"What about the men that get raped?"

[thefinerthingsinlife]

Whilst talking about Reclaim the Night to a friend, a male asked what it was about I explained, he then questioned "what about all the men that get raped and are victims of domestic violence??" I explained to him that I think that only 3% of men are victims and the stats are roughly the same for Dv (i'm not a 100% that these stats).

He then said "I thought you believed men and women are equal therefore Reclaim should be about men victims too"

I didn't really know what to say to this so can someone give me some guidence

Thanks

It is quite common to not know if feminism is about thinking men and women are equal, or about thinking women are better. He asked in what sounds to me a polite way - if he'd wanted to be rude he could have asked why the OP was so arrogant as to think women were more important, or something similar. He didn't.

How would you respond if a woman asked the same questions?

I agree with him

You can be arrogant in a subtle way too. You don't have to spell it out.

And you can also pour scorn on a concept by a reductio ad absurdum, which I think is what this man was doing. (Trying to disprove the hypothesis by pointing out the absurdity of its conclusion, as he saw it.)

We cannot possibly know what the intention of this man was as none of us, apart from the OP, heard the actual conversation.

However it is very very common for feminists to hear the 'but I thought you believed men and women should be equal' ploy, used by people who wish to derail feminist discourse.

Often what people really mean when they say this is, what about the menz (and all that goes with that, i.e. shut up feminists).

Often people don't even realise that that is what they are doing as the idea that we should all be caring about the menz all the time is built into the very fabric of our society.

Hence why it pisses feminists off so much - it is everywhere.

I heard on the radio today that students in Kent are going on an anti-racist march.

And I thought I wonder how many of the wotaboutthemenz brigade would say: "But why are they marchign against racism? Why don't they march about sexism/ anti-semitism/ homophobia/ the IMF/ water provision in the developing world/ animal rights/ insert cause here?"

Gah.

'I think people who repeat anti-feminist memes like "I thought you wanted men and women to be equal so why are you excluding men" should be held accountable for their anti-feminist attitude, not given the benefit of the doubt. '

I disagree. If you accept that the culture is itself anti-feminist, it stands that the first few questions by someone who is just starting to think about the issuers will come from an anti-feminist place, without them even knowing it.

It's annoying to hear the same questions ie what about the men repeated so often. But it's individuals asking, starting off. It may be someone who is aware of the implications, stirring. Or it may be someone who is genuinely wanting to learn, not knowing the background who may use the answer to go deeper into the issues.

Is he repeating himself? I must have missed something.

I disagree. If you accept that the culture is itself anti-feminist, it stands that the first few questions by someone who is just starting to think about the issuers will come from an anti-feminist place, without them even knowing it.

I agree with you, I'm pretty sure I went through some pretty anti feminist thinking before I was 'educated'.

Yes I think in RL, I would give someone the benefit of the doubt unless I knew that he was definitely an out and out conscious anti-feminist. I think the default position is for everyone to be unconsciously anti-feminist and so I wouldn't be too hard on someone whom I assumed hadn't come across feminist ideas that often. I would have no patience at all with someone who I knew had had it explained to them ad nauseum though.

As to us having to do all the work, unfortunately I think that's true - we do. Precisely because the default is anti-feminism, we have to work to change attitudes. It's a PITA and it really is incredibly irritating, but they're not going to go out and find the stuff for themselves, because they're in a culture that directs them not to. We have to work a million times harder than the culture they're in, to get unconscious anti-feminists to see the world from a different, unfamiliar angle.

But saying that, sometimes I just can't be arsed anymore. You can get tired of it, can't you?

That's righe HerBea - I think there is probably quite a high "turnover" of women who are willing to speak out/think much about feminism. It's knackering being up against it all the time and I'm sure most people go through "la la not listening" phases.

Sparklerz - I think she meant repeating as in "saying something that they have heard elsewhere" maybe?

'I thought you believed men and women are equal..'

I could be asking that question from a slightly different angle.My beliefs about men and women in society come from this belief,and I have trouble reconciling the belief that men should not be able to discriminate against women and exclude them from clubs,events,jobs,life,with the accepted idea that women should be able to have women only space and activities.
Not quite the same thing but I was discussing Scouts with a friend.She feels strongly that because Guides are a girl only organisation,Scouts should be only for boys.I don't agree with that for a variety of reasons - but is it fair that girls have the girls only space of Guiding,and boys don't get the equivalent,which was her argument?

When is it ok to discriminate because of gender and when not?

I know what you mean Pogle. But I agree with the poster who said that I think there is an exception for support groups. I would completely understand a male-only support group for male victims of rape.

WRT Scouts and guides - I don't know much about the history of that, but I thought initially scouts was boys only and guides were girls only, and thenthe scouts let girls in. Don't know why? Maybe the guides should let boys in?

