If women are blamed for their own victimization, what happens to men? Bridget Welch explores how the dichotomy of virgin-slut forces an equally ugly dichotomy on men: rapist-protector.
Originally posted at sociologyinfocus.com.
I recently posted on how the birth control debate reinforces the dichotomy of women as sluts or virgins. If women are responsible for their own virginity, the post explained, and then women who fail in anyway (whether it is having sex or taking birth control) are sluts. But where does this leave men?
Men are the ones attempting to make women fail in purity protection. In other words, its men who are attempting to tear into the wrapping paper of a woman like a little kid on Christmas day. They are licking the proverbial lollipop and making it unsuitable for rewrapping. Because women are responsible for their own purity, men are never responsible for a woman who “falls” — regardless of WHY she falls. In this way, women are blamed for their own victimization — to the extent of being at fault for their own rapes.
The Daily Show summarizes this with a discussion of views on women in the military:
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
To summarize: Men are either too protective of women to be in the military with them, or they get “too rapey”. In her invite of men to come see her all girl punk band, “Prehistoric Rape Machines,” Samantha Bee summarizes: ”come on down. Protect us. Rape us. It’s your choice. Two choices only. Two choices.”
If we think about it, we can see how the two choices that women have (virgin or slut) and two choices men have (protector or rapist) are tied tightly together. In a book of interviews of men’s perspectives on rape, Tim Beneke summarizes the perspective of victim blaming. While I will not detail the entire argument here (there is a selection of this book available), two points are telling for our purposes.
♦◊♦
First among these is that “a woman who assumes freedoms normally restricted to a man (like going out alone at night)” (or perhaps like joining the military or having control over her own reproductive activity) “and is raped is doing the same thing as a woman who goes out in the rain without an umbrella and catches a cold. Both are considered responsible for what happens to them.” Why is that? Well if you walk in the rain you know you are going to get wet. If you go outside all womany at night? You best know that you are going to be raped. Why? Because, according to this logic, women are responsible for keeping themselves safe from men who can’t maintain control over their baser instincts.
Second, if a woman is attractive or dresses attractively, “she attacked him with her weapon so, of course, he counter-attacked her with his.” In other words, a man is not responsible if he rapes a woman who looks or dresses a particular way because he was provoked beyond his ability to control himself. In other words, the way she acted, talked, or treated that man makes her rape her fault.
In both, a woman acting in a way she is not supposed to (as a slut) results in a predictable result — a man raping her. What that means is that it is the woman’s fault. She should have KNOWN better. Basically, she should have known that men are “prehistoric rape machines.”
♦◊♦
What is slutty behavior? Evidently moving into a man’s domain (e.g. entering into his work place, being outside or in other ‘dangerous’ places at night, etc.), dressing provocatively, being too attractive, or even, as recently suggested, taking birth control are all ways to present men with something they cannot refuse. Men will have no way to control their urges and they will rape. Or so goes the popular narrative that blames women for their own victimization and men for being weak. If a woman is virginal and stays in her own place then she will be protected by men.
So men. How do you like being prehistoric? Either rapist or protective caveman. Does it feel limiting?
As a woman, this whole thing makes me sick. I don’t want the type of woman I am allowed to be so constrained. I don’t want to have to rely on men for protection from other men. I don’t want to have to assume that no space is a safe space and that I need to constantly police my own behavior to not step a toe over some invisible line. But as a wife of a very good man and the mother of a little boy that I hope will grow to be a very good man (not to mention a father, three brothers, some step-brothers, nephews, great-nephews, and male friends), I am disgusted that the virgin-whore is paired with the protector-rapist. “Only two choices. Two.” Indeed.
Dig Deeper:
- What are the dichotomies for men and the one for women. How do they relate?
- If men are supposed to be protectors, how is it that they do not get blamed for failing to protect a woman when she is raped? Is there times when they are blamed?
- It is common knowledge that men are sex machines – always wanting sex and doing anything to get it. How does this stereotype play into victim-blaming for women?
- Watch this Limp Bizkit video. A lot of the messages we get about who women and men are (and what they should be) are given through the media. What does this video tell us about victim blaming
Photo by Orin Zebest/Flickr
2.If men are supposed to be protectors, how is it that they do not get blamed for failing to protect a woman when she is raped? Is there times when they are blamed?
Yes. I do know at least that in the relatively recent instances over the last year or so when a girl was gang raped in public a lot people were asking why weren’t the male onlookers doing something. And while not being blamed in public it has been shown (in a past post here I believe) that some guys who find out about the fact that the women in their lives were raped will often feel that they should have been there to help her, even if it happened before he came into her life.
Also I think this one plays out in the form of holding men as a collective responsible for rape and being seen as the ones that need to do something about it.
