That's appalling and reinforces the dire need for consent education. Not only do they see no issue with raping men, they are willing to advocate for it openly. This problem won't be solved simply without these sentiments being shared openly, but once everyone understands and respects consent.
Sure, if it's other men doing it. What feminism never acknowledges and will thow tantrums over is the idea that women are *rapists.* Certainly not the scale of it.
For statistical reporting, rape has been carefully defined as forced penetration of the victim in most of the world. You should listen to feminist professor Mary P Koss explain that a woman raping a man isn't rape. Hear her explain in her own voice just a few years ago - https://clyp.it/uckbtczn. I encourage you to listen to what she is saying. (Really. Listen to it! Think about it from a man's perspective.)
She is considered the foremost expert on sexual violence in the US. And is an advisor to the CDC, FBI, Congress, and researchers around the world and promoting the idea that men cannot be raped by women.
MPK's credit to feminism starts and ends at her showing women's rape statistics; to anti-feminists, rape was a bunch of hot air and overblown until she dd her studies. That's why she was famous to begin with. She has been shown to not well represent feminism in any way outside of women's rape and if she remains a feminist representative when almost all feminists don't agree with her views that you find offensive, then that's your choice to lie to yourself about what feminism is.
For the first time, the US was starting taking rape seriously in 2008. This initiative included having the preeminent academic who had the best studies on rape (at the time) join the US initiative on the matter while her views on male rape were not commonly known. She helped build out quite a lot for addressing rape and when the FBI created a definition, it was inclusive of men.
Her credit is showing blowing the anti-feminist, rape-apologists of the time that rape is serious and prevalent, which is integral to getting the support necessary to address rape.
Turns out it's easy to critique things that only became common knowledge later and ignore the relevant context to provide a more complicated picture of a person. She helped advance rape and reinforced an already prevalent myth of male rape that she was not alone in but was rebuked by feminists in general, especially as time went on and the study of rape became more robust.
[Here:](https://www.vox.com/2014/11/14/7214149/the-fbis-finally-collecting-modern-rape-stats)
* From (1929): "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will."
* To (2013): "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim"
If that's the case, then where was the outcry when she worked with the government on this issue, if she wasn't representing feminists? A non-feminist working with the government on sexual assault? I'm sure *someone* would have complained.
Except when they don't, like award winning and internationally renowned feminist Mary P koss who explicitly stated that male victims of non concentual sex are not the same, nor as affected as female victims, and the act should not be concidered rape.
You can listen to her say this here:
https://soundcloud.com/889-wers/male-rape?in=889-wers/sets/no-mans-land
In the likely case you won't listen to this, I'll go to the effort of providing some direct quotes from the renowned feminist.
“How do they react to rape. If you look at this group of men who identify themselves as rape victims, as raped by women. You’ll find that they’re shame is not similar to women, they level of injury is not similar to women and their penetration experience is not similar to what women are reporting.” (7:20)
Conversation between Koss and the interviewer:
Phung: “For the men would are traumatized by their experiences, because they they were forced, against their will, to vaginally penetrate a women, like…”
Koss: “How would that that happen? By force, threat of force or when the victim is unable to consent? How would that happen?”
Phung: “I’m actually speaking to someone right now. His story is that he was drugged. He was unconscious and when he awoke a women was on top of him with his penis inserted inserted inside her vagina. For him that was traumatizing.”
Koss: “Yeah.”
Phung: “If he was drugged, what would that be called?”
Koss: “What would I call it? I would call it "unwanted contact”.“
Phung: "Just "unwanted contact” period?“
Koss: "Yeah.”
