So many evil men...can't stand it

[SplitHeadGirl]

First of all, I know fully well that men will get upset at what I think and am about to say, so I would like to clarify that I am talking about EVIL men, not the good, wonderful dads and granddads and husbands and nice single blokes out there....the ones who I KNOW (my brain, not my gut, tells me so) are in a majority, but who seem to be few (is it their deafening silence?)

But any fool can see that the sheer amount of men, who are prepared to do unspeakable things to women and girls (and boys as well as other men, not to mention the vulnerable and the elderly...wow, the list goes on) is just overwhelming. I read today about Anene Booysen, and I was absolutely heartbroken, but yet not shocked. For men to be so diabolical to women is not shocking anymore, and that is men's greatest tragedy.

I have two little daughters, and a little son, and I fear for them at the hands of men. Not women...just men.

I feel like I am thinking out loud with this post, so no worries if no one feels they can respond. I just wish I didn't feel so helpless at the tsunami of male violence.

buffy slightly yes, however I would remove pressure, influence, pressurization, insistence, demand and possibly harassment from that list, some of these I experienced when I was coerced and I believe these you can say no to, if that person then moves onto threaten, enforcement and physical force then yes that is rape.

I am only going by my gut feeling and my experienced so I'm happy to be wrong.

*experiences

NandH,

I'm not referring to your experience but for many woman who experience similar, denying it as a rape is a self protective stance. For others, it because they've been told that 'real' rape involves a hooded stranger, a dark alley and physical force.

It's hard for many women to acknowledge their experience as rape because of the rape myths that exist. They fear they'll be judged, that it was their fault, that they could have prevented it.

The only one to blame for rape is the rapist. But we don't want to use that word to describe the formerly caring partner or the boy next door or the nice lad we met at a party. We're told that to accuse a man of rape is one of the worst things a woman can do, that it ruins a man's life.

So women turn the blame on themselves, they deny their experience.

If a woman has to question whether it was rape or not, then the answer, sadly is that is probably was. Normal sex doesn't leave you questioning whether it was rape or feeling defensive about it.

blistory (finally got your name right, apologies for that also!) ... I have NEVER thought about things like that, but I completely see what you are saying and to a certain extent I do agree, although I still would split buffys list into two, one being rape and one being coerce.

NandH, it was clarified that "enjoy" meant in the legalistic sense eg "a diplomat enjoys immunity from prosecution" rather than in the "having fun" sense.

NandH, it's difficult when we all use words to mean different things.

For me, I would include influence, harassment and pressure but for a long time I wouldn't. Because to do so would mean redefining the night I lost my virginity as rape and I simply don't 'feel' that I was raped.

Technically I understand that it was. He didn't force me but he nagged and hassled and called me a cock tease, said I'd led him on, told me he was physically sore. So I made a decision to endure it because I couldn't face another hour of sulking alternated with praise about how sexy I was, about how flattered I should be. I wanted him out of the house and the only way I could do that was to endure. At no point did I consent - I just shut down. Words can be as powerful and damaging as physical force.

But I thought it was just bad sex, I had nothing to compare it with, I didn't 'feel' raped (I still don't) I just thought I was naïve and silly.

SabrinaMulFUCKERJjones Tue 05-Nov-13 13:13:13
Not that you'll find feminists endorsing male circumcision though - the roots of which are in patriarchal religion.

That's not actually true, and I say that as someone who isn't normally found defending religion, I can assure you. Circumcision was being practised long before Jews promoted it. It's roots actually lie in envy. Around 8% of men are auto circumcised, that is the foreskin is permanently withdrawn naturally giving the appearance of being circumcised. Circumcision started originally with other men seeing this and being envious of the advantages. Religion adopted circumcision, but didn't invent it.

Now, on to coercion and rape. If coercion means the threat of harm or violence, then of course that's rape. If coercion means persuasion, nagging, or a woman agreeing to sex due to not wanting to deal with a guy in a bad mood, or being made to feel guilty because she's been given a nice night out, then that isn't rape. A woman who is in absolutely no danger, but who agrees to sex she doesn't really want because she can't be bothered to deal with the fallout of saying no has not been raped.

My husband jokes that his idea of foreplay is 20 minutes of begging! Sometimes that's true, but it isn't rape.

^^ I agree with what Brenslo has written about coercion and rape.

Well, if you want to campaign against widespread male circumcision, as it is now, a jolly good first point of call would be the major religions that still practise it. But the mra don't seem to do that. Probbly too scared to.