“And while not being blamed in public it has been shown (in a past post here I believe) that some guys who find out about the fact that the women in their lives were raped will often feel that they should have been there to help her, even if it happened before he came into her life.”
I don’t doubt that this happens frequently, but the public/our society does not place the blame on male “protectors.” I don’t hear about fathers being blamed when their daughters are raped by boyfriends, but yeah, those fathers feel terrible and angry because they’re good people. There are a lot of good people in our society who feel empathy and a need to protect the ones they love, but our society doesn’t really reflect those people.
“Also I think this one plays out in the form of holding men as a collective responsible for rape and being seen as the ones that need to do something about it.”
I just think that’s because the site is geared towards men. :/
I don’t really mean to disagree with what you said, just sort of nuances to what you said.
I just think that’s because the site is geared towards men. :/
I don’t just mean on this site Artemis. Remember that whole, “Men Can Stop Rape” campaign? Not “We”, but “Men”.
good point Danny
“Also I think this one plays out in the form of holding men as a collective responsible for rape and being seen as the ones that need to do something about it.”
There is something to what you are saying, but you’re putting the cart before the horse. Typically, women are blamed for rape, and in response, another group blames men. It isn’t fair to blame/hold responsible all men, but anti-rape campaigns that focus on men exist to remind us that rape isn’t just a women’s issue. These campaigns don’t assume that people already hold men responsible, they are trying to change public perception.
Also interesting is an article called “Slavering Beast Theory.” It says that people don’t really think men commit rapes, but rather rapes are committed by sub-human monsters that are absolutely not anyones son/brother/father/friend/neighbour/etc.
These campaigns don’t assume that people already hold men responsible, they are trying to change public perception.
Change it into holding all men responsible for rape.
I understand the call to get everyone involved in stopping rape but the way those campaigns come off no wonder that guys end up getting turned off by them (and it also doesn’t help that in most of those campaigns “rape” is usually limited to “men raping women”).
Danny, why do you suppose that men get turned off by something that they are causing in the first place? If there was something that women did to men that caused the men to feel violated and feel pain, don’t you think that women should accept responsibility for their crimes? Why do you think that men are always saying they are turned off by things that they need to rectify. Are men that cold and selfish or am I missing something here? Women get turned off by some things you all say and do, but we try to improve ourselves for your satisfaction. Generally speaking, I think we as women have learned that it is necessary to work on things that will make the female-male relationship better, instead of denying there is a problem and complaining of being turned off by something. We need put aside selfishness, which is a trait that, humans need to overcome, or get rid of.
“Danny, why do you suppose that men get turned off by something that they are causing in the first place? ”
And there we have the thing we are complaining about, the perception, and the promotion of the idea that …
“MEN CAUSE RAPE”
I, as a man, do not cause rape, and I don’t appreciate your assertion that I shouldn’t get turned off for being accused of causing something I don’t cause.
” Are men that cold and selfish or am I missing something here?”
Shaming language for not taking responsability and accountability for the actions of a small handful of PEOPLE (as rape, if you don’t use the definition that specifically absolves women of the act of rape and men from it’s victims, is not a strictly male perpetrator only crime, despite your own assertions that “men cause rape”.)
“Generally speaking, I think we as women have learned that it is necessary to work on things that will make the female-male relationship better, instead of denying there is a problem and complaining of being turned off by something.”
And yet, it seems that “work” is always something a MAN has to do. It’s seems it’s always men that must change, that must meet a woman’s expectations. It seems women see themselves as “perfect just the way they are” and “shouldn’t have to change for anyone”.
Danny, why do you suppose that men get turned off by something that they are causing in the first place?
You just proved what I was getting at. Other than us being men what proof do you have that we are causing it in the first place?
If there was something that women did to men that caused the men to feel violated and feel pain, don’t you think that women should accept responsibility for their crimes?
I would accept that the women who are causing that pain and violation to accept responsibility. Why try to hold women who aren’t causing that pain and violation responsible for the actions of the ones that are?
Why do you think that men are always saying they are turned off by things that they need to rectify. Are men that cold and selfish or am I missing something here?
I think you might be missing the presumption that any given man is guilty of causing women this pain and violation and that that presumption is based on literally nothing else other than “he’s a man”.
Women get turned off by some things you all say and do, but we try to improve ourselves for your satisfaction.
But at the same time don’t women express their desire for men to do something about the things we do or at least talk about them? Look at the porn conversation. Yes there are women that try to “improve” themselves for men’s satisfaction. But aren’t there also women that talk about how porn can cause women shame?
Generally speaking, I think we as women have learned that it is necessary to work on things that will make the female-male relationship better, instead of denying there is a problem and complaining of being turned off by something. We need put aside selfishness, which is a trait that, humans need to overcome, or get rid of.