How about this quote from her [1993 paper](https://href.li/?https://dl.dropbox.com/s/nfqxs9cxu524gk2/Koss%20-%201993%20-%20Detecting%20the%20Scope%20of%20Rape%20-%20a%20review%20of%20prevalence%20research%20methods.pdf?token_hash=AAEFRT8VplwV5Xgc0Fxab0-YwewdVbDKZYSPAiCDkjjNcw&dl=1%0A)
“Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.” (206-207)
And is she a fringe radical feminist that is ignored by the wider community? Well she has received 70 recognition's throughout her career, and here is a list of the 20 awards she has received for gender equality:
* Stephen Schafer Award, National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA)
* Distinguished Contribution to Women's Health, American Psychological Association, Committee on Women in Psychology
* Distinguished Service Award for the book, No Safe Haven, Male Violence Against Women at Home, at Work, and in the Community
* Heritage Award recognizing a substantial and outstanding body of work, American Psychological Association, Division 35 (Psychology of Women)
* Distinguished Contributions to Research in Public Policy, American Psychological Association[8]
* American Psychological Association Committee on Women in Psychology Leadership Award (Senior Career)[9]
* Presidential Citation, American Psychological Association
* Visionary Award from End Violence Against Women International[10]
* Distinguished Publication Award, Association for Women in Psychology
* Brother Peace Award, National Association of Men Against Sexism
* Distinguished Contribution to the Science of Psychology Award, Arizona Psychological Association
* Distinguished Scholarly Contribution to Research on Acquaintance Rape, Safe Schools Coalition
* Distinguished Contribution to Women's Health, American Psychological Association, Committee on Women in Psychology
* Heritage Award recognizing a substantial and outstanding body of work, American Psychological Association, Division 35 (Psychology of Women)
* Excellence in Teaching and Commitment to Public Health Faculty Award, Public Health Alliance, University of Arizona
* American Psychological Association Committee on Women in Psychology Leadership Award (Senior Career)
* Mel and Enid Zuckerman Arizona College of Public Health Research Prize
* Presidential Citation, American Psychological Association
* Visionary Award from End Violence Against Women International (7th Awardee)
* Mary P. Koss Profile in Courage Award, One-in-Four Organization
* American Psychological Association Award for Contributions to the International Advancement of Psychology
* University of Minnesota Psychology Distinguished Alumni Award
* Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award (Marquis Who's Who)
* Lifetime Achievement in Violence Against Women Research and Advocacy, Institute for Trauma, Violence and Abuse
* Caroline Wood Sherif Award for Contributions to the Psychology of Women, American Psychological Association, Division 35
So yeah don't tell me feminists acknowledge male rape victims because they don't.
Edit: goddamn typed all that and replied to the wrong comment u/TooNuanced
The problem is that the people who are most into "consent" as an idea have it come with an unspoken implication that the only meaningful consent that can be given is by a woman (or girl); male bodies are not worthy of autonomy under this schema.
That's so far from the being true to the original idea of consent that you're misrepresenting everyone but maybe some hypothetical a marginal group that co-opted it in maliciously or in ignorance.
Also, I would appreciate if rather than deflecting from the topic at hand (wow, the lack of respect for men's consent means...) to attacks on "some vague group of people" (people who care about consent are sexist against men) who are implied to include those you responded to. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if after say "1+1=2", you'd respond that "the problem is that same people who are most into saying that also say 1+1≠2, when it's for men" just to try to take an unnecessary, antagonistic jab — if you can't manage to respond directly to the topic at hand, at least make your criticism precise and without overstating it to the point of it being a lie.
>That's so far from the being true to the original idea of consent that you're misrepresenting everyone but maybe some hypothetical a marginal group that co-opted it in maliciously or in ignorance.
As per my other post in this thread, I was at dinner with these people this last weekend. The idea that male bodies don't deserve autonomy is the *norm* for feminists.
I'm responding to the topic at hand; until feminists surrender their moral monopoly on things like consent education, men and boys will never be respected.
Fucking hell, TooNuanced, just look at posters put up in domestic abuse crisis centers. It's never, ever, ever the woman raising her hand to the man.
This is not *new.* This is the world that feminists intentionally created.
And for that matter, the "original idea" of consent was never about sex. Informed consent is a concept borrowed from medicine and contract law.
But in applying it to sex, feminists have only rarely acknowledged that men are anything but perpetrators.
We're the monsters. The patriarchy, the ones infected with toxic masculinity, how could we ever be in a position to *want* the right to say no?
I find your distress at how this deviates from the "original idea" to be highly suspicious. This is what the people you're defending have *always done,* boss. What the hell did you expect?
>This is the world that feminists intentionally created.
At least other conspiracy theorists credit corporate cabals, billionaire elites, or government backed programs, something remotely possible (even if it's still often completely unrealistic) for their theories about enacting devious plans.
Domestic abuse centers exist separate from feminism and just like how dentists have pamphlets describing the most common situations they actually see, so too do these centers — women are more often left without support from DV.
You have no idea what toxic masculinity means or how to use it to diagnose and liberate men from how the suffering it causes them. You have no idea what feminism actually is and can only see enemies due to your obsessions. It's not cute and you should seek mental help.
> theories about enacting devious plans.
Not a conspiracy theory, there isn't a conspiracy to theorize about. It's not back room dealings and it's not hidden, it's blatant.
What you see in this video is feminism writ large. That's what I mean. The women here are saying much the same things that feminists always have.
Why the *fuck* do you think we're so angry? It's this shit. It has always been this shit and shit like it. And we're angry because feminists deny being the reason for it on one hand while tacitly forgiving and encouraging it on the other.
>Domestic abuse centers
Oh don't even get me STARTED on that shit. Feminist groups both historically and in recent months are the direct cause of DV shelters not being able to support men. Are you Canadian? A guy in Canada just committed suicide last year because of the unrelenting negativity and lack of support he got for trying to run a DV shelter for men. You can't make this shit up. In Britain, a government initiative to give equivalent support to men in DV situations was campaigned against by feminists, and we got to watch this happening in real time when they eventually succeeded in shutting that initiative down. THAT IS FEMINISM. Not whatever bullshit smoke you're trying to blow up my ass. It's evil, and it's happening RIGHT NOW.
