Fun with Feminist Flickr (activism edition)
Check out this poster from a university campus in Ontario, Canada. If you notice the small tear in the poster, it's because someone thought that the whole "don't rape women" message was super offensive. In fact, several other posters put up decrying violence against women were vandalized. Sigh.
Thanks to Toban for the link and the pics.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Fun with Feminist Flickr (activism edition).
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11784
I love it. It tells people that it's not women who need to prevent rape, but everybody, without overly blaming the as so far complacent men.
The message isn't "don't rape women", Jessica. It's "men are responsible when other men commit rape", and I do find that offensive. I try to do right by everyone I meet, and yet this poster lumps me in with the "Good Germans". A lot of criminals are black - do we blame law-abiding black people for "letting" their fellows commit crimes?
No. It's simply saying that men shouldn't be complacent towards rape and the culture that ignores, allows and even encourages it. It's not saying all men are rapists or that all men are complacent about rape, just that men shouldn't be.
Tho the whole "real men" thing gnaws at me a bit. I always have mixed feelings about messages that appeal to men's "manliness" to get them to do something good.
I agree attentat. The message is equivalent to "friends don't let friends drive drunk". Obviously it's not your fault if your friend drives drunk, but if you're a real friend, you'll try to prevent it. And men should participate in ending rape.
exactly.
Well, you've got a good point, although I didn't read the poster that way. Sure, if you see a guy taking a drunk woman into a bedroom, you should stop him just like you'd take away someone's keys. I just don't see why men need to be singled out for this duty, since it seems like the kind of thing that any decent human being should do.
A man would be much more likely to succeed in the scenario you envision, azinyk. A would-be rapist might back down if he's confronted with a group of angry women, but he's a lot more likely to back down if there's at least one man confronting him.
I am assuming they mean something broader- men should contribute to a culture of non-violence and anti-rape. Just like in the drinking scenario, you can contribute to a culture of responsibility- not joking about the time you drove drunk, not serving friends that are designated, etc. Be a part of the solution in every respect.
If men let their friends know that this kind of behavior was unacceptable and uncool, it might reduce the actual instances of rape.
What planet do you live on where men are "singled out" for rape prevention? On this planet, the entire onus is on the rapee to prevent her own rape. First, I hardly think that asking men to take their due role in rape prevention is "singling them out." Second, why the hell shouldn't men be singled out for rape prevention? They constitute 99% of the perps! Hell yes, rape is a men's problem!
There are a lot of men that perpetuate rape culture - they need their male peers to step up and tell them this is wrong, because they won't listen to women who say the same thing.
For instance, if a guy & his friend are in a bar, and the 1st says how he wants to try and get this hot girl drunk so he can more easily have sex with her, isn't it the responsibility of the 2nd guy to tell his friend that what he's contemplating is rape?
what i find irritating is the implication that women need men to save them from rape, feeding into the male as hero BS.
its better than 'blame the victim'
Blame the innocent isn't better than blame the victim.
This sign doesn't blame innocent men. It's a call to action for men who are likely to be in the presence of rape at some point in their college careers, which makes it incredibly relevant.
I agree with what evann said above. It's the same idea as, "friends don't let friends drive drunk."
"friends don't let frineds drive drunk"
Good point. But let me put it this way.
I am a man. (pleeeaaaase don't take this statement as an effort to assert privelage :)
I am therefore the target audience of that poster.
I found it accusatory and offensive.
If the poster needs this level of outside explanation to be understood and appreciated by its target audience then small wonder it's got a rip in it.
If you found it accusatory and offensive, it sounds like it hit a little close to home.
It's saying that there's nothing "manly" or "masculine" about rape or the male-culture that promotes it, and that men, if we are to be called such, have a duty to stand up for what's right by pointing out that the "masculine" culture that supports rape is itself weak, an expression of impotence and rage toward women and not at all the strength we claim to idealize.
"what i find irritating is the implication that women need men to save them from rape, feeding into the male as hero BS."