Please find me the part where I said that there is no problem (with respect to rape in this thread). In fact I think that most of guys in this conversation on this post have not said that “rape is not a problem” or that “no man is a rapist” or anything like that. In fact we have actively tried to help and in return we are told that we are just as responsible as the ones that are rapists and we are told that the only form of rape that matters is male against female.
But speaking of if women have learned that is is necessary to work on things that will make the female/male relationship better then why do so many women ignore other types of rape that are not male against female? Why do so many women get bent out of shape when the rape conversation (or DV for that matter) shifts from male against female? From the looks of things men aren’t the only ones with some learning to do
I’m all for putting aside selfishness but putting that aside doesn’t mean that its a free for all to treat someone any old way and expect them to take it in order to show that they aren’t selfish. Or is it only selfish when men do it but when women are turned off its a genuine cause for concern?
“These campaigns don’t assume that people already hold men responsible, they are trying to change public perception.”
Some of those campaigns actually suggest there is something inherent to manhood or masculinity that needs to be “trained” OUT of men to stop rape, so they most certainly ARE trying to hold all men responsible. Furthermore, there are enough people that support that mentality (and thus, can get the campaigns moving) to suggest at least a subset of society does in fact already hold men responsible. Add to that Danny’s other point, about men feeling responsible themselves, and you very much do have a society that holds men responsible for rape.
Q1. What are the dichotomies for men and the one for women. How do they relate?
Answer: Pairing virgin-slut dichotomy for women with protector-rapist is oxymoron. Men are not responsible for protecting women who are not related to them and rape is a punishable offense. The male equivalent for this dichotomy is loser-stud.
Q2. If men are supposed to be protectors, how is it that they do not get blamed for failing to protect a woman when she is raped? Is there times when they are blamed?
Answer. Men related to the women do get blamed for not being to protect the women when she is raped.
Q3. It is common knowledge that men are sex machines – always wanting sex and doing anything to get it. How does this stereotype play into victim-blaming for women?
Answer: The sexual drive of men is evolutionary necessity for the survival of human race. However the societal restrictions (or may be conscience) prevents them from indulging in forced sex. In case where women send mixed signals about their consent or behave is such a manner as can be misconstrued as sexual advances, she gets blamed for getting raped. People have sympathy for a woman appropriately dressed and minding her own business getting raped by hoodlums and not for a girl who goes to party semi-naked and gets drunk, and cries rape in the morning. As they say “once you push the rock down the cliff, you cannot control the subsequent events”
Q4. Watch this Limp Bizkit video. A lot of the messages we get about who women and men are (and what they should be) are given through the media. What does this video tell us about victim blaming
Answer: Absolutely nothing.
“The sexual drive of men is evolutionary necessity for the survival of human race. However the societal restrictions (or may be conscience) prevents them from indulging in forced sex.”
Are you really on the side of “Men are all rapists at heart, society just keeps them from being rapists”?
“People have sympathy for a woman appropriately dressed and minding her own business getting raped by hoodlums and not for a girl who goes to party semi-naked and gets drunk, and cries rape in the morning. As they say “once you push the rock down the cliff, you cannot control the subsequent events””
You have got to be fucking with me.
Rapses:“People have sympathy for a woman appropriately dressed and minding her own business getting raped by hoodlums and not for a girl who goes to party semi-naked and gets drunk, and cries rape in the morning. As they say “once you push the rock down the cliff, you cannot control the subsequent events””
Artemis:You have got to be fucking with me.
Not necessarily. Even for as much as you may say that rape is something that harms a lot of women I think Rapses is saying there is a “right” type of victim. That “right” type of victim is one that is seen as the only type of victim that really didn’t deserve to have this happen and the perps must be rounded up quickly. Not too different from missing child cases. Out of all the missing child cases that happen which ones usually make high profile national attention? Young. White. Girls.
I’m not saying its right to do that but I do think it happens.
Of course it’s not right. So we should all not do something about it because it’s a fact of life? For fuck’s sake no! We should be changing these things.
I don’t recall suggesting that we should just accept it as a fact of life.
Or are we at the point where recognizing these things inherently means we don’t want to do anything about them?
Answer: The sexual drive of men is evolutionary necessity for the survival of human race. However the societal restrictions (or may be conscience) prevents them from indulging in forced sex.
I must disagree.
Or are you saying that the only reason that men don’t rape women on a mass scale is because have the societal message that says its wrong to do that? As in we don’t do it because its wrong? I guess if you are thinking of some sort of scenario where rape wasn’t regarded as a crime and men would then be free to act on the desire to have sex with as many women as possible?
Evolution suggests that, compared to apes, human males LOST much of their ability to rape. Human males are one of very few mammals who can’t tell when the female is most fertile, for example.
“Evolution suggests that, compared to apes, human males LOST much of their ability to rape.”
What is it supposed to mean????? Do apes commit more rapes than humans???