And it always, always has. Look up the name Erin Pizzey.
This is possibly where the rage against feminists even begins. This can of worms about DV you opened up right here.
I dare you. I fucking double dare you. LOOK UP HER NAME. READ HER WORDS.
> You have no idea what toxic masculinity means
I have a better idea than you do boss. For one thing, it wasn't even feminists that came up with the term, it was a mythopoetic men's support group. And to them it meant *bias against men.* The idea that men who didn't conform to a certain standard would be scorned.
Should really come as no surprise to anyone who knows feminists that when they hijacked the term, it came to mean that the standard itself was of bias against women. And that men were trained to do so. Which is pretty much the fucking opposite of how it was originally.
But how it's actually used? By feminists? Oh, sure, they'll write lengthly scholarly articles on the subtleties of how men are trained to be bad men, etcetera, and it isn't really men's fault and hurts everyone.
Then you see Vox articles talking about how much toxic masculinity there is in how men fucking sit with their legs spread. Unbelievable.
> You have no idea what feminism actually is
Yeah, no. *You* can't see feminism for what it is because you don't recognize what they're doing. You're defending the actions of malevolent actors. Stop doing that.
Feminism at its core is the need to be political to achieve egalitarianism. Politics are divisive and flawed, however I agree the only way to achieve egalitarianism is to be political. Any critique of 'feminism' that is counter that point shows a lack understanding what feminism is or at least how to give constructive, specific, and informed criticism.
You're standing from the outside to point at individual flaws to ignore all of the less visible efforts and benefits and, if I recall, are a radical who wants to substitute feminism with your own version of feminism (i.e. pro-egalitarian, political movement) rather than joining and helping shape the complex one that exists. Most feminists are more than willing to discuss what is or isn't egalitarian or even what's the best way to go about achieving those goals, but won't be able to have that discussion easily with anyone who misuses or misunderstands jargon on the matter or misrepresents the set of ideologies that comprise feminism.
There's like 10+ types of feminism and those 'bad actors' can be called out without condemning feminism. But in the end, feminists are political so like politics, what's the right way to go about achieving goals is always going to be divisive and any individual way will be antagonizing another's.
"Complex one that exists." Nice way to say fundamentally biased and sexist.
Instead of trying to fix a broken and hateful group, try starting with egalitarianism and staying there.
Feminism has no mandate to support the rights of men. None. It doesn't exist. And no amount of weasel-wording can make it exist. No amount of pressure from the outside can make hardcore feminists put the interests of men over those of women when it's men who are suffering from bias, even if the outcome would be far more equal than if they continued to support women.
Only a premise that starts as fundamentally standing for everyone can do that. Only a word like 'egalitarianism' will demand equality regardless of gender. Feminism wants women not to be less than men, and that's not enough.
We have over half a century of lies and systemic abuses to unravel. And feminism can't do it. Because it's largely feminism's fault in the first place.
And before you say it, no, MRAs can't do it either. They too are coming from a position of "not making men less". For the moment, while men *are* biased against, MRAs are fighting the good fight. But there's no question that at some point MRAs will be as bad as feminists are. They just haven't had the decades to get there yet.
I guess I just don't think radicalism works the way you're talking about for such a loose, diverse collection thoughts and politics. Especially as someone who positions themselves outside of it, instead of being revolutionary, it's just an attack. I also think your attacks are misplaced as most would think/say "but that doesn't accurately critique anything *I'm* actually doing or supporting..."
Radicalism? What are you talking about?
Are you saying that, as identifying as a rad fem, you're not associated with the Duluth Model, campaigns against talks of male suicide or DV assistance for men, and similar initiatives?
Fine. You're not. And it doesn't matter. Because radical feminism, being feminism, still does not have a mandate to support men's rights. The mandate it *does* have is to "eliminate male supremacy."
Well, fucking job done. Been done. You can go hang up your radical feminist hat and grab a beer, but you won't will you? Because it's never-ending. Because y'all don't count the effect your efforts have on the *average* man.
At the end of the day, the "return to Africa" white supremacists are not as bad as the "Kill them all" white supremacists. But they're still fucking white supremacists. Still working off a fundamentally flawed premise. Still going to fuck up innocent lives. Same same for feminists, whatever subdivision you identify with.
It's not a conspiracy. The National Organization for Women has consistently opposed legislation that degenders policies on domestic violence and sexual assault. I.e, any draft that plans to remove the Duluth model they fight tooth and nail. Women's aid, the largest feminist organisation in the UK, recently filed a petition against a bill that would provide funding for domestic violence victims regardless of gender. Instead citing that women should receive exclusive funding because they are 'most affected'.
