Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

Believing men is not "a feminist imperative"

76 replies

DonkeySkin · 06/12/2014 09:38

For those who were arguing in the Shia LaBeouf thread that feminists have an obligation to support men who claim to have been raped by women.

rootveg.wordpress.com/2014/12/05/believing-men-is-not-a-feminist-imperative/

The logic appears to go something like this: if our first reaction was to question and disbelieve a female victim of rape, it would be heinous and anti-feminist. If we do this to a man claiming ‘rape’ by a woman, it is therefore just as bad, and lends credence to people who do it to women. The premise of this position is that a man penetrating a woman is a two-way street; the balance of power, on both an individual and societal level, is not such that women are disadvantaged, and so we can make the same assumptions of males and females in the case of rape. The implication is that men and women have equal access to the rules of the ‘consent game‘, and so we can make identical assumptions in both cases.

OP posts:

Dervel · 07/12/2014 06:49

I don't think it is ever viable to start any argument with the notion that feminists should do anything. In this instance there is an attempt to "check mate" feminists into having to maintain parity of response, when I think it is essential that first and foremost the right to individuality (and thus the right to your own point of view) is essential. Feminists can and should be able to disagree, and this issue (rape or sexual assault of a man) is outside of the focus.

I also agree that the landscape around male/female sexual interaction is not an equal one, and in most cases women are the most compromised. I do not however support the view that in every context that imbalance favours the man. These situations are however not analogous with one another by definition, so treating alike wouldn't work. Society needs to address them differently, and it's certainly not feminisms responsibility to affect those changes.

Sexual crimes against women remain the bigger problem.

BuffytheFestiveFeminist · 07/12/2014 09:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

vesuvia · 07/12/2014 11:37

BuffytheFestiveFeminist wrote - "society needs to stop disbelieving women as the default position."

I agree.

There's also the common (default?) situation that women are supposed/assumed to be in a constant state of consent to sex with men, unless we say "no" explicitly. I think that expectation needs to change.

Men can be teased about always looking for sex but the power dynamic is different.

vesuvia · 07/12/2014 11:43

Quote from the blog in the OP : "The converse scenario where women oppress men as a group with the act of “forced envelopment” has literally never happened, and it never could."

I'm struck by the absence of envelopment in the US federal definition of rape given by SconeRhymesWithGone. So, it seems that, even in countries like USA where women are said to rape men, rape is still all about penetration.

vesuvia · 07/12/2014 12:27

Many feminists shout from the rooftops, "Patriarchy, please let feminists care for all victims!" and they criticise more female-focused feminists for not rushing to help everyone. Anti-feminists criticise feminism for allegedly turning women into powerless victims (as if patriarchy never victimises women and girls).

Feminists who believe that feminism is about the liberation of women and girls from patriarchy have an uphill struggle to expose and oppose these two trends.

uutiruc · 07/12/2014 16:11

"Feminists aren't obliged to believe male victims of rape/sexual assault"

Well guess what, men and non-feminist women have no obligation to believe feminists who claim to be victims of sexual assault either.

uutiruc · 07/12/2014 16:14

And just imagine if the genders were reversed in the OP's scenario (ie naked female model being assaulted by a male). Would that have made any difference? What if the male never used his penis but used an inanimate object instead to penetrate her? Would that still be rape?

AnyFucker · 07/12/2014 16:18

Yes, because the definition of rape is penetration by a penis or other object. It might be an idea if you did a bit of reading before attempting to challenge people with your made up scenarios.

uutiruc · 07/12/2014 16:23

"the definition of rape is penetration by a penis or other object. "

Exactly, but try telling that to feminists who refuse to accept the idea men can be victims or women can be perps.

uutiruc · 07/12/2014 16:25

"they criticise more female-focused feminists for not rushing to help everyone"

Well not only are they not "rushing to help". They're also shouting that men can't possibly be victims.

Why do feminists hate men so much? Serious question.

AnyFucker · 07/12/2014 16:27

Men cannot be victims of rape in the UK, they can be victims of sexual assault. Purely horrible experience of course, but the law is quite clear on that point.

Are you new to Mumsnet, uut, I see you have added your "wisdom" to a couple of sensitive threads today.

AnyFucker · 07/12/2014 16:29

Why do feminists hate men so much ?