Yeah, I had the same reaction. How does one document consent or lack of consent among apes? Might there be a difference between those in the wild and those in captivity? Might there be huge variations across the various species of great apes?
Besides, humans did not evolve from modern apes but from a common ancestor. If apes are somehow “less rapist” today, that could be a product of evolution as well.
@ Artemis and Danny
All the virtues and vice, including lust, dwell in the mind of human beings. Under normal circumstances people behave according to social norms. When the society is struck with some disaster like war or natural catastrophe, which leads to break down in fear of society, even normal people behave like brutes. In many civil wars, women are raped in mass scale across the world. When mighty hurricanes struck the U.S. there was complete chaos and people started stealing and looting. Given appropriate circumstances every person is susceptible of doing evil deeds.
Secondly, as for the right kind of victim, the thin difference between sex and rape is consent. You do not have to fill a consent form and get it notarized to have sex. Others judge consent with behavior of the person consent. Suppose, a girl goes to bar scantily clad, drinks heavily and is flirting with a certain guy, goes out with him and in the morning cries rape. No sane person is going to trust her because of her behavior in the previous night and it would be assumed that she was consenting.
Suppose, a girl goes to bar scantily clad, drinks heavily and is flirting with a certain guy, goes out with him and in the morning cries rape. No sane person is going to trust her because of her behavior in the previous night and it would be assumed that she was consenting.
At that point its not about trusting her its about investigating to see if that is indeed what happened or not. I would think that the sane mind would consider that there is a chance that what she said is true but ultimately decide to check things out to see if they did or did not.
To presume guilt or innocence with nothing more than the initial story or “oh look at what she was wearing/doing” or “come on he’s a frat boy/jock” is a big mistake.
“At that point its not about trusting her its about investigating to see if that is indeed what happened or not”
Benefit of doubt only goes to the accused. The ground of prosecution is not solid. Moreover you can only observe behavior and not what is going on in others mind. P went into V can be proved but what was on their mind cannot be investigated.
Benefit of doubt only goes to the accused. The ground of prosecution is not solid.
To me it seems benefit of the doubt should go both ways. Its possible that rape happened and its possible that it didn’t happen.
Moreover you can only observe behavior and not what is going on in others mind. P went into V can be proved but what was on their mind cannot be investigated.
True but that’s where looking into actions may show what was indeed going on in their mind. Was her drink drugged? Did he have opportunity (much less motive) to commit the rape? Does she have marks that point to being tied up against her will?
“Its possible that rape happened and its possible that it didn’t happen.”
According to probability theory, your point is absolutely correct. It is like toss of coin, either head or tail. Rape happened or not. But in the court of justice, it has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts that it happened, otherwise accused goes is acquitted. I am not defending rape, but I would advise girls that it is better to be safe than sorry.
“Benefit of doubt only goes to the accused. ”
It does go both ways. The accused is given the benefit of the doubt because, well, innocent until proven guilty. But the accuser is also given the benefit of the doubt, in that, if they didn’t, there would be no investigation. If the authorities didn’t accept the accuser could be telling the truth, why would they investigate? to waste time? to look busy while bilking tax funded paychecks?
“Benefit of Doubt” is a judicial term for making judgement after examining the evidence presented in the court and has nothing to do with investigation. A person cannot be held guilty till the evidence prove it “beyond all reasonable doubts.” If there is even an iota of doubt in the credibility of the evidence presented before court, the accused cannot be held guilty. Investigation in all criminal accusations are mandatory for police to collect all relevant evidence and finding the circumstances of the alleged crime. If the evidence is not sufficient enough to prove, the prosecutor may have to drop charges. Thus technically benefit of doubt only goes to accused.
Benefit of the Doubt comes in at the point of whether or not an accusation should be checked out or not. When the accusation is made both are given benefit of the doubt at least, or at least they should be. Otherwise you risk starting off already thinking if the rape happened or not.
How can the benefit of the doubt logically be given to two parties with contradictory claims? Benefit of the doubt (at least in the coloquial sense) can’t be given to both parties, and so the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven means that the accused party should be given the proverbial benefit of the doubt. Just replace rape with murder and this all makes sense.
Yes! A sane person absolutely should be able to look at the fact (or lack there of) and come to a decision without basing it all on how much boobage is showing.
Until women are free to dress how they wish, speak to whom they wish, go where they want, when they want without getting raped because men have made sex such an important part of their gainful status, then yes it is men’s problems.
And while you’re at it. Give a shout out to all those women who cut men’s genitals off!!!!!
because, it’s really men’s fault. women just can’t help themselves when men do things and say things and look a way to make us want to chop off their pieces…
there’s a dycotomy for you
Same logic people.
Since when are men free to dress as they wish?
Not sure if you’re post was sarcasm or serious :S
“….when they want without getting raped because men have made sex such an important part of their gainful status,…..”
