First: this has been making the rounds, but if you haven't seen it, you should.
Second: I'm giving serious thought to leaving.
Here's why.
The Feministe comments were about a piece of extremely inappropriate, callous and cruel satire. These comments are about actual violations.
The more men are raped, the more men will be walking around having some small idea of what women go through every day. Whether or not they ever connect this revelation to the common sense ideas of radical feminism is pretty dicey, though.
I can only hope that being raped gives even the most insensitive man some small distaste for raping himself. Once raped, the fantasy is over. Once raped, a man can for the first time know that sex can happen without human dignity, and that losing that dignity is the opposite of arousal.
But a man never deserves pity for being raped. After all, it's not like he had sex. Unless he's a gay man, it was just a little lesson in what it's like to be treated like an object.
Men can be raped? Oh, you mean sodomized! Which is not quite the same thing as rape. Ask any woman that's been raped and sodomized. Or are we going to combine the two at women's expense just to be inclusive of men? So that men can claim they're victims instead of the victimizer?
Don't forget how often women rape men and we don't even hear about it.
That's because it happens so rarely, it's not even worth mentioning.
Vagina = anus. Absolutely loony.
Rape happens to women, sexual assault happens to men. If I had my way, the word rape wouldn't even apply to men because being penetrated by a penis in a non-sexual area of your body isn't the same thing.
I can understand gay men suffering from rape, but straight men can so easily disassociate themselves and their feelings from a sexual assault that the effect is much different. To pity a straight man for being raped is to assume that being feminized in a patriarchy is something to be pitied; as it also happens to be a normal state for the entire sex class, that's simply spreading around a little too much pity for my pity glands to produce.
A straight man who tries to understand the ideas of radical feminism can feel feminized by the patriarchy in other, more subtle ways, and it all blends together into a human disgust for the whole patriarchal kit and kaboodle.
If the most viciously patriarchal men become so pornsick and perverse that they start to turn on their own kind to satisfy their inextinguishable lusts then that just means they will be leaving a few more women alone. Men raping men will never arouse my pity. But rapists will always get my bitterest hate and scorn.
I still think even men who rape men should be fixed by removing their genitals. I think a rapist has something terribly wrong with his mind and body that can be fixed by the removal of the testosterone-producing glands and associated apparatus.
Oh, gimme a break. Since when are men quiet? Men piss, moan, whine and cry more than any woman I've ever seen. I'm really tired of men being portrayed as big, strong, he-men, that keep it all inside. What a bogus bunch of crap.
Men just don't run it by the brothers is all. Because the worse thing a man can admit is that he was treated like a woman. That opens up the possibility that other men might laugh at him. Which, to men, is worse than death. He doesn't seek "help" because he knows that "help" is another bunch of bogus crap. Women, however, are really, really impressed by it. So he manipulates women with it. She doesn't get how insulting he views it that he was treated like her. A lowly, contemptuous, woman.
P.S. The odds are almost nil that a man will be sodomized. With regards to males, it is young males who are most likely to be subjected to it. IOWs, boys. That's the power, privilege and fun of being a man. He doesn't have to worry about such things. Because it happens so rarely, that it's not even worth discussing.
I do want to emphasize that there were dissenters to these views, most notably bitter-girl.
The quote that brought this up? One from Ms. Parrish of the Rape, Abuse & Incest Network stating (according to a poster who wrote to her for clarification) that men are less likely than women to seek help after a rape or sexual assault than are women.
I've been there. Other men I've known have been there. And it's been true for all of us.
Not because of any fear of being seen as weak, or gay, or feminized, but precisely because of attitudes like these. That it isn't that bad. That we got lucky or had beer goggles on. That a guy can't get an erection unless he actually wants to have sex. (The female doctor I saw about this actually said that to me after I told her about my assault: that there had to have been some part of me that wanted to do it, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to.)
I've had to end intimate encounters because of flashbacks. I've had relationships break apart over having them in other circumstances and going into spasms and convulsions. And I've become essentially celibate for the last three years because of this. I don't even flirt now, much less try and date anyone.
We -- guys who have been raped (excuse me, non-sexually touched or penetrated in unfortunate but educational ways) -- have no reason to believe that the offender would get convicted. All that would result would be humiliation, support for the woman that victimized us, and an acquittal. We talk with each other, and maybe a therapist. But that's about it.
Pursuing charges? Bringing this up as a public issue?
There's no point.
