Believing men is not "a feminist imperative"

[DonkeySkin]

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.

at started by a troll

Yep, that's the Go To for a discussion on "marital rape", indeedy

I would feel embarassed if I were you, vettles

It's not just because of the legal definition. IMO the legal definition is correct because only penetration by a penis should be considered rape. Rape is a specific crime carried out by men that is both derived from and contributes to male domination of women. If the law changes in the UK, I would think that is wrong. I would not tell a woman raped by her husband before 1991 that she was not raped because she was raped but the law erroneously did not consider that to be a crime. I will never accept that a woman can rape a man.

Even with that being the case I suspect significantly more women were raped in marriage than the men you refer to now.

Thank you Buffy!

You put what I wanted to say into far more reasonable and sensible phrasing.

I agree with Flora. I think the act of rape is inherently about penetration by a penis and an act of male domination, entitlement and contempt for women and their personal sovereignty over their bodies.

I do recognise that a woman can carry out a serious sexual assault on a man which depending on individual circumstances may be more, less or equally devastating to the man concerned than a different individual rape of a woman by a man. I also agree a man can be raped by another man and that is also an act of male dominance. It's not a perfect comparison as it's not the same societal power dynamic, but that is in my opinion much more analogous to a man raping a woman than a woman sexually assaulting a man.

I would believe anyone who said the had happened to them regardless of their sex. I lose nothing by being compassionate and emphasising with them. It however can potentially devastating to not be believed.

I am not sure what I would call it I just know that Shia was in the right to call it rape because where this happened it would be considered as rape according to their laws.

Whether you call what happened to Shia LaBeouf rape or sexual assault doesn't change the fact that it was a serious violation and a crime.

I agree.

All victims of sexual assault of any kind are typically treated sensitively on MN.

Where the discussion is more general, as in this thread, yes, legal definitions are cited.

For example, one of the high profile celeb assault cases could not be described as rape because oral rape was not an offence at the time of the crime. I think it was referred to accordingly in most threads.

Had the victim been posting, she could have called it whatever she wanted and would have been supported in that; indeed, many posters who have been raped prefer to talk about the attack or the incident or whatever as part of their own coping strategy.

I won't be posting in response to you again, but thought it was worth one shot.

Rape is a specific crime carried out by men that is both derived from and contributes to male domination of women.

Agreed, Flora. And if feminists lose sight of this in the name of pushing some 'equality' meme we lose all hope of being able to correctly analyse and discuss this crime and its impact. We also leave women open to reversals, such as the one frequently deployed by abusive men, who often claim they are victims of domestic violence at the hands of their (beaten and terrorised) female partners, because she once tried to defend herself during a beating.

I understand what others are saying about their first response to anyone who claims sexual assault being one of compassion. And it's worth noting that when feminists insist on limiting the definition of rape to unwanted penile penetration, they aren't trying to minimise the harm of sexual assault, which can be just as traumatic as rape. But saying women can rape men is a basic denial of the material and social reality which underpins this act.

If women could rape men, if they could penetrate them against their will and forcibly impregnate them en masse, the world would look very different to the way it does today. Perhaps in some societies women would have even realised the potential their penetration of men had to harm them, then eroticised the harm, used it to control them through fear, forced men to bear their offspring, engineered social institutions that meant men had to submit to penetration by women (and the bearing and raising of resulting offspring) in order to survive, made it impossible for men to avoid submitting to penetration even though the bearing of those offspring frequently disabled or killed men, and created overarching social, spiritual and erotic systems of meaning that linked their penetration of men to men's inferiority... If all this existed, then it would make some sense to talk about women's rape of men.

We do no good at all by denying the basic material reality which underpins rape, which is the very thing that gives it both its ideological force and its actual force as a tool of harm and control, by pretending we can view it through a gender-neutral paradigm. Therefore, while it's natural to feel compassion when dealing with men's claims of abuse by women, the fact remains that they are not vulnerable to violence and sexual harm from women in the same way that women are from them, and we can't just treat their claims as if they were. I'm not saying we should lecture every man about sexual politics or legal definitions whenever he alleges sexual assault by a woman - if you believe him, then you believe him, and your actions would flow from that. The weirdness of the Shia LeBeouf situation is that clearly many feminists didn't really believe his rather strange story, and were twisting themselves into knots to make a show of believing it, or at least not doubting it, because they felt they ought to pretend he was interchangeable with a female rape victim and apply the same analysis to his claims.