Sorry, but you obviously have no idea of what you’re talking about.
Rape is never about sex, it’s all about power.
Otherwise pornography or prostitutes could actually prevent rapes. But of course this doesn’t fit into the feminist agenda because it shows that men aren’t as powerful as feminists like to portray them.
When it comes to break-ins we protect ourselves, when it comes to robberies we protect ourselves, sexual assault shouldn’t be different.
There will always be someone out there who wants to do you harm, instead of wondering how these person came to be protect yourself.
True, but you still punish the robber, not the robbed. breaking into an unlocked house is still, rightfully, a crime. We only lock our houses because we know that people do not always follow the law. Sure walking alone at night is higher risk, but that doesn’t make her fair game. Laws protect the rights of people who are doing things we consider acceptable, and walking alone at night is considered acceptable. Raping isn’t.
Higher risk to what, just rape? Because overall violence risk is more amongst men, so men should be as afraid as women or more so in those dark streets. Either way, both genders have reason for anxiety, it’s not limited to one.
I know it’s higher risk for all violence, but I meant rape because I was talking specifically about those times when people think a lone woman at night is, again, fair game. That she has automatically forfeited her right to her own body. When a man is in a dangerous place we tend to think of it as taking a risk (and maybe unwise), but we don’t assume that wis body is public property outside of the home.
Ahh ok. Thanks for the clarification.
@h_k88
It didn’t say that makes her fair game.
Laws don’t mean anything to a person who figures that they’ll never get caught.
Yes you’re at a highter risk walking alone at night, so instead of complaining about having to protect yourself realise the sick people walking the streets aren’t to concerned about your complaints.
Great essay! My ex-abuser always confused me and argued with me…I was always made to feel responsible for the abuse he committed…I have kept silent for the longest time for crimes he did long ago because of self-blame…yet when I look back, the better question to ask was why didn’t he leave a girl (truly I was so young…I was a child then) alone?
I hate it when people use overblown stereotypes of prehistoric humans for their gender theories. They aren’t accurate, and they’re unfair to both men and women.
For example, nowhere in the “prehistoric” model do you ever see prehistoric women with any agency or any active role at all. They are either passively clubbed and dragged “back to the cave” or passively cowering behind the protective male. Neolithic women had just as much presence in the world as women do today. They had agency. They made decisions, took action, fought back, cooperated, took active roles, took passive roles, everything that all humans do today.
If Neolithic men were nothing more than wild animals, then it stands to reason that Neolithic women would also have been like wild animals. Why does the “caveman” model seem to assume that women automatically submitted to whatever men did? The “caveman” stereotype is as much about women being totally submissive as it is about men being aggressive.
As for early human males being “rape machines,” I would draw your attention to the “victimology” side of things. Your average Neolithic woman would NOT have been an easy target for a would-be rapist. She would not have been a timid wallflower and would not have been squeamish about blood or violence. She worked with her hands all day just like he did, she grew up playing the same rough games the boys did, she knew quite a bit about hunting, and she knew how to defend herself against wild animals. With a sharp tool that she kept close by at all times, she could turn a dead animal into clothing and food. Imagine what she could do to an attacker with the same tool. She gave birth probably without any painkillers at all, squatting in whatever weather, and tough enough to go right back to work the same day. She would have been willing to practice infanticide if she felt she needed to, so don’t expect her to be too polite to say no to a date rapist.
If somehow the mythical caveman rapist did manage to commit rape against her, just imagine what would happen to him when he fell asleep. He would not have lived to be a serial rapist.
The whole “prehistoric” model of Ogg the Rapist or Ogg the Protector is not much more than a fantasy played out with make-believe people. We may as well be talking about hypothetical Martians. In most cases like this, Americans have just substituted Fred and Wilma Flintstone for Adam and Eve, with the same level of accuracy.
damn, another comment of the day wello
I completely agree with the whole misuse of “prehistoric” thing. One of the things I despise most is misusing evolutionary history to prove some point about modern sexual relations (i.e. I hate evo-psych as it applies to sexual relations).
However, I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. “Prehistoric” is being used as a caricature of the mythical caveman. It implies unevolved, responding purely to base, animal instincts.
No, that’s not what prehistoric means in actuality, but that’s how a lot of people conceive of the word. It’s just being used for dramatic effect, as an adjective, rather than an actual analogy.
I see what you’re saying, that it’s an expression. I agree that the article itself is suggesting that the dichotomy is unfair. I just thought the article needed a little attention to the fact that the whole theory is bogus in the first place, before the discussion goes off into competing mythologies about “what humans are supposed to be like.”
I also noticed in the visual for the article something you see illustrated all the time when people imagine Neolithic humans: the men have the tools/weapons, and the women just tend to the babies. You almost never see a woman with a tool in her hand, even though she probably would have used tools just as much as he did. (Yes, I noticed the dinosaurs in the picture, too. That’s the subject of a separate rant…..)
