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
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
I just wanted to say thank you for this. As a male survivor of rape, thank you.
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… Read more »
“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 –… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
Well duh, here I am.
I wonder sometimes if people actually prefer to fight? Ah well!
I don’t know. I think perhaps it’s true for all of us.
I’m interested in your take, too. However, I think part of the problem with not engaging this comment is the comments have been polarizing in of themselves, so people “walk on by” the entire stream. Just sayin… you should write a post on this and I bet you’ll get a better reaction.
ht tp://www.rolereboot.org/sex-and-relationships/details/2012-01-erections-arent-consent-what-the-new-fbi-definitions “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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Thank you for this comment and please accept my good will on your behalf. Peace.
Sometimes it’s all worth it! P^)
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.
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… Read more »
Derek – Julie has already been corrected and sent to her room! P^)
She came back and said sorry to!
Huh guess I should eaten bon bons instead of wasting time writing :)-
Whisky Flavour Bon Bons wasn’t it?
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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://goodmenproject.com/gender-sexuality/rape-culture-men-women-power/
ht tp://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/justice-department-redefines-rape-matlacks-op-ed-on-cnn/
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://toysoldier.wordpress.com/
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.
Um… no she was correct. Forced bj not rape according to that definition.
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?
Are you kidding? They mean don’t put your penis in someone else’s mouth. Perfectly clear.
you’re right – my mistake.
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
Easier than I thought http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/faqs.htm
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.
Well the tongue might be said to be penetrating in that case.
“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.
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… Read more »
“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!
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… Read more »
Shit, it wasn’t a wink. Oh well.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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.
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^)
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.
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
http://www.rense.com/general58/jajdl.htm
http://dahrjamail.net/an-eyewitness-account-of-fallujah
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… Read more »
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?
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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^)
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.
I think he’s saying people volunteer to be feminists, that one can’t opt out of being a feminist.
Sorry. I’m trying to comment less/shorter on this thread. Fail. 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.… Read more »
“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… Read more »
Should vegetarians be offended if people assume they don’t like meat?
It does depend on what they refuse to chew on! P^)
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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)
Your joke has made me hungry, Nooooooo.
“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?
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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.
http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-5.htm#pgfId-1548446
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.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V75-Straus-09.pdf
Thanks, I’ll read.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Aha. 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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.
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… Read more »
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.
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. http://www.womenslawproject.org/NewPages/wkVAW_SexualAssault_AG2012.html So basically they wanted the FBI’s… Read more »
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,… Read more »
Thanks Peter, I agree with your comment.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Following are links to references I made in my previous comment.
Deschryver interview: http://www.democracynow.org/2007/10/8/they_are_destroying_the_female_species
Eve Ensler testifying in front of the Senate Foreign Relations: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/38551533/Testimony-of-Eve-Ensler-before-the-Senate-Foreign-Relations
Eve Ensler’s article in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/12/cancer-atrocities-congo-violence
The V-Day site’s section on DRC: http://drc.vday.org/background
Thank you Tamen.
“they killed all the men,”
“Yeah, it’s a femicide, because they are just destroying the female species,”
How the hell does she get the idea that is femicide? How does anyone gloss over the males all being killed part??
Killing all the battle aged men (like say 8 to 80 years old) is a not uncommon act of war. For example the US government did it at Faloojeh in Iraq. The best site on this is probably Gendercide Watch. http://www.gendercide.org/ Site was set up by a feminist (male) who expected to find that women were killed all the time and was honest enough to continue reporting when it became clear that when one gender is killed or attacked in large numbers it’s almost always men. He started out after the Montreal so-called “massacre” which was of course hardly any… Read more »
“it’s a femicide, because they are just destroying the female species”
I simply can’t understand how you can speak of females as a species. It is illogical, Irrational and just silly.
I wonder if anyone on Senate Foreign Relations have asked the what they mean by it?
Females are not a species or a race. Not to mention that killing off all your society’s women is a terrible long-term strategy for the survival of your society….
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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 🙁
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. http://psychcentral.com/lib/2006/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-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… Read more »
Let the dust settle first please.
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…
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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
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… Read more »
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.
Awesome!!
Censorship?
No. Here’s some talk about it.
https://goodmenproject.com/newsroom/two-new-sections-on-the-good-men-project/
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
Julie – the issues are so big I wonder at the Big Tent idea!
I have just seen a galaxy for rent. Do you think it would be big enough? P^)
There is no try! Let’s do it!
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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? OR… Does she need to be a one-dimensional person whose views line up 100% with the acceptable viewpoint as agreed upon… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
Thank-you.
Who are we talking about on HuffPost?
Me.
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.
I would not have said that to anyone but Julie.
And I take that as a sign of respect. All is good, lots of great comments to respond to today!
@ 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… Read more »
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!
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
“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,… Read more »
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://www.reddit.com/r/masculism 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… Read more »
Would a goodpersonproject be of any value?
It would be interesting to have the same posts on three different sites at the same time
GoodMen
GoodWomen
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.
I’d write for the Good People site! I’d write for all three tho!
“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^)
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/circa-1930-a-little-girl-makes-a-pig-of-herself-by-licking-news-photo/51239808
Hahahahaha!
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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!
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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?
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?
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.
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.