Instead, this woman is being called "love-lorn," placed on $10K bail (which she is readily able to pay) and her attorney is saying that she should only be charged with battery, instead of first degree attempted murder, attempted kidnapping and other charges.
But it's a woman, and it's an emotional, love-based situation, so we should make exceptions, right? We should be more understanding, right? And take a more sympathetic view, yeah?
Fuck that. If a situation like this can't be viewed for what it is, there's no damn hope.
And... based on the near-complete lack of response to this issue, that lack of hope seems justified. Evidently people are more interested in saving sea turtles, removing shark fin soup from Amazon and paying for $20 chickens than they are in addressing obvious, massive gender-based double standards involving what seems to be a serious, premeditated plan for murdering someone that was sleeping with a woman's lover, while that woman was herself having an extramarital affair with him.
Seriously: anyone who really believes in the "radical notion that women are people" should be all over this. Talk about perpetuating gender stereotypes.... That notion includes the darker stuff as well as the light, you know. Or at least it should.
On a related note, this discussion of men's issues on TVOntario was a good view, especially when it came to Cathy Young's comments: parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
On an unrelated note, I completely support this initiative.
Maybe single is the right word; or maybe it's abstinent, or misanthropic, but just about relationships.
Basically, it comes down to this: I know that relationships involve compromise, but there are things that I'm not willing to compromise on -- my goals, my view of life, my plan for what I want to become, the place that love has in my life -- that have been targeted in previous relationships. I'm fed up with being told that I have to change the way that I am if I ever want to get a girlfriend or a wife, when those things are subjects, opinions and perspectives that I've spent years, if not decades, investigating, questioning and refining. I'm weary of being told that I need to shape my core personality to match someone else's perspective of what women look for in a guy.
I refuse to become a hollowed-out, sold-out, beaten-down version of myself in order to get some companionship.
Women can be selective about guys. I can also be selective about women. Beggars can't be choosers, sure, but I'm not begging.
This isn't an indictment of all women, of course, or even most. What it is, is a statement that I've rejected what the women in my life, so far, have insisted that I do in order to be with someone. I've tired of that scene and that perspective. Until I find someone who insists that I maintain my own humanity as well as respect theirs, I'm content to be on my own.
If I fault myself for anything in this regard, it's in staying in a social crowd that contains people mostly of this type. It's in not moving to another, bigger town; it's in not seeking out new venues. That is a substantial flaw -- and one to which I readily admit.
At least I've gotten past the point where it would pull my brain out through my eye sockets, hand me my ass through my ass and spit on my corpse while implying that my father was one of sundry farm animals. It's only taken a year and a half or so to do that, but I'm finally past level seven.
I never was that good at Defender.
It's the only shmup that I've had to start at anything other than level one to beat. Fuck, I can even do some major damage in Kenta Cho's games. But this one makes me want to disassemble my DNA pair by pair. Forget about tearing my hair out, this is worlds beyond.
I'm actually tempted to use cheat codes. For me, that's a bit like deciding to gnaw off my left testicle, give head to a meat grinder and play the bottom in a BDSM scene with Rosie O'Donnell while she was hopped up on PCP, then marry the reanimated corpse of Andrea Dworkin.
Yeah, it's probably my masochism.
(Wow. I think I may have boosted my average survival time on exodus nine to eight seconds. Whoopee.)
Why is it that the most derogatory, insulting, ad-hominem replies in threads regarding gender issues -- when an opinion or position is raised that is not in line with dominant theory -- are often from men? (Usually, male second-wave feminists*, and IME usually framed in terms of negative male stereotypes.)
Generally speaking, replies from women are usually of two types: either informed discussions (a good example of which was Otoki's response), often focusing on feminist theory, or canned responses (if men could have babies then the responses would be different, you're being immature, uninformed or "macho," etc., Calypso's post on page five being a good example). Replies from men are more likely to be vitriolic and personal, making assumptions about the individual's beliefs that were neither stated nor implied, and employing a particularly virulent subset of the canned response corpus (whiner, "regressive," Neanderthal, apologist for this and that, etc.).
I can see the reasons for some of the responses in some of these areas. With Intimate Partner Violence, for example, quoting stats that show a roughly equal incidence of initiatory, unprovoked incidents of IPV by women against men does challenge some of the founding assumptions of second-wave feminism. Those stats, for example, challenge the class struggle framework in which men, as a group, are held to employ violence against women, as a group, in order to dominate and control that group. A roughly equal incidence of initiatory, unprovoked violence weakens that position, requiring some convoluted logic, strongly based in orthodox feminist theory, to support it. (I.e., that this is the result of patriarchal influence and conditioning, and therefore should be considered a male phenomenon even though the initiators are women; or that the men cannot actually be considered to be battered partners, since battery, by definition, is an aspect of class struggle -- making the stats meaningless, as they do not reflect the class structure.)