Interesting article. Men get fed the good vs evil dichotomy from young, disney movies, games, etc reinforcing that “sacrifice your life to save a woman” cliche.
““a woman who assumes freedoms normally restricted to a man (like going out alone at night)” ”
What prevents them going out alone at night?
I would assume it’s a reference to the idea that women should be able to walk alone at night without having to be afraid, the same as men can. the whole “take back the night” movement.
only it’s a complete myth, this idea that men can go wherever we please without having to be concerned for our own safety. The only violent act that is less likely to happen to a man is rape.
“we should be able to”
I’ve always hated talk like this, as if we should just ignore the fact that criminals are among us and just complain about law enforcement not capturing them faster.
Woman have just as much freedom to walk the streets as night as men, society stupidly believes that men based soley on appearance can handle themselves physically in case of an attack.
I made a similar comment to you earlier, but I’m all riled up now. It is, in fact, the laws job to catch criminals, and as a victim, you have the right to expect justice. Prevention is good, because no one wants to end up in that position, but responsibility is not completely reversed because of it. You can’t begrudge a victim for TRYING to get justice from a legal system that exists for that reason, and not for protecting criminals. Also, isn’t catching a known offender preventative? If someone is known to be committing violent crimes in dark ally’s, shouldn’t we haul them out of the ally so they can’t do it again therefore getting us ever closer to that pie-in-the-sky dream of being outside at night. We can’t be blind, but we also can’t just assume that attackers (rapist or otherwise) are an immovable natural force.
You have really missed the point. The point isn’t that we shouldnt make attempts to make streets safer, the point is that so many women’s advocates seem to think that men have some sort of magic immunity to violence
We don’t. We’re more affected by it than women are. Therefore women’s advocates are completely misguided in their attempts at “equality” in this area. Or rather, I don’t think they’d particularly like that equality if they ever managed to achieve it.
So, do you want to make the streets safer for everyone and be included in the protests? Or do you just not want to hear about? Also, why is it women’s job to do the protesting for men? Holding a stop rape campaign doesn’t obligate them to also have anti-mugging campaigns. Women’s advocacy groups can’t abandon their own causes every time anyone else has a problem. They have a right to focus on their own causes, and you have a right to disagree with them, but they aren’t obligated to pick up other causes to balance the “inequality” of their own. It’s like getting mad at a music blog for not telling you the weather.
The streets aren’t exactly dangerous for women, stranger rape is least common violent crime recorded, its very rare.
Take Back The Night wasn’t ever about tracking down criminals. It isn’t a vigilante movement. It was in response to a very old idea that the law did not have to provide justice to women who left their homes at night (and other ‘stutty’ activities). It is a message that the commenters here don’t need to hear, I’m pleased to notice.
I think its really about a political movement rabble rousing and storing up hate and fear. Progressives did similar things during the Jim Crow era.
@h_k88
You continue to not get it. I don’t care about the idea behind “take back the night” campaigns, in fact I agree with them.
What I object to is this twisting of reality that they do when they say that they want to make the stereets safe for women “like they are for men.” When the actual reality is that they are more dangerous for men than they are for women.
I want the bald-face lying to stop.
Great point 8ball
@h_k88
@h_k88
I expect justice but i don’t expect instant justice.
We don’t know when or if a criminal is going to be caught, so until then PROTECT YOURSELF.
Hell for every criminal you know who’s been caught there are other who haven’t so yeah i’d say there an immovable force.
We’re getting off topic. It isn’t about when justice can be expected, it’s about whether or not the criminal’s crime is a lesser one if the person didn’t defend themselves. Is stealing $10,000 from an unlicked house better than taking it from a locked one? Some evangelists say rape is only rape if she was a virgin to begin with.
No i don’t believe a crime is less serious if the victim doesn’t protect themselves.
What i’ve been saying is that woman shouldn’t be asking WHY they have to protect themselves from danger.
We are in no position to stop every rapist from commiting their next assault nor thwart the upbringing of every potential rapist.
Yes, they should and we men should, too. Society should be questioned constantly. War, crime, sex, birth, death, etc. etc. and on and on are important topics to ponder and discuss.
William that was kinda my point
What you describe is being perpetuated by feminism at the moment. An easy way to break the spell is to publicize the good data on domestic abuse, child abuse and rape of men by women and make it illegal for feminist and charity PSAs and data to lie about it being gendered.
“So men. How do you like being prehistoric? Either rapist or protective caveman. Does it feel limiting?”
Even asking a loaded and unfair question like this causes great harm.
Wow… you certainly have your fixed opinions.
Did you ever think about the mens side of things? Why would all men be held responsible for the deeds of a minority? Would you like being held responsible for being an infant killer, because that’s “something women do”? You’re doing something all chauvinists do. You blame a group of people on the basis that a small minority of them commits crimes.
