"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

Yep, we're seen as stroppy bitches when we try not to "let" them.

What a rubbish thread.

My father was raped by priests as a young boy. If he simply asked someone talking about RTN why he couldn't go to a RTN demo, I don't think that it makes sense to assume that his questions are mocking simply because he is male. You have no idea of the OP's friend's history. The fact that the overwhelming majority of rapists are men does not mean it's okay to say that, statistically, a man on the RTN march is more likely to be a rapist to someone whose history you don't know or understand.

I have no issue with men being excluded per se, but assuming that simply asking the question implies misogyny and mockery is a huge stretch of the imagination.

Actually, scratch all that, I agree with wukter's post of 13.04.

Actually working, it's not a huge stretch of the imagination.

It's an extremely common scenario, hence the cynical tone of the thread.

There has been plenty of acknowledgement that he might be coming from a genuinely questioning place, rather than a downright anti-feminist one, but it's hardly a stretch of the imagination to think he might be coming from the latter - so many people who ask questions like this, are.

Working, would your father ask someone why he couldn't go on a RTN demo?

working - "The fact that the overwhelming majority of rapists are men"
According to RapeCrisis "The offence of Rape (Sec 1(1) SOA 2003) can only be committed by a man"

So in fact all rapists by UK law are men. Women can only be convicted of rape as a secondary party i.e. they help or facilitate the rape.

MillyR, don't know if he would or he wouldn't.. but if he did, I know it would be an innocent question.

Cynicism is fine. I understand that there is a lot of anti-feminist stuff out there.. but I think that to someone who is not involved in or interested in feminism on a day-to-day basis, if you hear "reclaim the night" as a title of this demonstration, you could very reasonably wonder why it is specific to women. If it were "The Women's Coalition against Rape" or "Women Say No to DV" and the same question was asked, I would understand the reaction by posters on here.

However, I feel that we are living in times where it is simply inaccurate to assume that men don't feel, or have reason to feel, afraid on the streets. There is a lot of random and severe violence reported now, and I don't know many men in their 30's who don't feel uncomfortable if they see a gang of youths coming towards them. I appreciate their fear is not about sexual violence and this is central to RTN - however, again, the name "reclaim the night" may simply resonate differently with them.

If there is an implied anti-feminist sentiment in that, then I would take wukter's view of assuming the statement innocent until proven guilty. If anti-feminism is pervasive in the culture, then a lack of understanding of the nuances of feminism is to be expected.

I simply don't see the need for an automatic hostile reaction to a question, regardless of how it may be read.

I am deeply uncomfortable with statistics about rape being bandied about because the fact that the majority of victims of sexual violence are women does not change the impact of sexual violence on men who experience it. The fact that men are rapists does not make men who have been raped suffer any the less for sharing characteristics with their attacker. I suppose I react to it as earwicga reacted to the statement that stranger rape is "rare". It seems to me to downplay it.

I suppose I reacted to this personally. However, I would rather be cautious in my reactions and assumptions about men than potentially grievously impacting upon someone who has been a victim of rape or sexual violence by casually lumping them in with rapists and would-be rapists because of an accident of sex.

working

When younger I took a mugging and occasionally a kicking as a normal risk of a night out, less frequent but more upsetting than a hangover. Sometimes I worried things would get more out of hand. Always I adopted the sensible no eye contact, cross road, walk in bright areas stuff, and always resented it.

But I didn't fear raped or assault because the attackers were male, but because they looked like they might assault me. That's the point of RTN-that it is a space where one fear of assault can be removed. To argue 'not all men attack women' isn't the point-the point is all women might fear attack by any man, except on an RTN march (which is why it gets in such a mess over non ciswomen).

The specifics aren't about DV or rape, they're about possible threats and removing them. The equivalent for your Dad would be not allowing priests on a children's march against sexual abuse.

working9while5 wrote - "if you hear "reclaim the night" as a title of this demonstration, you could very reasonably wonder why it is specific to women. If it were "The Women's Coalition against Rape" or "Women Say No to DV" and the same question was asked, I would understand the reaction by posters on here.