I think with scouts and guides, it's nice to have the choice of having a mixed-sex environment, but there's no reason why boys shouldn't have their own, girl-less organisation and if boys want that, then they should set one up for them. I think it's even more important for girls to have a boy-free space because where girls and boys are together, boys dominate the space. Anti-feminists refuse to recognise that fact. When boys and men stop dominating mixed space, when there is more equal interraction, when girls and women are not talked over and shouted down by boys and men, when girls and women automatically feel the same right to speak and move in the space the way boys and men do, when their voices aren't silenced by knowing that they are not taken as seriously as the boys and men, then there will be no need for girls or women only spaces.

I don't think the Guides and Scouts thing is to do with some kind of discrimination. It was simply that the Scouts made one decision and the Guides made another. Nobody forced the Scouts to take girls; they decided they wanted to.

Of course there are groups that are for men only - there are men only groups for men who have been raped, groups for men with prostate cancer and so on.

I do think it is odd to say that a woman only march makes men out to be pond life. I don't object to the existence of the NSPCC, even though cruelty happens to people who are not children and abuse happens to adults. I do not feel that the NSPCC are labelling adults in general or me in particular as pond life or as abusers. I do not feel criticised by the NSPCC simply because they campaign on an issue that focuses on a single minority group.

The context of women's fear of crime in public spaces is different to the context of men's fear. That doesn't mean that an individual man experiencing violent crime is having a more or less troubling experience than an individual woman, and RTN isn't suggesting so.

BTP, that isn't true. Guides is girls only. You can read about it on their website.

The question (and others like it) is at best really unthoughtful.

First, there is no reason why a feminist organisation should be actively campaigning against all inequalities based on 'sex', it's addressing specific inequalities for women. That doesn't mean that feminists on the march don't care about violence towards men, or see the connections, just that that part of their activity at that time is not combatting it.

Second, the linkage is disingenuous, as it always is. It's not a numbers game, it's the fact that neither the circumstances which lead to male-on-female rape nor the consequence sof it are the same (although they do intersect with) as those which lead to male-on-male rape (or the legally impossible but I suppose just about plausible female-on-male rape). Campaign groups can work on the intersections together, but a feminist approach would highlight the way gender imbalances in power perpetuate rape culture. Nothing worng with that, activism is selective.

Third, RTN is not just about rape-it's about reclaiming the streets and being free of fear of a particular form of attack. Many men too walk in fear at night, but again the reasons are different.

I'm a man, btw, and am so sick of hearing this thrown at feminists and at feminist viewpoints. If your friend is doing more than trolling he should take the message that some of what is combatted helps end rape culture generally-which might reduce male rapes . And that feminists on the whole think about other forms of kyriarchical oppression to. But feminism is not discredited by taking selective action and having narrower parameters than all inequality ever.

The coastguard exists to stop people drowning at sea. Some people drown in the bath. Drowning is bad and should be stopped. bath drownings don't, however, mean the coastguard is useless or that it is not living up to its principles of saving people from drowning.

It's also worth pointing out that even talking of men and women only spaces is deeply problematic to many transpeople, who suffer far more violence than either cismen or ciswomen. And I'm not sure LFN or RTN have got a handle on that yet....

Yes,dittany,I think it is pretty easy to tell in RL - not always from just seeing the words on a screen though.I agree with the rest of your post too,from the "civilised discussion rules" side of the fence...

HB,what is going to change how boys and men dominate mixed space though? Will that change if groups are regularly segregrated?
If the only way women are able to be heard is by retreating into women only space isn't that a step backwards? Boys and men dominate because they learn it is ok for them to do that,and women let them.
(hypocrisy alert here - as I went to a single sex secondary school and I'm sure that had a very positive impact on us in terms of expecting to be heard and assuming our points of view were valid and worthy of respect.I also grew up arguing with my Dad about anything and everything,though)

I think that few people want to exist in entirely segregated spaces all of the time. There are situations where people want separate space and situations where people want space together. There will be times when a woman might want to be in spaces that are just for parents or just for women and so on.

Pogle that's the thing though, the sexes aren't regularly segregated - women only spaces are very occasional and irregular and as you observe, having them gives women the confidence to go out and face the world expecting their opinions to be listened to in the mixed space which is the norm. They're not a permanent hiding place, they're a temporary springboard, hopefully.

Pogleswood wrote - "Boys and men dominate because they learn it is ok for them to do that,and women let them."

Men and boys will try to dominate whether women let them or not. I think most feminists make an effort to stop boys and men dominating. When women display that unfeminine behaviour, it tends to lead to increased anti-feminist reaction from many men.