Thinking about your rapist – protector dichtonomy. It’s not a sexual dichtonomy like your slut – virgin thing, it’s rather a general dichtonomy of a mans life.
What is a protector? He is a sacrifice. He’s a guy who has to be willing to lay down his life for a “random” woman. Why do you demand that from men? Why do you demand from men to involve themselves in a rape, to stop it and risk their life in the process? The woman will probably survive even a gang rape, a man who interferes likely won’t.
That’s what really pisses off guys about feminism. You expect us to sacrifice ourselves so YOU have a more secure life, while we end in an early grave. Guys don’t want to sacrifice themselves, especially not in a society as secure as ours. Rape is a problem of society, not only women are affected not only men are the perpetrators. To acnowledge these facts might change your female hissy fit about rape into something that might be a good policy for society.
The male sex dichtonomy is loser – stud/alpha btw.
A loser is someone who doesn’t have very much social success and can’t deliver the live you want, but may have more time or love than the stud. A stud is someone who has money, power and probably no life at all or incredible luck. Well women crave social security so of course they’ll desire the stud.
I resigned from the role of Protector long ago. With freedom comes responsibility for yourself.
As Rapses and others have pointed out, the article is in error: the virgin/slut dichotomy’s male equivalent is stud/loser. Defining it as rapist/protector still keeps the focus on women, where it doesn’t belong.
wow, i totally agree with you. The rapist/protector only exists in relation to women. The same man is expected to be a protector in the presence of a virgin and a rapist in the presence of sluts. Whether a man protects or rapes is still determined by (or blamed on) the woman.
Stud/loser is a closer equivalent because there is permanence to it. The sexual choices he made a year ago still affect how he is judged today.
So … after all the effort that was put into explaining how men rape women are raped is an illusion created by definitions we are back to square one with a bunch of feminists here pushing the men rape women are rape myth.
Feminists, get women to stop using sex as a commodity, and stop expecting men to be responsible for their safety, security and well being.
Then stop lying about abuse being gendered and using rape fear mongering to empower your political movement.
That would solve a lot of these problems wouldn’t it?
Well, that’s just crazy talk.
In my experience, bringing up the subject of rape sends your average feminist running toward traditional gender rolls.
Take an internet forum (TWoP) where most people self-identify as feminist (even though it’s actually a TV forum, it is dominated by upper-class women who constantly complain about gender rolls in TV). They spent the last two years arguing (not incorrectly) that The Walking Dead featured a whole lot of negative gender stereotypes. The women are, for the most part, the cookers and cleaners who wait around to be saved, and the men are the warriors (who do spend too much of their time sitting on their backsides).
Then enter Randall – a kid who admits that he was part of a group, some members of which gang-raped two young girls (not shown, so we don’t know what really happened), but he claimed he never took part in the attack. That forum – with all of it’s self identified feminists – went wild. They started saying things like he was a scumbag who deserved to die; that even if he didn’t take part, he’s just as guilty as they were. And while a few pretended to ‘know’ that Randall had to have actually taken part (which is unknowable, since he isn’t a real person and we’re never shown what happened) most decided it didn’t matter. This character should have stepped up, because it is apparently the responsibility of every male on the planet to stand up and get themselves shot (because heavily armed gang-rapists aren’t exactly nice people) in a hopeless attempt to stop someone they didn’t even know from being raped.
I know it’s just a TV show, but the women on that forum are real. They almost all claim to be feminists, and to oppose strict gender rolls. But the moment the word ‘rape’ came up, all of that just went right out the window. They couldn’t even keep to their ideals when the example they were confronted with was a fictional character on a TV show about dead people getting up and walking around. How are we supposed to believe that a real-life example of this would go down any different, when real people and real passions would be involved?
Has the author seen the studies that find that cross cultures slut shaming and the cultural suppression of female sexuality is mainly female on female?
Like this one – ttp://www.femininebeauty.info/suppression.pdf
There is something about this Rape Culture debate that always lefted me confused: Are we prosecuting Rape or are we prosecuting Male sexual aggression?
Neither “men” nor “women” as a generalized whole should be charged with the responsibility. It seems that men are freaking out over women blaming them and trying to turn it around. In all honesty the sole responsibility goes to the specific rapists.
This isn’t a matter of masculinity or aggressiveness, it’s a matter of insecurity. Rape is committed as an attempt at gaining power over each other, if not for the situation at hand then for a deeper rooted issue. Insecurities of feeling powerless exists in both genders, or better said, in all people.
Yes, people should be careful and protect themselves. No, in an ideal world, we shouldn’t have to. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world.
In regards to people standing up about rape in society: it may be too dangerous to physically stop the act, but is it so hard to move out of ear shot and call the police? Or immediately afterwards and provide descriptions of the perps? No, it isn’t.