If Reclaim The Night was renamed to something with women in the title, it would still be criticised because it would still not be campaigning for everyone about everything.

"if you hear "reclaim the night" as a title of this demonstration, you could very reasonably wonder why it is specific to women" True. However that is not what the OP said the man did. She explained what RTN was and then he didn't accept that was good enough.

"I don't know many men in their 30's who don't feel uncomfortable if they see a gang of youths coming towards them" - would they feel apprehensive if only one man was coming towards him?

I knew a guy who actually ran a charity to support male victims of sexual abuse and rape. He's not running it any more, as he has been jailed indefinitely for raping and torturing female prostitutes and possessing child pornography. That was a bit of a surprise, tbh.

As I said, I don't really have an issue with men not being allowed on RTN, nor do I think RTN should be renamed or its remit altered.

I do have an issue with assuming that any sort of question about its remit automatically implies some massive anti-feminist agenda if you're male: that you might not think "reclaim the night, hey, I'm pretty scared at night too, why is it specific to women?". It's perfectly possible to be naive and unaware without being anti-feminist. It's even possible to hold unknowingly anti-feminist views. I don't see how an automatic hostile response that he is shit-stirring, a troll, a nobhead etc serves any purpose.

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that there were priests on quite a lot of the marches against sexual abuse in the Church, so don't necessarily agree with this analogy. I know my uncle was on some and is well known as a high profile priest in Ireland. I think it's probably a different issue, though.

Beachcomber, I agree (wrt "what about the menz?")
And Adela -- great posts.

Working, it's the use of the phrase "I thought you believed men and women are equal..?" that makes this a mocking question. If he had said, "Since men and women are equal, men and women should march together...", or "I believe since men and women are equal, so men should go on the march..." then I would not suspect misogyny, or that this man sees misandry in feminism.

Ok mathanxiety, I get that.. however, I think it's really hard to judge on the basis of the information here nevertheless, on the basis of wukter's posts. I think a lot of men never really think about it, and might very well ask questions to clarify or problematise a position they haven't considered or thought through.

He could, of course, be highly familiar with feminist thinking and a dyed-in-the-wool misogynist who, having considered all aspects of the women's movement, has decided to befriend feminists and teach them the error of their ways through questioning their beliefs and actions by stealth.

Statistically, he is more likely (I believe) to be asking from a position of ignorance coloured by cultural prejudices he has not given much thought to.

working

I think the problem is that there is a lack of prior questioning.

If I know a space to be all woman, or segregated, I ask why. I don't always agree with the reasoning: it seems odd my partner would be criticised for allowing me to sew a banner for an LFN march but Sarah Palin carrying a 'women against abortion' banner would be accepted, and experience and my partner's comments suggest quite a lot of single sex spaces-e.g. Mums and Babies groups-seem to perpetuate an awful lot of sexism against women in ways they wouldn't if they had men in them. But I can see why LFN feel that allowing men to participate seems like hijacking, or why some women might need to talk about birth trauma, breastfeeding or postnatal heterosex without what might be perceived as a leery man present, or even just feel men talking about childcare dominates a role they feel as feminine.

And that's the problem, surely, that anyone with any capacity for empathy, for what it must be like to be a woman walking the streets at night, would have seen the answer to the question immediately. It's not necessarily questioning the exclsuivity that's wrong, it's the failure to try and understand beforehand, the combative neutralising of a gendered issue into a non-gendered one in ways which pays no attention to women's views.

And the 'thought you believed' with the questioning of feminism, but perhaps analysis of precise wording on hearsay hard.

that women were asked to stay indoors when it was understood that a man was going about the streets murdering women.

In a sane, logical society, men would be asked to stay indoors until the killer had been caught.

That's patriarchy for ya. Gah...

But Adel, do you feel that women who view childcare as feminine should be derided for their nobbish, misogynistic views because they have absorbed wider cultural misogyny?

Perhaps this guy is a twat. However, I don't think that not having thought about women's issues in an empathetic way automatically makes a man a twat anymore than I think women who perpetuate gender stereotypes by saying that their little boy can't play with a doll or their husband is useless at x or y or z "because he's a man" is thick.