You'd really rather women not be helped then, gasp, be helped by men? What you seem to be implying is that only women can solve this issue, because if men helped, they'd be saving women while "feeding into the male as hero BS."
I think it's a bit sexist to say that men can never help women just because it implies that the men are the heroes.
I'm just curious, what do you think would be more appropriate? Do you think gender should be left out of this issue? That seems unrealistic considering the vast majority of rape is male rapist/female victim.
Why the rhetoric of "REAL Men," though? Why not "Decent Men," or "Responsible Men"? The message ought to be that men should act like responsible human beings, not that they should become "Real Men" -- because all the virtues that are IMO worthwhile in a socially responsible man are also virtues that are worthwhile in all human beings. The rhetoric of "Real Men" -- e.g., here's what a "REAL Man" does, here's how to be a "REAL Man" -- seems more suited to the gender-essentializing of a Budweiser commercial or a truck ad. The message of the poster is great: urging men to be active rather than passively complicit when their peers are behaving criminally. But taking responsibility in this way doesn't validate one's gender identity (being a "REAL Man"); it validates one's status as a decent male member of society.
" The rhetoric of "Real Men" ... eems more suited to the gender-essentializing of a Budweiser commercial or a truck ad. "
i think that's kind of the point. it's showing that beer, trucks, and a macho attitude don't make you a man, but that speaking out against things like rape make you a respected man.
although i get where you're coming from, the "real men this" and "real women this" thing is pretty annoying all around (i HATE when people say 'real women have curves', for example). and while it may be a poor choice of wording, i think more focus should go toward the message, which is men SHOULDN'T be afraid to speak out against rape. they SHOULDN'T feel that it makes them less manly to be sensitive to the issue of rape and make efforts to stop it.
anyway, that's just my opinion i hope that made sense (:
It has to do with subverting the dominant values of the culture to proper ends. Sure, the insistence that to be a "real man" you have to be strong, resilient, steady and decisive is as chafing a gender role as any, and in many cases leads to wrong action, but on the other hand it is correctly pointing out that rape and much of the male culture that promotes it (overindulgence, violence, etc.) are actually expressions of weakness and impotence that lead to unfocused rage.
I think the term 'real men' could possibly be worded differently and more optimally, but I like the way that it successfully inverts the image of what (far too) many hold to be of a 'real man' - i.e. someone who is macho, detached, unemotional, aggressive' etc. and shows, or attempts to show, that (perhaps) a real man is someone who is 'man enough' to speak out against sexual or other forms of violence against women; which, of course, demands far more courage than resorting to hypermasculine behavior. Additionally, for better or worse, it downplays the notion that being a 'real man' is completely culturally constructed.
that's pretty much what i was trying to say but with more coherent wording, lol.
For more on this semantic conflict and general topic of men against violence, see also "The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women and and How All Men Can Help" by Jackson Katz. The book spends much time on these conflicting ideas of "how men should behave" and the social pressures that a guy faces when he tries to stand up against violence/sexism/abuse (largely over peoples differing opinions of what it is to "be a real man").
The word "Real" should never preface the words "man", "woman", "men" or "women". It reinforces restrictive social constructs and gender roles no matter how unconventionally the term is used.
As noble the intention may seem, this sign has lost all credibility for me.
The "real" took me away from liking this sign as much as well. Even a "good people don't let.." or "real strong people don't let..." would have been better. It's not just men who "let" men rape. Have you seen that show on ABC where they will have 2 actors go to a public place like a restaurant and play out a scenario, like for example the man super obviously will put a pill in his dates drink when she is in the bathroom, and when the woman gets back the cameras will keep rolling to see who actually says something to her about it? In most cases NO ONE will tell the woman or call the authorities, even if the actress starts to act drowsy etc.
i saw that episode of what would you do, and i was appalled that only one person told her what was going on.
there were two guys that saw the whole thing, said nothing, and then the guy left with the 'drugged' girl, they turned to someone else and said 'lol he cheated'. that disgusted me beyond words.