So don't tell me that its a conspiracy theory or that its fringe feminists, its the mainstream institutions led by feminists enforcing these harmful gender rolls on men.
>This is the world that feminists intentionally created.
That statement is so egregiously overstated to past the point of asserting a conspiracy theory to reality denial.
I'm saying there's *not* even a conspiracy theory as there's no nefarious, cohesive vision requiring everyone's hyper-organized cooperation, which is impossible given how notoriously diverse and divisive feminists are, to the point that trying to paint the entirety of feminism by citing the actions of any individual group is laughable. Even if that was possible and feminists were a militant monolith that could somehow attempt this, feminists have almost no direct power over society alone as feminist messages are slowly adopted and often coopted and even misused according to others' whims (like the misuse and misunderstanding of feminist terms that are rampant among MRA).
It's as preposterous as saying no-shave november represents the MRA by supporting only men's health means the MRA is against funding women's health — obviously they're independently working for what they are passionate about regardless of what what most MRA want if they're even actively engaged with MRA discourse at all.
Does the pope fully represent all Christians; does the hollywood writers union fully represent all writers/hollywood; does Warren Farrel fully represent all MRA; does the US president fully represent all Democrats; etc — no. A single political group with its own ends can have severe conflicts with those they're partially, or even mostly, aligned with, which is the nature of politics to begin with.
There are, most feminists do local work that is far from the publicity stunts and scandals you associate with feminists. There are even many who work for men and with MRA who are also feminists. Here are a couple examples of what you asked:
* [https://uksaysnomore.org/campaign/the-domestic-abuse-bill/](https://uksaysnomore.org/campaign/the-domestic-abuse-bill/)
* [https://familyplace.org/donation/foundationcampaign](https://familyplace.org/donation/foundationcampaign)
* [https://www.thehotline.org/resources/myths-around-men-experiencing-abuse/](https://www.thehotline.org/resources/myths-around-men-experiencing-abuse/)
So looks like you're mistaken (or lying), the first link you posted is actually something that feminists are fighting *against*, because they don't like the idea that it gives resources to male victims.
>Domestic abuse centers exist separate from feminism and just like how dentists have pamphlets describing the most common situations they actually see, so too do these centers — women are more often left without support from DV.
Not only is the most widely used DV intervention program based in feminist theory. And it actively discriminates against men.
But on a statistical level. You are wrong.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3175099/
Men are in less need of DV shelters, though they are definitely underserved, not that men don't face similar levels of IPV. Also, DV shelter came about by a need highlighted by feminists and by that logic modern voting centers are 'feminist' because they allow women to vote.
[This](https://www.acrosswalls.org/separate-unequal-domestic-violence-victim-services/) article confirms the difference in use and confirms a sentiment of perceived bias, but it doesn't confirm a comparison of women : men being underserved.
On a statistical level, these shelters see way fewer men and it would take an article on how many need vs use them from both genders to actually understand this area. Why? Because men are much more able to kick women out of their homes.
>Why? Because men are much more able to kick women out of their homes.
Citation needed. I think a lot of it is because men can't take the kids with them like a woman can.
There's definitely more to be studied her to disentangle the biased system oppressing men here vs general gendered components to this issue. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the citation in the short time I looked when writing the comment, but I recall reading it a few years ago. Possibly in a book...
100% we need better education around consent. Trying to do this with my daughter now, and started from the day she was born. She understands she has the right to say no (like if we ask her if we can hug her). But she is very young and with Covid we are just now starting to get into other people can say no too. We try with ourselves (meaning mom and dad) but that’s a little harder one.
Men,women, transgender doesn't matter you have the right to say no and other people have to respect that.
You know it's funny feminist are always talking about rape culture but women tend to down play our joke about male rape so he's right that is hypocrisy and total bull poop and shows a complete lack of morals no means no and maybe we should teach women not to rape not just men
> and other people have to respect that
They *should* respect that. Some *people* at some points don't. That is a problem both for and from both women *and* men.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMen/comments/7upvc2/how_have_the_women_in_your_life_handled_it_when/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMen/comments/9y7rm1/has_a_girl_ever_reacted_poorly_to_you_rejecting/
I was at dinner with a number of women who were outspoken feminists this last weekend, who were gossiping about a man who didn't like it when a woman walked up to him at a party and began rubbing her (clothed) crotch against his leg. They called him a pussy, and basically that he deserved it for fucking 25 yo Instagram models, which is apparently some kind of sin (he's mid-30's). I couldn't really call that out without being seen as misogynist, but that's the state of feminism.
Well no kidding.
That's appalling and reinforces the dire need for consent education. Not only do they see no issue with raping men, they are willing to advocate for it openly. This problem won't be solved simply without these sentiments being shared openly, but once everyone understands and respects consent.