The same would go for discussions of sexual assault and incest committed by women (not to mention the DNA studies by the FBI and the Innocence Project that suggest, at minimum, a 20% erroneous conviction rate for rape cases*, or the fact that there is no solid statistical evidence for the 2% false allegation figure), or discussions of possible fathers' interests in custody or pregnancy, or in-depth analyses of income and resources studies. These challenge class aspects related to control of resources and female reproductive function (both of which are again assumed, according to theory, to be subject to battles over control so that men as a group can dominate women as a group) or the use of sexual assault as a tool of dominance. These discussions would not necessarily challenge third-wave feminism -- much less gender egalitarianism or similar positions -- but they pose a significant threat to the cornerstones of second-wave theory.
But we could expect the responses there to come from both camps, I think, if not with a greater lean toward women, who would have a substantially greater investment in the maintenance of the theoretical position. Assuming, that is, that they subscribe to it.
So why the more severe responses from men?
I should add here, in regard to storm's comments in that thread, that his observations are not uncommon. They're by no means universal (as he himself admitted, not just outside of his experience, but within its confines) but they're not the rare anomaly, either. I noticed the same thing in boot -- including an episode where one of the female recruits invited some of the guys to sneak down into the Black Knights barracks after lights out for a gangbang. The DS found out about it, made a short verbal reprimand to the platoon (basically, "don't let it happen again"
and that was the end of it. It's not as rare as people seem to think.Storm certainly appears to be jaded as the result of his experiences. However, he has, in his comments, consistently voiced an openness to the idea that he could be wrong, that integration may very well work if done correctly, and that part of the problem was most likely the average age of the serving soldier. None of these points have been given any weight by the people responding to his posts. The other aspects have been inflated to the point of hyperbole, when they've been dealt with at all.
At worst, what could be said about storm is that he has allowed bad experiences to color his judgment. Considering Nick's responses to him (even taking into account the rhetorical spineless sheep question) I think that he has demonstrated a respectable amount of restraint in the thread, consistently.
It's notable that this exchange was the one post of his that was completely ignored:
dholokov said:
I want a military where people can work together with anyone fit to do the job, whether man, woman, black, white, straight, gay, etc. If a woman is lazy and doesn't pull her weight or doesn't meet the physical requirements for a task, by all means keep her from doing that task. If they can do the job but it makes others feel uncomfortable, then THEY are the ones who can't do their job and should be shipped out.
That's pretty much where I stand as well... had a conversation with a friend about this at Steak'n'Shake an hour ago. My only concern falls at the fact that very few women that I dealt with while I was active duty are willing to pull their own weight (but the ones that do are awesome)... and most of us who call them on their BS end up getting in trouble for it. I'd have no problems with women in combat units provided they have to live up to the same standard everyone else does, and they acknowledge the fact that they are at much greater risk than the male troops. Volunteer only, no getting posted to it by default... kinda like the special forces, no one gets assigned that unless they seek it out.
I agree, and take the same position -- including the "at much greater risk than the male troops" part. It's a sad fact of human nature that men are not the same in combat as they are in civilian life, or even in other aspects of military service. Well-behaved clergymen can become child rapists. Men who dedicate their lives to caring for their ailing mothers can brutally sodomize someone else's. Again, it's not as rare as people seem to think. (This played a role in the resistance to integration of homosexuals into the military as well -- something not generally noted.)
Inclusiveness is one thing, but inclusiveness in the name of policy, without acknowledging the elevated risks, is brutality with a smile.
In regard to a point raised by Otoki, I'm not sure that the equivalence between the racial arguments and storm's arguments really holds. As she noted, it's with the exception of the sex -- but here, I think that that is a factor. Integration of same-sex heterosexuals of different races doesn't carry the same dynamics; integration of heterosexuals and bisexuals or homosexuals doesn't carry it, either (although LGBs serving with LGBs of the same sex might). Given the psychological changes involved in a transition to military life the sexual aspect does need to be considered in terms of its effects on both parties, the ability to properly execute the chain of command, etc. (the second being the main reason why sleeping with someone under your command is a criminal offense under the UCMJ). There's also a difference between someone being called lazy because he or she is a member of a particular group -- a sexist, racist, etc. claim by definition -- and someone exploiting an integration doctrine in order to get away with things, knowing the stigma and destruction produced by simply making an accusation of bias or intolerance.