The job of the protector falls upon the authorities, and of all community members to the best of our ability. If you think the woman— or man, be it the case — will call on their own, you are more than likely wrong. How would you feel of you were just dominated and nobody even tried to help? Powerless. Weak. Frightened. So to show that you care, help how you can (without sacrificing yourself), and get someone qualified to do something about it.
Modify the definition of rape so that sexual assault perpetrated by women starts to qualify as rape, and the idea that all men are rapists will vanish when true stats start to emerge.
Edit: …the idea that all men are potential rapists will vanish…
What a great article! I’ve always wondered the same thing, myself.
Why would it be considered a woman’s fault for being raped for simply being around men? If anything, that’s far most sexist against men, and we should feel a little more uptight about it.
Mind you, I can understand where the other side comes from to a degree. I’ve known enough cases of women leading men on then labeling them as creeps the moment they reciprocate. It’s manipulative, but it certainly isn’t rape.
Rape is, you know, sexual action with lack of consent:
Did she say she wanted sex?
Yes? Good. Have fun.
No? Well, simply don’t have sex. It’s really not that hard.
Does she say “No” but actually wants it? Well, it’s her fault and hers alone that she doesn’t “get what she wants”. Don’t let her expect you to read her mind. Read only her words.
I was dumped by a girl for not “reading her mind” in this regard, and you know what? Good riddance. Words v. Mind-Reading is not something to joke about.
What I’m even more interested in is: When a discussion of criminality occurs and stats lean strongly towards men, why do we say “this is why women need to protect themselves more, and they’re victims of men’s presence.”
Why don’t we say “What the heck is happening to men that’s making them dominate the criminal world?”
Men’s issues are the cornerstone behind mistreatment of women. Mistreatment isn’t usually spontaneous, but more likely the result of issues that already exist in men. Issues that are, more often than not, ignored.
Because, simply put, when women are mistreated, they’ll usually seek help or become the victim. When men are mistreated, we are more likely bottle it up or lash out. And noone is going to be interested in the origins of the aggressor, are they?
rapses:
Answer: Pairing virgin-slut dichotomy for women with protector-rapist is oxymoron. Men are not responsible for protecting women who are not related to them and rape is a punishable offense. The male equivalent for this dichotomy is loser-stud.
Interesting. I don’t know if the OP was trying to say that the male equivalent of the virgin/slut dichotomy for women is protector/rapist but I do agree that to believe so it wrong.
If anything the male complimentary dichotomy to the virgin/slut dichotomy for women is the protector/rapist. Looking at how the virgin/slut is a matter of looking at how women are viewed in terms of their sexual activity and then apply that to males we get something different I think and that’s just what you said. If we look at how men are viewed in terms of their sexual activity the male equalivalent of virgin/slut is stud/loser. But even then I don’t think its that straight forward of a comparison.
Some would like to have us believe that guys who have highly active sexual lives are getting the all positive upside of a coin where the other side are women who have highly active sexual lives getting the all negative. I don’t think that is the case.
One thing I wonder is this:
If virgin/slut is complimented by protector/rapist.
Then stud/loser is complimented by ????
“Men are the ones attempting to make women fail in purity protection”
NOT.
SOME men are. Not all of them.
I’m fed up with these generalizations about all men rapists, all men oppressors, etc.
Many men are women allies. But these kind of attitude is disappointing.
BTW, many women – as well – are beating women up with the dichotomy virgin/whore.
Many times it’s the mother the first to use that scheme on her daughters.
Actually, I would almost be willing to say girls are MORE judgmental in this aspect.
Some guys don’t mind a girl not being a virgin, because they know they’d be willing to have sex. Others have a bit of jealousy from knowing their girl has a sexual history, which has more of a cultural context than anything (men in europe are seemed bugged by this)
But most of the whore-calling and criticizing I’ve seen has come from other girls’ gossiping. Some will call a girl stuck up if she’s had boyfriends but is still a virgin, but call her a slut if she has had more partners than them.
The whole virgin/slut thing, and it’s male equivalent (whichever we think fits most) is really sexist against men. The idea that men are cavemen/animals that can’t possibly control their own behavior when feeling excited is really offensive. but what is most surprising about it is how many MEN will support this belief, (as can be seen in some comments here) even though clearly many men don’t go around raping someone every time they have the opportunity, nor would they want to. To say that men have so little control over themselves that sole responsibility lies on women to protect themselves from possibly turning on any men around them, is just so offensive to me. If you really believe that, then do you think we should lock up all men, to protect society from them, since they can’t make logical decisions about their own behavior? It implies that men are not logical, mature beings who can take responsibility for their own actions. It’s unfortunate that there ARE some men (and some women) like that, but they should be punished accordingly, and their behavior should not be viewed as acceptable in a civilized society.