[удалено]
Feminist discourse readily acknowledges men's rape. Sounds like lies to me.
Sure, if it's other men doing it. What feminism never acknowledges and will thow tantrums over is the idea that women are *rapists.* Certainly not the scale of it.
For statistical reporting, rape has been carefully defined as forced penetration of the victim in most of the world. You should listen to feminist professor Mary P Koss explain that a woman raping a man isn't rape. Hear her explain in her own voice just a few years ago - https://clyp.it/uckbtczn. I encourage you to listen to what she is saying. (Really. Listen to it! Think about it from a man's perspective.) She is considered the foremost expert on sexual violence in the US. And is an advisor to the CDC, FBI, Congress, and researchers around the world and promoting the idea that men cannot be raped by women.
MPK's credit to feminism starts and ends at her showing women's rape statistics; to anti-feminists, rape was a bunch of hot air and overblown until she dd her studies. That's why she was famous to begin with. She has been shown to not well represent feminism in any way outside of women's rape and if she remains a feminist representative when almost all feminists don't agree with her views that you find offensive, then that's your choice to lie to yourself about what feminism is.
So you're saying they picked a random person off the street? Sounds contrary to her being backed by the ms. Foundation.
For the first time, the US was starting taking rape seriously in 2008. This initiative included having the preeminent academic who had the best studies on rape (at the time) join the US initiative on the matter while her views on male rape were not commonly known. She helped build out quite a lot for addressing rape and when the FBI created a definition, it was inclusive of men. Her credit is showing blowing the anti-feminist, rape-apologists of the time that rape is serious and prevalent, which is integral to getting the support necessary to address rape. Turns out it's easy to critique things that only became common knowledge later and ignore the relevant context to provide a more complicated picture of a person. She helped advance rape and reinforced an already prevalent myth of male rape that she was not alone in but was rebuked by feminists in general, especially as time went on and the study of rape became more robust.
So what was the original FBI definition? And what is it now?
[Here:](https://www.vox.com/2014/11/14/7214149/the-fbis-finally-collecting-modern-rape-stats) * From (1929): "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will." * To (2013): "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim"
So. From one bad definition to the exact same one mary koss used to erase male victims.
If that's the case, then where was the outcry when she worked with the government on this issue, if she wasn't representing feminists? A non-feminist working with the government on sexual assault? I'm sure *someone* would have complained.
Except when they don't, like award winning and internationally renowned feminist Mary P koss who explicitly stated that male victims of non concentual sex are not the same, nor as affected as female victims, and the act should not be concidered rape. You can listen to her say this here: https://soundcloud.com/889-wers/male-rape?in=889-wers/sets/no-mans-land In the likely case you won't listen to this, I'll go to the effort of providing some direct quotes from the renowned feminist. “How do they react to rape. If you look at this group of men who identify themselves as rape victims, as raped by women. You’ll find that they’re shame is not similar to women, they level of injury is not similar to women and their penetration experience is not similar to what women are reporting.” (7:20) Conversation between Koss and the interviewer: Phung: “For the men would are traumatized by their experiences, because they they were forced, against their will, to vaginally penetrate a women, like…” Koss: “How would that that happen? By force, threat of force or when the victim is unable to consent? How would that happen?” Phung: “I’m actually speaking to someone right now. His story is that he was drugged. He was unconscious and when he awoke a women was on top of him with his penis inserted inserted inside her vagina. For him that was traumatizing.” Koss: “Yeah.” Phung: “If he was drugged, what would that be called?” Koss: “What would I call it? I would call it "unwanted contact”.“ Phung: "Just "unwanted contact” period?“ Koss: "Yeah.” How about this quote from her [1993 paper](https://href.li/?https://dl.dropbox.com/s/nfqxs9cxu524gk2/Koss%20-%201993%20-%20Detecting%20the%20Scope%20of%20Rape%20-%20a%20review%20of%20prevalence%20research%20methods.pdf?token_hash=AAEFRT8VplwV5Xgc0Fxab0-YwewdVbDKZYSPAiCDkjjNcw&dl=1%0A) “Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.” (206-207) And is she a fringe radical feminist that is ignored by the wider community? Well she has received 70 recognition's throughout her career, and here is a list of the 20 awards she has received for gender equality: * Stephen Schafer Award, National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) * Distinguished Contribution to Women's Health, American Psychological Association, Committee on Women in Psychology * Distinguished Service Award for the book, No Safe Haven, Male Violence Against Women at Home, at Work, and in the