The "real" took me away from liking this sign as much as well. Even a "good people don't let.." or "real strong people don't let..." would have been better. It's not just men who "let" men rape. Have you seen that show on ABC where they will have 2 actors go to a public place like a restaurant and play out a scenario, like for example the man super obviously will put a pill in his dates drink when she is in the bathroom, and when the woman gets back the cameras will keep rolling to see who actually says something to her about it? In most cases NO ONE will tell the woman or call the authorities, even if the actor starts to act drowsy etc.
sorry for the double post...but in one i caught myself and changed actress to actor! :)
First up, any time you hear someone telling someone else to be a real man, it always involves doing something dangerous, and this example is no exception - genuine rapists are likely to be dangerous, so why is it men's job to put themselves between a rapist and a woman? It isn't - phone the police.
Secondly, we do not live in a culture where rapists typically brag about their intention to rape, and, as rape usually takes place in private, other men can not be held responsible. If a man confides he has raped someone, then that's a different matter - phone the police.
Thirdly, if a woman is so drunk that she cannot consent, and a man wants to take her home, that is not grounds to take action against the man, to prevent a rape, as he is a free being, presumed innocent, and is entitled to escort a drunk woman wherever he likes (if she is okay with it), including to bed, where people have been known to sleep/sober up and so on - I was myself in this situation - I met a very drunk girl at a works party, she invited me back to her place in a cab 'to sleep', I agreed, but two jealous/protective/chivalrous male colleagues of hers conveniently presumed the worst, and physically held me back from getting into the cab (one of them punching me while I struggled and remonstrated) - I was presumed a would-be rapist, then assaulted (on my day off). The correct action, if they suspected this very drunk woman was in real danger would be to... call the police.
Fourthly, I am still waiting for the awareness campaign which reads 'Real women don't let other women make false allegations of rape' - currently, some women pretend false rapes amount to 2% of claims, when police estimates show 50% for the USA, 60% for the UK, and 90% for Ireland.
Fifthly, I remain hopeful feminism will grow up.
Where are you getting your numbers from, "real person"?
As for the rest of your comment, I think Cory addresses it excellently below.
I got the numbers regarding police estimates of false rape claim prevalence from The Woman Racket by Steve Moxon (2008). It's a shallow sounding title, but the book him took ten years to write and contains his own PHd research on Male-only dominance hierarchies.
Those who wish to remain victim-feminists should not read this book.
Fuck you and fuck the police.
Those stats smell a lot like bullshit.
Why don't you actually contact your local police department to get the stats on false rape claims? Just because someone wrote a book means it's true? You can make up stats to prove anything. 80% of all people know that!
Real person, "genuine rapists," as you call them, are not any more "likely to be dangerous" than anyone else, and men indeed do brag about their intention to rape, though it is framed in a way that our society is so immune to that they don't notice: "Women always play hard to get, but I can tell when they want it," "Any woman who goes out like that want to be fucked," etc.
But preventing rape is about one hell of a lot more than patronizingly insisting that intoxicated women need to be taken care of. The brochure produced by Men Stopping Rape points out:
'Statistics show that 75% to 90% of rapes are committed by male acquaintances: family members, co-workers, classmates, dates, boyfriends. and husbands. A women is told that she needs a good man to protect her from the bad men. Accepting this message sets a woman up to be victimized by acquaintance rape. Assuming her date is a "good" man is what makes acquaintance rape so devastating. When a woman feels forced to depend on men for safety, her relationships are not freely chosen. Seeking a protector can lead her to accept a man lacking other important qualities, and she might still be raped - by her "protector."'
Anyone interested in the role men have in preventing rape (and they should absolutely have one) should check out Men Stopping Rape and their pamphlet, "Men Unlearning Rape".
You need to fix your links, Cory.
Cory, a genuine rapist, by definition, IS more likely to be dangerous than the average person, because the average person is not a rapist, and rape is dangerous (victim-fems claim it's a fate second only to death), so with a potential acquaintance rape, it cannot be other men's job to police men before a crime has been committed - as we would have to ban all male female privacy - and the resulting sex segregation would lead to the 'necessity' for more stranger rape ('necessity' from a selfish gene perspective)- and by the way, rape hysteria is used by women to justify more sex segregation - as with this post by Jessica - and none of us would want to increase the likelihood of more stranger rape, right sisters?