I am sure you have your own "theories" about that and have no wish to have a "serious" discussion on the matter.

FloraFox · 07/12/2014 16:51

In England rape is penetration with a penis. Other objects are assault by penetration. Men can be victims of rape committed by other men.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 07/12/2014 17:21

Why do feminists hate men so much? Serious question.

We don't. Serious answer.

SconeRhymesWithGone · 07/12/2014 17:30

Yeah, we don't hate 'em. Many of us have actually married them or have them as partners, and, yes, raised boys to be men.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 07/12/2014 17:31

Exactly, but try telling that to feminists who refuse to accept the idea men can be victims or women can be perps.

Never met one who didn't believe that men could be victims of rape by other men. Or that women can sexually assault men. Can you name a single example of a well known feminist who has stated categorically that men can't be raped or that women never sexually assault men?

Serious question.

If you'd actually bothered to read the thread which you either haven't bothered to do before drooling on it, or you did read it and utterly failed to understand it you'd know that while 'feminism as a political movement' doesn't have any imperative to believe men, feminists on an individual level can and do believe men. However, that belief isn't bourne out of a political agenda, but from basic humanity.

MREs don't believe women out of a political agenda. Whether they personally believe individual women is open to debate. Given their writing on the subject, it would appear that basic humanity is beyond them on this question.

Non feminist women are ime just trying to the best they can in a system heavily loaded against them, while rather sadly throwing the very people who are fighting for theirs and their DDs rights under a bus in a bid to be accepted as 'one of the boys'.

And yes, I know that it's pointless engaging with you, because you're following that script, but hey, maybe one of the many people who read but don't comment just needed another way of looking at this.

vettles · 07/12/2014 17:49

I wonder if all the posters in favour of only using 'rape' for acts that meet the English and Welsh legal definition would be happy to tell a woman raped by her husband prior to 1991 that it wasn't rape.

AnyFucker · 07/12/2014 17:52

By law, it wasn't

What's your point ?

PuffinsAreFictitious · 07/12/2014 17:54

I suppose vettles would have a point if what we were saying is that when women sexually assault men that men just don't feel it as much, or don't deserve to have that crime tried and punished or any of the many other things feminists don't say about the sexual assault of men by women.

However, as we don't say that, there is no point.

AnyFucker · 07/12/2014 18:03

Ah, it's one of them there straw arguments then

That's what I thought

Feminists get a lot if that kinda shit directed at them, IMO and are expected to remain polite at all times

I wonder why that is

vettles · 07/12/2014 18:04

My point is that any time a discussion here uses the term 'rape' in a context that allows men as a group to use the word, then it is quickly pointed out that "under English and Welsh law..." etc and "women can't be rapists! [according to the technical definition of the crime in one jurisdiction]". But when woman are using the term, then there are no posts like that - it is just
used as it normally is, to mean non-consensual sex.

I think that it comes down to a "men vs women" view of the world, and that one can't allow 'the enemy' access to such a powerful tool. Rape is a powerful word, and I think it's unfair that victims of one gender can use that word but victims of another gender cannot.

AnyFucker · 07/12/2014 18:06

Feminists didn't write the law statutes. Stop taking it out on them. Take it up with the people who do.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 07/12/2014 18:19

You think it's unfair that men can't be raped by women under UK law?

I'd suggest, as was suggested to the previous person who brought this sad thing up, that you take it up with your MP. You see, they have power to change these things. Feminists tend to be a bit busy with trying to stop men raping people. Sorry.

vettles · 07/12/2014 18:58

My point isn't about the law statutes, which incidentally are unfair, or "taking it out on feminists". My point is that posters here only insist on following legal definitions when the victim(s) are male. There is never this pedantry about technicalities when discussing female victims.

My point about marital rape was 'do those posters understand the ramifications of their stance?', which is that they are telling women who were raped by their husbands before 1991 (and I bet there are a few on this site) that they were not raped.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 07/12/2014 19:04

We know that under the law, they were not raped, yes. And yes, this happened to me. My disgust is with the lawmakers who chose not to add this to the statute books until after 1991, not feminists such as myself who know that.

It isn't pedantry. There is a whole thread, where various people explain why. It was started by a troll, would you like a link?

Flip

1 2 3 4