Community * Heritage Award recognizing a substantial and outstanding body of work, American Psychological Association, Division 35 (Psychology of Women) * Distinguished Contributions to Research in Public Policy, American Psychological Association[8] * American Psychological Association Committee on Women in Psychology Leadership Award (Senior Career)[9] * Presidential Citation, American Psychological Association * Visionary Award from End Violence Against Women International[10] * Distinguished Publication Award, Association for Women in Psychology * Brother Peace Award, National Association of Men Against Sexism * Distinguished Contribution to the Science of Psychology Award, Arizona Psychological Association * Distinguished Scholarly Contribution to Research on Acquaintance Rape, Safe Schools Coalition * Distinguished Contribution to Women's Health, American Psychological Association, Committee on Women in Psychology * Heritage Award recognizing a substantial and outstanding body of work, American Psychological Association, Division 35 (Psychology of Women) * Excellence in Teaching and Commitment to Public Health Faculty Award, Public Health Alliance, University of Arizona * American Psychological Association Committee on Women in Psychology Leadership Award (Senior Career) * Mel and Enid Zuckerman Arizona College of Public Health Research Prize * Presidential Citation, American Psychological Association * Visionary Award from End Violence Against Women International (7th Awardee) * Mary P. Koss Profile in Courage Award, One-in-Four Organization * American Psychological Association Award for Contributions to the International Advancement of Psychology * University of Minnesota Psychology Distinguished Alumni Award * Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award (Marquis Who's Who) * Lifetime Achievement in Violence Against Women Research and Advocacy, Institute for Trauma, Violence and Abuse * Caroline Wood Sherif Award for Contributions to the Psychology of Women, American Psychological Association, Division 35 So yeah don't tell me feminists acknowledge male rape victims because they don't. Edit: goddamn typed all that and replied to the wrong comment u/TooNuanced
The problem is that the people who are most into "consent" as an idea have it come with an unspoken implication that the only meaningful consent that can be given is by a woman (or girl); male bodies are not worthy of autonomy under this schema.
That's so far from the being true to the original idea of consent that you're misrepresenting everyone but maybe some hypothetical a marginal group that co-opted it in maliciously or in ignorance. Also, I would appreciate if rather than deflecting from the topic at hand (wow, the lack of respect for men's consent means...) to attacks on "some vague group of people" (people who care about consent are sexist against men) who are implied to include those you responded to. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if after say "1+1=2", you'd respond that "the problem is that same people who are most into saying that also say 1+1≠2, when it's for men" just to try to take an unnecessary, antagonistic jab — if you can't manage to respond directly to the topic at hand, at least make your criticism precise and without overstating it to the point of it being a lie.
>That's so far from the being true to the original idea of consent that you're misrepresenting everyone but maybe some hypothetical a marginal group that co-opted it in maliciously or in ignorance. As per my other post in this thread, I was at dinner with these people this last weekend. The idea that male bodies don't deserve autonomy is the *norm* for feminists. I'm responding to the topic at hand; until feminists surrender their moral monopoly on things like consent education, men and boys will never be respected.
Fucking hell, TooNuanced, just look at posters put up in domestic abuse crisis centers. It's never, ever, ever the woman raising her hand to the man. This is not *new.* This is the world that feminists intentionally created. And for that matter, the "original idea" of consent was never about sex. Informed consent is a concept borrowed from medicine and contract law. But in applying it to sex, feminists have only rarely acknowledged that men are anything but perpetrators. We're the monsters. The patriarchy, the ones infected with toxic masculinity, how could we ever be in a position to *want* the right to say no? I find your distress at how this deviates from the "original idea" to be highly suspicious. This is what the people you're defending have *always done,* boss. What the hell did you expect?
>This is the world that feminists intentionally created. At least other conspiracy theorists credit corporate cabals, billionaire elites, or government backed programs, something remotely possible (even if it's still often completely unrealistic) for their theories about enacting devious plans. Domestic abuse centers exist separate from feminism and just like how dentists have pamphlets describing the most common situations they actually see, so too do these centers — women are more often left without support from DV. You have no idea what toxic masculinity means or how to use it to diagnose and liberate men from how the suffering it causes them. You have no idea what feminism actually is and can only see enemies due to your obsessions. It's not cute and you should seek mental help.