I have never met any man who has said anything remotely like "Women always play hard to get, but I can tell when they want it [raped?]," or "Any woman who goes out like that want to be fucked" ( - do you mean fucked or raped, Cory? Fucking is not illegal, wanting it, and getting it are not illegal). The only times I have ever heard this type of stereotypical talk - the only times - are from stereotypically victim-feminists setting up straw men characterizations about how men's alleged attitude to rape needs to change. And so an apologetically pro victim-feminist men's group agrees with you, and you think this wins the argument? Grow up!
You didn't address the perpetuation of rape hysteria/sex segregation/stranger-rape from exaggerating the prevalence of rape by under exaggerating the prevalence of false allegation of rape either, Cory (nor anyone else).
Also, I did not say drunk women need to be taken care of, or protected - It is the new victim-feminist UK law that patronizes women by insisting they are legally not responsible when drunk so cannot understand the meaning of their consent - whatever!
Strictly speaking, victim-feminists are children anyway, so should report all sexual encounters, wanted or otherwise, but don't expect men in general to save you... call the police!
Oh, and then there's the UK government conceit about 'sex-trafficked' women 'coerced' into prostitution, '80% against their will', (0% actually), so the government claims men who use prostitutes are rapists). Again, this victim-feminist interpretation chooses to pretend all foreign women are too stupid to know when they are being trafficked for a tour of whore duty - and so it's rape.
Perpetuating rape hysteria by exaggerating rape probability increases rape probability- and victim-feminists rape rape statistics for breakfast, lunch and dinner - without rape hysteria, victim-feminism would starve.
Women can stop victim-feminism.
And anyone (no matter what's between their legs) with a baseball bat can shut your apologist mouth the fuck up.
Who am I apologizing for? Rapists? No - rape is bad, and so, I explain, can be reduced, by eradicating sex segregation and normalizing conditions for free association - but rape hysteria decreases free association, increases sex segregation, and ultimately, increases the biological evolutionary necessity for rape (because contrary to feminist myth, rape is not about 'power', it is about procreation).
Rape is women's number one fear, yet it most likely will never happen (one in twenty women), and if it does, it will in all probability, be non-life threatening (85% is acquaintance rape, and even most presumed 'violent' stranger rape is actually non-violent (Moxon, S. 2008) - as according to convicted serial stranger rapists, violence is typically not required. There are worse things in life than being attacked by a penis - don't be suckered into the victim-feminist frame of '1 in 4 women a rape survivor' - You've been brought up on straight propaganda - to the point where you're threatening me with a baseball bat - like men need more violence in their lives.
Will somebody address the issues?
.
"and even most presumed 'violent' stranger rape is actually non-violent "
Rape IS a VIOLENT CRIME there is no such thing as a none-violent rape. Your comments make you seem like you are trying to convince yourself that it's okay to rape.
I'm sorry...how can forcibly inserting your penis in someone ever NOT be violent?
Just, wow.
Wait...are you saying that no woman is ever or has even been forced into prostitution? So all of those teenage girls in the game picked it for themselves? Women & girls who barely speak English, kidnapped & brought into America? Or those told that they will be models & movie stars in America & then made to do the sleaziest porn movies? This is ALL made up? Or did they just all pick this for themselves?
The more you talk, the more certain I am that you've probably committed some kind of sexual assault, but are convinced that you did nothing wrong. Maybe that's why you're so hung up on convincing feminists that rape isn't that big of a deal.
I know you're a troll, but you seem to honestly believe what you are saying. It's kinda sad that you are able to string sentences together and remember all these 'facts' but are unable to understand the point of this poster:
Almost all women go to a LOT of effort to prevent their own rape. They alter huge aspects of their behavior in ways men are not expected to to prevent their own rape. This is something they do day in and day out through their entire lives.