My point is that this subject would need extensive examination; the equivalence holds to a limited degree but does not take potentially vital elements into account.
*: Nick disavowed the feminist label in the thread and stated that he simply advocates for equality regardless of group. However, his position does suggest a focus on social structures, specifically existing organizational ones, as the primary impediment to this equality; the implication is that these structures are resistant to the inclusion and equal valuation of minorities, homosexuals, women, etc. The direct result of that implication is that the structures are primarily the edifices of white, heterosexual men.
Although this is not the fleshed-out form, it is the essential theoretical foundation of second-wave/radical feminism: class distinctions based on gender, with implications of negative heterosexual dominance. He simply extends this into other areas, in that way relieving himself of the woman-specific feminist label.
It should be noted that, historically, race and gender issues have been closely tied in the feminist movement: its origins were with the abolitionists. What distinguishes second-wave theory from other forms is its emphasis on static class struggle, and the ways in which gender and race are used to define these classes.
**: This is a good example of something that, if posted on the boards, would result in a storm of accusations and possibly a zot -- even if done with the explanation that erroneous convictions are not the same as false allegations, and in consideration of the fact that there is an argument to be made that exploring this issue could have beneficial results for women.
(Wendy McElroy's article "The New Mythology of Rape" is also worth reading in this regard. In spite of the title, which is certain to be viewed as inflammatory and, possibly, is intentionally so, she makes some good points regarding rape survival and prevention, and how some second-wave theorists have impacted these goals.)
Also:
In the thread about the guy getting a 10-year sentence for a blowjob, people have mentioned the fact that in the higher courts, three judges voted in favor of the plaintiff, while four voted against. The three were black, the four were white -- and the plaintiff was black, while the victim in the case was white. There was also a mention about a female teacher having sex with a male student, and the fact that she received a (horrendously, in my opinion) light sentence after conviction. She was white.
Yes, there's a likelihood that racial prejudices played a role in both cases. There are also other factors to consider, though. What were the religious faiths of the judges? Were they dominantly conservative or liberal? What are their positions on teen pregnancy rates, marriage generally and pre-marital sex specifically? What about their positions on obscenity and sodomy laws? And stare decisis?
How about the fact that adult female-minor male sexual assault cases are viewed differently than adult male-minor female ones, at least by the public? (Take Bill Maher's position on those cases: that the kid got lucky, and if the teacher was hot he should be bragging instead of complaining -- that people would only prosecute those things if they were mad because they didn't get laid. 'Cause every high-school kid wants to fuck the hot teacher, you know.) Or the fact that women generally get lighter sentences than men for equivalent crimes?
There are scores of factors that could come into play. Race may indeed be one. But it is only one among many.
We also know that reasoning must start with correct premise, this premise is called universally accepted truth and the theorem is deduced from it. But where does the universally accepted truth come from? Universally accepted truth cannot be gained by the means of reasoning, it has emerged in the practical activities that people do again and again. It is what everybody universally accepts as one kind of perception of objective reality. So the origin of genuine knowledge is in peoples daily practical activities and in the direct perception of the objective reality. So yiquan emphasizes that "one should not leave one's body", it means that one's body is the subject of research, its movement process is one kind of objective reality. That means you must by yourself go forward to directly feel this objective reality, and thereby gain genuine knowledge. This genuine knowledge is one kind of real existence in itself, it is also subjective cognition of objective, and thereby reality and concept are united. It also tells us: to push is exactly to push, to pull is exactly to pull, unite the concept and the action in your own body.
Much the same as what I've gathered from basic practice of the Alexander Technique and reading F. M.'s primary works.
Once you have made the World an end, and faith a means, you have almost won your man, and it makes very little difference what kind of worldly end he is pursuing. Provided that meetings, pamphlets, policies, movements, causes, and crusades, matter more to him than prayers and sacraments and charity, he is ours -- and the more 'religious' (on those terms) the more securely ours.
-- C. S. Lewis, writing in the character of Screwtape.
How wonderful it is to see people gleefully hacking away at the very structures of law that are there to protect them. The only thing more enjoyable is to see a dog ripping out its own intestines, or a young child beaten to death with a spiked baseball bat.
Ol' Splitfoot must be laughing himself into a coma.
[drop]