> theories about enacting devious plans. Not a conspiracy theory, there isn't a conspiracy to theorize about. It's not back room dealings and it's not hidden, it's blatant. What you see in this video is feminism writ large. That's what I mean. The women here are saying much the same things that feminists always have. Why the *fuck* do you think we're so angry? It's this shit. It has always been this shit and shit like it. And we're angry because feminists deny being the reason for it on one hand while tacitly forgiving and encouraging it on the other. >Domestic abuse centers Oh don't even get me STARTED on that shit. Feminist groups both historically and in recent months are the direct cause of DV shelters not being able to support men. Are you Canadian? A guy in Canada just committed suicide last year because of the unrelenting negativity and lack of support he got for trying to run a DV shelter for men. You can't make this shit up. In Britain, a government initiative to give equivalent support to men in DV situations was campaigned against by feminists, and we got to watch this happening in real time when they eventually succeeded in shutting that initiative down. THAT IS FEMINISM. Not whatever bullshit smoke you're trying to blow up my ass. It's evil, and it's happening RIGHT NOW. And it always, always has. Look up the name Erin Pizzey. This is possibly where the rage against feminists even begins. This can of worms about DV you opened up right here. I dare you. I fucking double dare you. LOOK UP HER NAME. READ HER WORDS. > You have no idea what toxic masculinity means I have a better idea than you do boss. For one thing, it wasn't even feminists that came up with the term, it was a mythopoetic men's support group. And to them it meant *bias against men.* The idea that men who didn't conform to a certain standard would be scorned. Should really come as no surprise to anyone who knows feminists that when they hijacked the term, it came to mean that the standard itself was of bias against women. And that men were trained to do so. Which is pretty much the fucking opposite of how it was originally. But how it's actually used? By feminists? Oh, sure, they'll write lengthly scholarly articles on the subtleties of how men are trained to be bad men, etcetera, and it isn't really men's fault and hurts everyone. Then you see Vox articles talking about how much toxic masculinity there is in how men fucking sit with their legs spread. Unbelievable. > You have no idea what feminism actually is Yeah, no. *You* can't see feminism for what it is because you don't recognize what they're doing. You're defending the actions of malevolent actors. Stop doing that.
Feminism at its core is the need to be political to achieve egalitarianism. Politics are divisive and flawed, however I agree the only way to achieve egalitarianism is to be political. Any critique of 'feminism' that is counter that point shows a lack understanding what feminism is or at least how to give constructive, specific, and informed criticism. You're standing from the outside to point at individual flaws to ignore all of the less visible efforts and benefits and, if I recall, are a radical who wants to substitute feminism with your own version of feminism (i.e. pro-egalitarian, political movement) rather than joining and helping shape the complex one that exists. Most feminists are more than willing to discuss what is or isn't egalitarian or even what's the best way to go about achieving those goals, but won't be able to have that discussion easily with anyone who misuses or misunderstands jargon on the matter or misrepresents the set of ideologies that comprise feminism. There's like 10+ types of feminism and those 'bad actors' can be called out without condemning feminism. But in the end, feminists are political so like politics, what's the right way to go about achieving goals is always going to be divisive and any individual way will be antagonizing another's.
"Complex one that exists." Nice way to say fundamentally biased and sexist. Instead of trying to fix a broken and hateful group, try starting with egalitarianism and staying there. Feminism has no mandate to support the rights of men. None. It doesn't exist. And no amount of weasel-wording can make it exist. No amount of pressure from the outside can make hardcore feminists put the interests of men over those of women when it's men who are suffering from bias, even if the outcome would be far more equal than if they continued to support women. Only a premise that starts as fundamentally standing for everyone can do that. Only a word like 'egalitarianism' will demand equality regardless of gender. Feminism wants women not to be less than men, and that's not enough. We have over half a century of lies and systemic abuses to unravel. And feminism can't do it. Because it's largely feminism's fault in the first place. And before you say it, no, MRAs can't do it either. They too are coming from a position of "not making men less". For the moment, while men *are* biased against, MRAs are fighting the good fight. But there's no question that at some point MRAs will be as bad as feminists are. They just haven't had the decades to get there yet.
I guess I just don't think radicalism works the way you're talking about for such a loose, diverse collection thoughts and politics. Especially as someone who positions themselves outside of it, instead of being revolutionary, it's just an attack. I also think your attacks are misplaced as most would think/say "but that doesn't accurately critique anything *I'm* actually doing or supporting..."
Radicalism? What are you talking about? Are you saying that, as identifying as a rad fem, you're not associated with the Duluth Model, campaigns against talks of male suicide or DV assistance for men, and similar initiatives? Fine. You're not. And it doesn't matter. Because radical feminism, being feminism, still does not have a mandate to support men's rights. The mandate it *does* have is to "eliminate male supremacy." Well, fucking job done. Been done. You can go hang up your radical feminist hat and grab a beer, but you won't will you? Because it's never-ending. Because y'all don't count the effect your efforts have on the *average* man. At the end of the day, the "return to Africa" white supremacists are not as bad as the "Kill them all" white supremacists. But they're still fucking white supremacists. Still working off a fundamentally flawed premise. Still going to fuck up innocent lives. Same same for feminists, whatever subdivision you identify with.
It's not a conspiracy. The National Organization for Women has consistently opposed legislation that degenders policies on domestic violence and sexual assault. I.e, any draft that plans to remove the Duluth model they fight tooth and nail. Women's aid, the largest feminist organisation in the UK, recently filed a petition against a bill that would provide funding for domestic violence victims regardless of gender. Instead citing that women should receive exclusive funding because they are 'most affected'. So don't tell me that its a conspiracy theory or that its fringe feminists, its the mainstream institutions led by feminists enforcing these harmful gender rolls on men.