Many women go to a LOT of effort to prevent other women from being raped - looking out for friends and strangers being targeted, traveling in groups when out at night, campaigning against rape, campaigning for more effective rape laws and for better court systems etc etc.
There is not a noted absence of women trying to prevent rape. Hence "Real women don't let men rape" is not
There are not many men involved in campaigning against rape. There is a noted absence of men from anti-rape activist groups. There is a noted absence of men speaking out against rapists. When a woman is blind drunk/drugged there is not a noted presence of men looking out for her to prevent a rapist attacking her.
There are a lot of men who are opposed to improved rape laws. There are a lot of men who are opposed to anti-rape initiatives. There are a lot of men who condone or turn a blind eye to the actions of their friends when they really should know better.
This is why a "Real Men don't Let Men Rape" has relevance.
You don't have to go breaking down a rapists door to do this, just be a decent person and look out for others.
"There are a lot of men who are opposed to improved rape laws. There are a lot of men who are opposed to anti-rape initiatives."
This is mainly because those laws and initiatives are seen as making it easier to convict and demonise men based on no more than one woman's word.
I'll leave it up to you to decide why this would be seen as a bad thing.....
Jared, I understand why this is seen as a bad thing. However current conviction rates for rape are EXTREMELY low compared to all other crime. Obviously, there is a problem here and I'm sure you can agree with that? Our law errs on the side of caution. We don't want to throw someone in jail who was innocent. This is good. But in the case of rape, the issue is consent, which is usually verbal and usually only known by the two people involved. Obviously, the defendent is going to claim he didn't rape the woman, that the sex was consensual. I don't know what the solution is, but let's acknowledge that the current system is not adequately addressing rape. I'm sure you understand why many here are upset by this?
I personally think that the most important thing we can do is change attitudes, because studies have shown that changing the laws haven't helped much with that. According to "Rape: The Misunderstood Crime" - "the most significant changes in rape laws dealt with evidentiary issues, specifically what types of evidence a jury will not hear" - this is important because it includes rape shield laws which block the prosecutor from going on at length about the victims past sexual conduct, as they used to, as well as the allowance of expert witnesses on rape trauma syndrome. Would you agree these are fair?
However, the problem is that "it is easier to change laws than to change attitudes. Largen (1988) found no consensus in her study that private attitudes among those in the criminal justice system had greatly changed. Though there was some agreement that the conviction rate for those defendents accused of raping a stranger had increased, conviction rates for acquaintance rape were not seen as any different. As Largen notes, juries were described by her respondents as 'having their own standards' for judging a case, most of which involved following the myths and stereotypes that had formed the earlier laws" (217).
"I'm sure you understand why many here are upset by this?" Completly :)
"Would you agree these are fair?" Happily :)
But.....
You say it is unfair to bring up a victims's past sexula conduct. As stated I agree. But is it any faier to bring up an alleged perpetrators? Laws are getting passed that say it is. Crimes that you are found inncoent of can be brought up as evidence agianst you. This is not the case for any other crime. Not even murder. My favourite new law (Australian) is one wherin a woman's intoxication level must be considered in assessing if she actually cosented. While the man's intoxication level is considered irrelevant in deciding whether he is capable of judging her consent invalid. Put simply, if two drunk people have drunken sex then the woman has been raped. What happened to the man's consent? If he's as drunk as her hasn't he been taken advantage of?
Laws like these mean that if an indipendednt woman regrets a desisision she's made then she's been raped. Such laws led one (female) Australian politician to make the tongue in cheek suggestion that men carry a consent contract around with their condoms to protect themselves in such insidences. As in the absence of one they would be found guilty of rape.
Conviction rates on rapes are low in part beacuse of the sheer number of them which are false. However I agree with you that many guilty are getting away with it. Do you agree with me that many innocent men are being jailed?
Put short I agree with you that cultural change is more important than law change. But possiblly for a couple of additional reasons. :)
God forbid a man ever have to inconvenience himself in getting laid to err on the side of caution...