Rather than a feminist forum - in a very 'what about the menz' way - as a response to a point about FGM. It really is not comparable.

I didn't say that I wanted to campaign against either FGM or male circumcision. I was just pointing out that both of these practices are cruel and often unnecessary. But, alas, you are not allowed to disagree with a staunch feminist view without feminists screaming that you are 'too concerned about the Menzies ' or accusing you of being an MRA or an MRA sympathiser.

Why is it not OK to point out that there is cruel acts carried out on both sexes? Why should I only be concerned about damage done to females? What about the poor little boy that was killed in Manchester due to a ''backstreet' circumcision gone wrong. Being concerned about male circumcision doesn't negate my concern for FGM.

I don't support male circumcision - but it is not comparable to FGM. Because:

1. FGM takes place at puberty, generally without anaesthesia. It is unbelievably cruel and distressing, and she remembers it.

1. It will as a matter of course cause women lifelong pain & discomfort throughout life, as well as during sex and childbirth.

1. It is act of oppression to women, performed to deny women sexual pleasure, and to keep them faithful and 'pure.'

No circumcision is painless. The foreskin contains thousands of concentrated, specialized nerve endings. It is the most sensitive part of the penis. Any cutting on this part of the body is extremely painful, even with anesthetic (which will never provide 100% pain relief).

All circumcisions involve cutting, tearing and blood (even Plastibell methods). From birth, the foreskin is fused to the head of the penis (like a fingernail is fused to a finger). Before any circumcision begins, the foreskin must be ripped away from the glans.

Whilst the reasons behind FGM and male circumcision are very different, both can have horrific complications and can lead to lifelong painful sex, urinary tract infections and general pain.

Male circumcision is also sometimes carried out at an age where the person will remember, it isn't always done when the child is a baby.
I am by no means saying that FGM is not cruel or oppressive, it undeniably is both of those things, but I believe that male circumcision is both of those things too.

The reasons behind male circumcision and FGM being different is precisely what makes FGM a feminist issue.

There is never a medical reason to perform FGM. There are medical reasons, and even possible benefits to MC - and it's legal in the UK. Unlike FGM.

It is FGM that is the feminist issue.

FGS. How did this thread mutate into a discussion on the evils of male circumcision?

Oh that's right I forgot....

Norudeshitrequired. You'd be hard pressed to find a feminist who does agree with male circumcision, so you're barking up the wrong tree... but if you want to discuss it why don't you open up a new thread? Instead of hijacking this one?

Male circumcision is carried out with the intention of benefitting the boy involved.

FGM serves no purpose for the girl involved but is done purely for the supposed desires of any man she marries.

Neither is right but neither are they the same.

And I don't think anyone here has said they support male circumcision. But given that this is FWR, it's entirely reasonable that FGM is higher up on the agenda.

If you are so opposed to male circumcision, why not do the following:

1. Don't get your DS circumcised
2. Lobby the Muslim Council of Great Britain and ask them to stop automatically doing it
3. Lobby the Board of Deputies of British Jews and ask them to stop automatically doing it

No point lobbying feminists about it, we've got no power and most of us aren't in favour of it.

Now, back to violent men. What can be done about the disproportionate likelihood and impact of male violence?

I wasn't the first person to mention FGM, somebody else mentioned that first but failed to mention that it was often women who inflicted this on their daughters. So how relevant it is to a discussion about evil men I'm not even sure.

endmalecircumcision.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/male-circumcision-versus-female.html

An just because male circumcision is widely accepted and legal doesn't make it right.

Such a shame we can never get to the nuts & bolts of the disproportionate violence from men because one or two posters insist on reminding us of the truism that women can be violent/unpleasant too.

Yes. We know.

May I direct you to the thread started in your honour on this subject, norudeshit?

Right Here.

Somebody else starts discussing a specific thing within a thread and because I pick up on it and don't agree with all aspects of it I get accused of hijacking the thread
I thought responding was allowed on here or did I misunderstand what a discussion forum is supposed to be?
Or can I only discuss things where I agree with the person originally mentioning certain things?

If you think the discussion is derailing then don't enter that part of the debate; stick rigidly to the OP.

It's nice when someone starts a whole new thread on the subject you want to discuss though? T'was good of Kasey to do that.

"or did I misunderstand what a discussion forum is supposed to be"

Apparently so. The topic of the discussion is male violence against women. We won't get very far if people don't try to stay on topic.

On your previous point, FGM maybe carried out by the women - but it is at the behest of the men. The dominant men - you know, the ones in power. Just as foot-binding in China was. So the daughters can be married.