                As far as I know the only masculism site that tries to remain misogyny free is ht tp:// and haven’t noticed any for feminism. I usually just read the mrm and feminist sites and try my best to mentally filter out the bullshit, it can be a mix of good n bad. Even some of the stuff the misandrists and misogynists say has the a lil bit of good in it but wrapped up in bitterness.

                Oh well, with forums here it might allow an opportunity to have subforums to all of these topics so they can be discussed in more detail, without as much derailing.

              • Would a goodpersonproject be of any value?

                It would be interesting to have the same posts on three different sites at the same time

                GoodPerson or even GoodPeople

                Might just debunk some Gender Polarities and Illuminate some Realities.

                The Red Pill – The Blue Pill – and The Third Way Pill.

      • “Would it make you personally happy if I wrote an article that just said, “Feminism sucks eggs.”?”

        If you do write it, here is an image idea for the header! P^)

    • I think this is unfair. Is she as idealogically pure as you want? no. Does it matter at this point? not really. And look there are heaps of feminists that don’t blog don’t practice feminism on the internet don’t think the sun comes out of hugos butt. They exist and are actually in favor of equality they will even ignore their beliefs in feminism when they see men being discriminated against. They won’t try and justify men being discriminated they will just act in fairness. Because despite the fact they believe in a kind of feminism that you might object to at the end of the day they end up doing the right thing.

      • Julie Gillis says:

        I’m not as ideologically pure as anyone wants me, Leta, it’s part of my charm. And David is just pushing at me, because I think he does like me and sees something in me he appreciates. He just does it like a Klingon, sometimes. 🙂 I don’t mind Klingons, even if I am a little too Empathic to deal with them at times.

        Enough scifi geekery.

        That’s the thing right? If I poke at MRAs, MGTOW and sum up all men who believe in MRA principles in a camp that’s not fair. There are millions of good men out there that don’t blog, have a loudspeaker etc, but who will stand up with women to end issues of discrimination. As there are feminists who do so.

        Equalist just doesnt’ really sound right as a movement, and I guess Humanist is overused.

        I don’t have much of a loudspeaker, but I’m doing what I can to get one.

    • i don't believe you says:

      Any article that clearly attacks the obsession with penetration and penises in the definition of rape is calling out feminism. Dude, the article contains the word “envelopment”. Get a grip!

  22. David Byron says:

    Why is sex defined as penetrative at all?

    It isn’t. Not legally. But there’s a lot invested in making sure that male victims don’t get counted. There’s a lot of money involved apart from anything else. Money for the girls. Money for feminists. Billions of dollars at stake.

    • David Byron says:

      Huh. Made that comment before you made the points about money yourself.

      Maybe it could be that easy if it weren’t for funding—funding that is in short supply, funding that is dealt out depending on numbers of people affected by any given problem.

      But it’s not in short supply. It’s a big business and feminists control all that money. That’s why they don’t want any discussion of male victims. One reason anyway the other reason is because they hate men. VAWA hands out literally billions of dollars for domestic violence. It doesn’t even make sense to say this is about restricted resources. If feminist shelters allowed men to get help they wouldn’t lose a dime. What they would lose is a monopoly stranglehold on the idea that they “represent” all victims of violence.

      • Julie Gillis says:

        Well OBVIOUSLY. Money is the root of most of the evil ever, so far as I can tell. Point taken, money can be found it it is in the political best interest of any group that figures out how to get it. And I called bullshit on that too. Or if I didn’t, I should have.

        • Money is the root of all good….blah..blah…blah…Ayn Rand…. Free Market….blah..blah…blah…capitalism..Exc…

          The problem is that a survey of this magnitude would be demonized as a tax funded pity-party. It’s organizers would be deemed biased before the first numbers were reported. I don’t think the government can fix this problem. This seems more appropriate for grass roots awareness campaign.

      • “It doesn’t even make sense to say this is about restricted resources. If feminist shelters allowed men to get help they wouldn’t lose a dime. What they would lose is a monopoly stranglehold on the idea that they “represent” all victims of violence.”