Seriously - are you THAT terrified of women making false accusations of rape against you? And this new law - it's a bit stupid - any defense lawyer could argue that there is no proof that the woman didn't consume the alcohol until after the act, if this has you quaking in your boots fearing going to jail falsely accused of rape then I pity you.
"Conviction rates on rapes are low in part beacuse of the sheer number of them which are false."
Source please.
"Do you agree with me that many innocent men are being jailed?"
For rape?? Seriously... with an abysmal reporting rate and an appalling conviction rate it's pretty clear that the only men convicted of rape have pretty fucking strong evidence against them. Those poor 'innocent' guys in jail for rape are not there because it was simply their word against their victims and the evil man hating jury took her side.
Actually, conviction rates are low because rape is extremely hard to prove. Even if semen can be matched, that only proves that sex had taken place, which could have been consensual. Tears & bruising are sometimes washed away as "well, she must like it rough!". Unless there is CLEAR evidence that a woman was forced into an unwanted situation - witnesses, someone who intervened, someone who heard screaming, or clears signs of struggling/attack, breaking & entering, etc - it often comes down to he said/she said. MOST rape is not done by some stranger grabbing you from a dark alley. Most rape is done by acquaintances, friends, colleagues, dates - in this way, it's easy to suggest that the sex was wanted and then regretted. Also, a lot of women do not report rapes, and of the one who do, many refuse to testify against their attackers.
And by the way, there are other crimes that are falsely reported as well. Harassment, assault, kidnapping, robbery, arson - yet this is the ONLY crime that some men feel is a total lie and claim to be "victimized" for. But you seem to say that if we're not 100% sure on the matter, we should just assume the woman is lying. There isn't some secret epidemic of false rape reports. And the rare times when it is falsely reported, the women usually recant their stories before the issue goes to trial. But you think it's best that we take the rarest circumstance and apply it to all cases. We should assume that all rape victims are crazy and/or liars and all accused rapists are victims of lies & circumstance. Right?
Why not? You can convict someone for murder based on no one's word other than some circumstantial evidence brought in to court, if it convinces 12 people that the defendant committed the crime. What would you require more than just the victim/accuser's statement? DNA? Not always available, and a prima facie requirement would preclude legitimate convictions while still not being a failsafe against a false accusation. Two witnesses, like a trial for treason?
Uncorroborated witness statements have been held to be factually sufficient before. And most laws in this area simply reform sexist older laws, like "utmost resistance" type laws (where the law required women to fight with nearly lethal force or else it wasn't rape because she consented by conduct).
Your greatest failsafe against a wrongful conviction is still, and always will be, a jury of your peers, not any procedural or substantive law.
Oh, I know I shouldn't feed the troll... but they look so funny when they're eating!
Your thoughts on evolutionary biology indicate that you have very little respect for men. Rape is not a biological necessity. The mere fact that you are right, the vast majority of men AREN'T rapists, negates your own argument. If the urge to procreate was so overpowering that men had no choice but to attempt to impregnate women whenever they had the opportunity, the lines at sperm donation centers would be out the door and around the corner.
You also appear to be simply regurgitating information you got from a single source, rather than from any thought-driven process studying the issue at length. I read a cookbook once. I even memorized some recipes. That doesn't mean I can cook.
And I agree with those who said that rape is inherently a violent act. And if suicidality can be considered as an effect, then it is often life-threatening.
Not sure what happened to the links; they worked fine in the preview.
Men Stopping Rape (http://danenet.org/msr)
Men Unlearning Rape (http://teachingsexualethics.org/writing/men.html)
I don't mean to feed the troll, but I take issue with your characterization real person, and feel the need to say this. Rape is not just about one thing. Rape is about power. It is also about sex. Evolutionary drives probably also contribute. We can understand rape through more than one dimension. And it is possible that not all rapists share the same motivation. We don't pretend that all murderers have the same psychology, or that theft is always driven by poverty.
On this note, I quote from the work "Rape: The Misunderstood Crime" by Julie Allison and Lawrence Wrightsman.