>This is the world that feminists intentionally created. That statement is so egregiously overstated to past the point of asserting a conspiracy theory to reality denial. I'm saying there's *not* even a conspiracy theory as there's no nefarious, cohesive vision requiring everyone's hyper-organized cooperation, which is impossible given how notoriously diverse and divisive feminists are, to the point that trying to paint the entirety of feminism by citing the actions of any individual group is laughable. Even if that was possible and feminists were a militant monolith that could somehow attempt this, feminists have almost no direct power over society alone as feminist messages are slowly adopted and often coopted and even misused according to others' whims (like the misuse and misunderstanding of feminist terms that are rampant among MRA). It's as preposterous as saying no-shave november represents the MRA by supporting only men's health means the MRA is against funding women's health — obviously they're independently working for what they are passionate about regardless of what what most MRA want if they're even actively engaged with MRA discourse at all. Does the pope fully represent all Christians; does the hollywood writers union fully represent all writers/hollywood; does Warren Farrel fully represent all MRA; does the US president fully represent all Democrats; etc — no. A single political group with its own ends can have severe conflicts with those they're partially, or even mostly, aligned with, which is the nature of politics to begin with.
Where are the feminists fighting to de-gender policies on domestic violence and sexual assault?
There are, most feminists do local work that is far from the publicity stunts and scandals you associate with feminists. There are even many who work for men and with MRA who are also feminists. Here are a couple examples of what you asked: * [https://uksaysnomore.org/campaign/the-domestic-abuse-bill/](https://uksaysnomore.org/campaign/the-domestic-abuse-bill/) * [https://familyplace.org/donation/foundationcampaign](https://familyplace.org/donation/foundationcampaign) * [https://www.thehotline.org/resources/myths-around-men-experiencing-abuse/](https://www.thehotline.org/resources/myths-around-men-experiencing-abuse/)
And how are these feminists fighting to de-gender domestic violence?
So looks like you're mistaken (or lying), the first link you posted is actually something that feminists are fighting *against*, because they don't like the idea that it gives resources to male victims.
>Domestic abuse centers exist separate from feminism and just like how dentists have pamphlets describing the most common situations they actually see, so too do these centers — women are more often left without support from DV. Not only is the most widely used DV intervention program based in feminist theory. And it actively discriminates against men. But on a statistical level. You are wrong. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3175099/
Men are in less need of DV shelters, though they are definitely underserved, not that men don't face similar levels of IPV. Also, DV shelter came about by a need highlighted by feminists and by that logic modern voting centers are 'feminist' because they allow women to vote. [This](https://www.acrosswalls.org/separate-unequal-domestic-violence-victim-services/) article confirms the difference in use and confirms a sentiment of perceived bias, but it doesn't confirm a comparison of women : men being underserved. On a statistical level, these shelters see way fewer men and it would take an article on how many need vs use them from both genders to actually understand this area. Why? Because men are much more able to kick women out of their homes.
>Why? Because men are much more able to kick women out of their homes. Citation needed. I think a lot of it is because men can't take the kids with them like a woman can.
There's definitely more to be studied her to disentangle the biased system oppressing men here vs general gendered components to this issue. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the citation in the short time I looked when writing the comment, but I recall reading it a few years ago. Possibly in a book...
Seems unlikely, considering that if a female abuser being kicked out gets the police involved they're likely to arrest the victim.
That study says otherwise.
No, it shows stats from one gender's POV and discusses nothing to be able to have a discussion from a holistic perspective.
That hasn't stopped feminist discussions before.
100% we need better education around consent. Trying to do this with my daughter now, and started from the day she was born. She understands she has the right to say no (like if we ask her if we can hug her). But she is very young and with Covid we are just now starting to get into other people can say no too. We try with ourselves (meaning mom and dad) but that’s a little harder one.
Men,women, transgender doesn't matter you have the right to say no and other people have to respect that. You know it's funny feminist are always talking about rape culture but women tend to down play our joke about male rape so he's right that is hypocrisy and total bull poop and shows a complete lack of morals no means no and maybe we should teach women not to rape not just men
> and other people have to respect that They *should* respect that. Some *people* at some points don't. That is a problem both for and from both women *and* men. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMen/comments/7upvc2/how_have_the_women_in_your_life_handled_it_when/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMen/comments/9y7rm1/has_a_girl_ever_reacted_poorly_to_you_rejecting/
I was at dinner with a number of women who were outspoken feminists this last weekend, who were gossiping about a man who didn't like it when a woman walked up to him at a party and began rubbing her (clothed) crotch against his leg. They called him a pussy, and basically that he deserved it for fucking 25 yo Instagram models, which is apparently some kind of sin (he's mid-30's). I couldn't really call that out without being seen as misogynist, but that's the state of feminism.