        Not sure if it’s the same in the US, but i have heard the same criticisms levels at some UK organisations. there can often be complex problems, especially for charities and the way they have been legally set up. I have dealt with one that had a big issue because their primary funding source was a legacy/endowment from over 100 years before which specifically prohibited them from helping men – period. They were on a cleft stick – keep the money and help the women an children in need – or help everyone and have no money to do it.

        There are a number of instances like that – and it’s hard to get people to grasp the issues. All charities I have been involved in setting up or an officer for have had a suicide clause built in – to make sure such funding traps can’t apply. It means you can change specific remits and not fall foul of others attempted control of the organisation.

        • Julie Gillis says:

          Yes, I’ve not had time, but one thing I wanted to research today was that very thing. I do believe in US non profit 501 c 3s there are often funding restrictions based on mission. And a board will have to vote to change the mission in order to get/give funding for different sources. Which doesn’t alleviate the lobbying issue, but if a women’s shelter’s bylaws grant proposal was set up to secure funding for women, and they have additional funds left over, they can’t just use them as they wish, they have to follow the agreement of the funding source. Which may be a system issue with how non-profit/NGOs are designed on top of lobbying.
          For example, some universities set up their endowment programs such that donors cannot specify race as part of the endowment. They can’t say, This money will go to X race. But they can say, This funding will go to a student from this region (which would be highly populated by that race).

          I would imagine that there are staff members of the NGO/Non profits that feel hamstrung, there on the ground, but with restrictions. At this rate, it would be a full time job for me to research and look into all these factors and I’m not quite fiscally set up for that. Perhaps there are some other readers out there who have a strong background in US (or other) Non profit/ngo formats.

          • Julie Gillis says:

            The more I think about the systems, and layers of systems that go into any cultural construct, the more I wonder exactly how long it takes to shift it in another direction. Must take activism and advocacy, radicals and diplomacy both. I realize that sounds naive, I mean I’ve always known it, this is just hitting me squarely for some reason.

            • I though I heard a large Thud in the distance! P^)

              layers – upon layers – upon layers. Wheels within Wheels. Agendas upon Agendas!

              Generally a shift takes 10 to 12 years to get moving, which is an issue with changing political focus on a fixed term presidency/parliament/congress/senate. Just when you have spent 4 or so years educating the buggers to reality – All Change!

              That’s why so much energy, effort and money goes into Lobbying.

              If you get a media event set up you have no guarantees. last year the biggest protest of Disabled People in the UK took place – 18 months of organising, lobbying, media cultivation – It was Thunderbirds are go. Then 5 days before the event, “#Occupy” hit London St Paul’s Cathedral. Not a single journalist covered the Disabled Event – they were all a mile away at St Paul’s – all day. Editors would not let them leave for 30 minutes even just in case they missed a breaking news opportunity at St Paul’s!

              “activism and advocacy, radicals and diplomacy both”

              Enough to try the patients of a saint – aint it? P^)

        • DavidByron says:

          Yeah I’ve done charity work in the UK too.

          It’s not like that in the US. Mostly we’re talking about the funding from the US federal government. In fact the normal thing is for the federal government to say that anyone taking their money CANNOT discriminate. I know the first version of VAWA (the federal bill to fund DV shelters etc) was explicitly sexist against men. I don’t know what is going on these days but I see it begin mentioned again after going on for twenty years.

          • David – you have shelters/refuges here who are held together with state funding – in fact many are actually now government contract providers. And they still get caught in funding traps due to legal set ups.

            I know a number that can’t help men with a bed and safe place but they then provide Outreach work to provide assistance in getting statutory support for housing and even legal support.

            I was in a group that were in the position to set up the first UK men’s refuge – full support, family accommodation for kids and 100% disabled accessible. Charters and charity docs all in place – support from all parties – government, local government, funding – and all that was needed was a building to adapt or a plot to build on. There was a desperate need due to what is known as “End Of The Line” – people fleeing to a place as far away as possible. The area was as far away as you could get – and so there were both men and women arriving by bus train and car with no place to stay.