I saw this article about this issue and the light-bulb pinged on for me.

She points out that "I believe him" is simply the status quo ("Believing him” simply means granting the default authority to male words."), men are always believed over women anyway, there is nothing new or different or amazing about believing a man. Whereas women are not believed particularly when they are saying something negative about men.

There's a world of difference between I believe him and I believe her, because there's a world of difference in the worth we assign to a man's word and the worth we assign to a woman's word.

Thank you Sarah Ditum. So spot on.

That's such a good point. I didn't used to agree with Sarah Ditum much but I'm finding her writing very good for the past while.

I've only recently stumbled across her. I've liked everything I've come across. But that thing about how women's voices and men's voices are valued is just so spot on and cuts through the crap of "you're such hpocrites, you believe her but not him". It's so obvious and yet so hidden.

Ooh, ooh, found another v. good article on this:

feministcurrent.com/10107/why-are-we-supposed-to-believe-shia-labeouf/

'the dilution of feminism into a one-stop shop for everyone who suffers under patriarchy, including some men. I think this is a problem because, in my opinion, feminism is not the appropriate framework for consideration of issues not about women and girls.'

But doesn't that just corroborate the people that say feminism only benefits women and isn't about equality. Which I think is at least partially true. That is why I'm not a feminist, I'm an equalist. I believe people have the right to equal and fair treatment regardless of race, gender, sexuallity or any other characteristic. I believe state oppression in this country is largely economic (working class men and women face higher chances of death, illness, bankruptcy, criminal conviction, imprisonment, poor education, poor employment, substance abuse, sexual violence etc than any other part of society). To focus solely on women and women's issues is abandoning anyone else disadvantaged and oppressed in this country. I find it particularly ironic that arguably the largest supporters of feminism have been middle class women who are largely isolated from the issues they protest while suicide is the biggest cause of death in young men. But of course feminism is only for women so who cares?

rale, I suspect that you either haven't read the thread, or you just haven't understood it.

And equalism.... do you have a definition? As you don't seem to understand what feminism is.

rale do you know what,working class women have it worse than working class men. Less education,less job opportunities,more likely to suffer with mental health issues,more likely to suffer domestic abuse,more likely to live in poverty. If the plight of men bothers you so much go campaign for them because right now the war on women is taking up our thinking space.

It's a funny old world. No one bothers that black people don't concern themselves with the rights of white people. No one bothers that homosexuals don't concern themselves with the rights of straight people. No one bothers that people with disabilities don't concern themselves with the rights of non-disabled people, but somehow feminists apparently have to concern themselves with the rights of men in addition to everything they do for women.

Bit of a lightbulb moment: I have only just twigged that women are supposed to be the shit-shovellers of the world and be responsible for everyone and everything. I suppose it's similar to the way that mothers are responsible for anything wrong that their children do. Guilty of neglecting children if we work, guilty of being lazy and overprotective of children if we do't work - just guilty I guess.

Well, Happy Christmas everyone, even the trolls that like come out when schools break up and the pubs close.

rale may not be a troll, she may simply be a young 'un, give her a chance. Hello, I'm learning on this thread too, and I haven't got the excuse of youth.

To put what grimble said in even simpler analogous terms: why do you think that us supporting one charity means that we are abandoning all others? And that therefore we're incredibly guilty and need to abandon this one to support the others? They're all good causes yes, but we only have so much time, energy and money: and we are choosing to apply it here. This one is equally valuable.

Wasn't being specific re sale actually - there have been more than the usual trolly types over several threads. There are certain times they come out of hiding.

"middle class women ... are largely isolated from the issues they protest"

Really? You think middle class women don't get raped, don't get abused by their partners, don't get paid less than middle class men for the same work, don't do more domestic work than the men they live with, don't get sexually harassed in the street, don't get reminded that their function on Earth is either to serve men or give them boners as they go about their daily lives? They live in a nice cocoon where sexism doesn't exist and misogyny is only on the telly?

I'm working class, but I recognise that having more money and nicer houses in more expensive areas than me, doesn't protect my posher sisters from systematic sexism. Just as being the wife of the President of the United States of America, has not shielded Michelle Obama from either racism or sexism. You can be one of the most powerful people on the planet and still be a target for institutional hatred.

“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?“

Hilarious that you type that, and then some others immediately post exactly that.