I think many are blind and the OP was looking for some reasoned responses to explain and persuade extending beyond the level of "but, you, for example, are a twat". I don't see the fact that all rapists are men as a reasoned response to a question. I would be questioning his question, maybe.. why does he feel the need to ask? Does he feel afraid? Of sexual violence? Has he ever? Does he know what it's like? What would he think of a man on a RTN march? Does it make him uncomfortable that this is a women-only event? Why? and so on. Challenge the challenge, question the question.. but name-calling and assumptions seem silly to me.

viewing childcare as feminine is not a misogynistic view. Breastfeeding for example.

Misogyny is defined as hatred of women. A man who feels entitled to join a reclaim the night march expresses his misogyny by the way he has no concept of boundaries, an inability to empathise and use of his privilege to push his way into women's spaces

'asking from a position of ignorance coloured by cultural prejudices he has not given much thought to.'
Yes, I think this may be the case. He has the unthinking default position of the wider society that feminism is somehow a really radical philosophy, is anti-men, and paints itself into a corner by insisting on female only events or spaces -- this is of course completely missing the point if the march, which is all about the specific experience of women.

And there's an element of 'gotcha' to the question.

Unfortunately some misogynistic men simply cannot stand the fact that there are some spaces that men are not needed or wanted. Men dominate popular culture, politics, the media, have their say in every single public space except the odd one or two powerless places. Mothers and baby groups, RTN marches etc.

A misogynistic view would be a man who believes he can dictate to his wife whether or not she should breastfeed because of his 'equal' rights to be involved in his progeny. He might believe she should bottlefeed (so he can be involved) or she should breastfeed (because she is regarded as a brood mare who should do the best for the children). Either way it's an encroachment on the female. THe proper pro-feminsist position for a man in these instances is to respect the women involved, and these are instances were women actually demand respect. It irks some men no end.

Really?

I think a lot of the discussion around childcare is pretty woman-hating actually. Read any SAHM/WOHM threads recently? Practice, too.

A man who hasn't particularly thought through what it means to be a woman is not necessarily expressing hatred of women.

Lack of empathy does not imply hatred. Lack of understanding what is a woman's space in this very specific, public context does not imply hatred. Ignorance, maybe. Hatred is a very, very strong term.

Mathanxiety, re: gotcha.. probably. I think it can be very unsettling to have your world beliefs challenged. And I think that a lot of men who don't understand feminism assume it is about hating men, so feel the need to challenge it. I simply don't believe this means that they are all misogynists.

I think the SAHM/WOHM "thing" is encouraged by popular culture and blown way out of proportion.
It has nothing to do with feminism, for example. As a SAHM, the feminist topic is the place I feel most comfortable, and I reckon a lot of WOHMs on here feel the same.

working

I think several of my posts gave arguments which were not personal attacks, and went beyond 'all men are rapists'. But part of an argument has to be 'because women fear all men are rapists', and the question was phrased in a way which ignored that by making it about a non-gendered issue. Socratic dialogue works great for Plato, because he has everyone staring where he wants them, here the gulf in assumption need shandling on RTN's terms, not the questioners.

I would suggest the other anologies you use are based on assumptions which are essentially unchallenged. The OP's questioner had already faced the challenge, though, which was the march itself. I don't think he's necessarily a twat, but an inability to think at all about the issue and the appropriateness of the question suggests a real problem understanding that women think and have feelings.

As for childcare being exclusively feminine, I clearly don't agree. But the point to me isn't that men are derided for their inabilities in some spheres, it's that that derision implicitly always suggests that other spheres in contrast are where they should be and where women-should not be, it's sexism against women not against men (as mra-s insist on seeing). No man looking after children and thinking about the world he does it in can have any illusions that his role is freer and easier than a woman in the same situation.

hatred is a very strong term and I don't use it lightly. BUt the lack of empathy that men feel towards women is nurtured by society steeped in misogyny for example. It is hostility, at the very least.