            I became aware of a whole brand new holiday park – lots of luxury caravans (US trailers) – full services, it was perfect….. and they had a legal issue. They could not open due to a planning law issue. I looked at it all – realised that as “Social Housing” the planning law issue vanished and asked if they were willing to host the first UK men’s refuge. They said yes! 36 sets of accommodation for parents and kids – great services – the lot.

            There was great debate about how any refuge should be put together. Years or work by Women’s refuges showed that you needed both private and public/communal space. Having shared accommodation even for single people could be very explosive. People fleeing to refuges have lost of emotions to deal with – and that is a big safety and welfare risk. So adapting a suitable building or a new one being construed is big money. This option on the Holiday Park ticked all the boxes.

            Then the problems started – the men’s refuge organisation were not happy with the idea. It meant they would not be able to chase big money for the BIG Refuge they had decided they wanted – as equality with other women’s refuges. I had to point out that Equality issues of that form were not part of their legal remit. Providing shelter and support were. They refused to budge because it was all about politics the central figures had and not the Raison d’être of the charity they claimed to be setting up.

            Result – no shelter – loss of all good will and support – I was obliged to drop them like a stone for personal and professional reasons – and the guys are still happy because they have been done over by those feminist and it just shows there is no equality.

            Some people get so bogged down in the Politics they shoot the people they supposedly represent in the foot.

            I’m hated too – because when the Men’s Group dropped the ball, I was aware that a local Women’s refuge was busting at the seams and needed to relocate. Guess where they are now? P^)

            Better still when the old women’s refuge was left empty, it was offered to the men’s refuge organisation. They refused it – because it was not big shiny and new! C’est La Vie and they can ,,,,,,,!

            • DavidByron says:

              If you are saying the government discriminates then that is just what I was talking about.

              • David – my message was “Funding Traps” and Limits can be worked around – and where there is good will and open minds – well it’s amazing what can be achieved.

                WIN/WIN is my preferred option – some play WIN/LOOSE.

      • More feminist-bashing on The Good Men Project. FYI, feminist groups campaigned to widen the FBI definition of rape, including the fact that men can be raped. (It happens all the time in wars.) Tom Matlock should have thanked feminist groups when they campaigned for that change.

        The truth is that feminsm has gone a lot of good things for men, and one of them is telling the FBI that yes, men can be raped.

        • They dropped the ball massively then unless they campaigned for envelopment to be added. Care to explain why if this is the case?

        • John Anderson says:

          That was apparently a side effect of wanting to maximize the number of male rapists. Feminists on the whole have not to my knowledge done anything to specifically assist men. If that were not the case, why would they ignore male victims of female perpetrators?

  23. Thank you for this article, thank you for trying to be reasonable. Thank you for not dismissing one side of the argument out of some misplaced solidarity. Thank you for showing that some people can see reason if you present your evidence in good faith. Thank you for simply not assuming you know everything.

  24. Julie – I wish you would stop saying such Unreasonable Things when you post!

    The reasonable Person adapts themselves to the world; the unreasonable Person persists in trying to adapt the world to themselves . Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable Person.

    Gender Neutral after George Bernard Shaw. P^)

    • Thanks for the article, Julie.

      All I want is to have a place where I can talk and feel supported being a survivor of both male and female abuse. Unfotunatly, the latter is tip-toed around and obfuscated in favor of focusing on men as perpetrators and women as victims. To the point where if I wanted my story told, I had to do it myself. Obviously this society wasn’t going to do it for me.


  1. […] myself have written several pieces for the GMP on the lines between sex and rape, sexual violence stats, and really communicating about sexuality. […]

  2. […] Gillis recently wrote a thought-provoking article entitled “Heresy, Rape Statistics, and Getting Away from the Poles” that got me thinking about my own experiences as a male survivor of sexual […]

  3. […] new post of mine, up at The Good Men Project. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this […]

Speak Your Mind