"Is rape an act of sex or of violence? If forced to choose, experts - partly motivated to counteract the public's view of rape as a sexual crime - have emphasized its aggressive nature. More recently, a more compound view has emerged. Psychologist Nicholas Groth, whose influential typology of rapists will be described subsequently, sees rape as a 'pseudo-sexual act' and states, 'we look at rape as the sexual expression of aggression, rather than the aggressive expression of sexuality' (Gelman 47). Different types of rapes may have different combinations of motivation; whereas the rapist who preys upon a stranger may premeditate the rape, the rapist who assaults someone he knows is more likely to have premeditated sex (Bechhofer & Parrot)".
However, psychological studies surveying rapists have shown that rapes motivated predominantly by power tend to be the most common type.
Also, I understand and applaud your desire to attain a world in which men and women can freely associate. However, I think you fail to understand the current reality. The place to begin working toward this ideal is not by diminishing the suffering of rape victims. By the time rape has occurred, someone's life has already been significantly harmed. Sexual education and socialization need to change in general, which seems to be your vision and is something most people here could agree with.
As for rape being "non-violent" - I have a hard time addressing you on this as someone who has been raped. I had some bruises, but I was not significantly injured. But to deny this is a violent act? That is extremely insensitive and I'm not sure you should be the one to make that judgment unless you have been a victim. I do not know any victims who would claim their rape was nonviolent. Rape usually (though not always) involves internal bruising and tearing. It is terrifying and dehumanizing. The injuries may not show. I think sexuality should be open, but that doesn't mean that it "should" be meaningless. To have your body hijacked against your will is not a minor experience.
I don't think I have a "victim mentality". I was raped the weekend before finals. I took all my exams, I made straight As, I went to the police and carried out all the necessary procedures while juggling everything else. I went on with my life. And I would love to believe that my life could be the same. I denied that I was permanently harmed for a long time. Rape already takes a persons sexual agency away from them, for the rapists to have the additional power to have their act remain a shadow on one's life is not something people "choose". I live every day knowing that I was raped.
And then there are stories like this.
"MILWAUKEE – An 18-year-old male student is accused of posing as a girl on Facebook, tricking at least 31 male classmates into sending him naked photos of themselves and then blackmailing some for sex acts."
Well, one of the results of increased awareness of, as one poster put it, "rape hysteria" is that more male victims will come forward too. I wonder how these types of crimes will change the dialogue.
This case has all the trappings of the same arguments, the most important feature being "consent" obtained through non-physical coercion, which according to rape apologists doesn't exist...
Here are the reasons that people probably find this offensive:
1.- Rape is a horrible word and an even worse concept & act. People don't like hearing about bad things & would rather live in a happy bubble.
2.- It claims that people other than the rapist are responsible for perpetuating rape in our culture. No one likes to hear that they're responsible for anything.
3.- It calls for decent people to take action. Well, fuck that! *rip*
I don't think it's *just* men who need to take action against rape, but many seem to think it's *just* women who do. If we're really interested in stopping sexual assault, then all good people need to be educated & active. And men are more in a position to tell male peers when something is a bad idea. Do you think a guy with a rapist's mentality is going to listen to anything a feminist has to say? Sure, he may not listen to his male friends either, but there's more of a chance. And especially on college campuses, rape & other forms of sexual assault often take place within earshot of others. How many times has a girl gotten raped in a bedroom, with a party happening in the living room? And stopping rape is not always about putting yourself in danger, as some have claimed. Most rapists use opportunity, not weapons, to carry out their acts. So not giving them the chance, prevents rape.
This is exactly the point of TRUE prevention work. It's not just women's work to end rape- it's everybody's.
There's a concept in the men's anti-rape movement regarding "well-meaning men." Most men agree that rape is wrong, but many just don't know what they can do about it and feel uncomfortable taking action. It's about educating and engaging those men as positive active bystanders, and recognizing that part of the social contract is protecting others from harm.
Sorry folks, cleaning up trolls now.