This is in reference to recent discussion on a short statement by Paul Elam in which he points out that it's not hyperbole to say "I'm not going to give a damn about female rape victims any more" under the circumstances in which the statement was originally made. Unable to effectively criticize the video at face value and in an honest manner, some individuals have been ignoring nearly everything in it except that line. This has led to comments by feminists, reddit's againstmensrights trolls, and some others claiming that Mr. Elam has stated gender as a reason, and as his only reason, for choosing not to come to the defense of an individual in distress.
To do this, they've deliberately ignored the context provided by other parts of the statement, in which he points out that a lot of men have begun to decide that men are not the world's unpaid bodyguards, and they don't owe it to anybody to intervene when a crime is happening to a stranger, including female strangers.
Since he also pointed out that while MRAs are accused of misogyny and rape apology for refusing to adhere to the traditional male gender role of protector, feminists have actively worked to cover up male victimization and marginalize male victims, Mr. Elam's feminist critics are making the claim that the refusal he describes applies only to women, and that he's encouraging it exclusively in retaliation for feminist efforts to erase perception of male victims. Some have even gone so far as to state that they only want to debate those two parts of the video; the refusal, and the aside they're treating as the motive for it.
In other words, they're deliberately taking parts of the statement out of context for the purpose of making them fit the arguments they want to put forth.
The sentence with which they're stating offense is set within the context of a wider argument. It's not "I don't give a damn about female rape victims because feminists don't give a damn about male rape victims." It's "I'm not required to involve myself in other people's violent conflicts just because of my gender. I'm not required to advocate for female rape victims because they already have extensive advocacy, and I'm not required to make discussion about female rape victims a part of every dialogue on gender issues in which I participate. Also, if you're concerned about marginalization, look at feminists; they've actively and willfully marginalized male victims."
Understanding the roots of the discussion helps.
Male victims of rape can't be discussed without feminists targeting the discussion for derailment with intent to impose their ideological narrative on the issue. According to that narrative, men and boys are perpetrators, and women and girls are victims. If it's ever acknowledged that men or boys are victims, it can't also be acknowledged that women or girls are perpetrators; either the perpetrator must also be male, or the responsible party must be the victim himself, other men, or other boys... or the victim has to be whining or lying. That's not the main thing the statement feminists are taking out of context speaks to, however. According to the feminist narrative, male victims can never, ever be the primary topic of a discussion about sex crimes, because to them, sex crimes in general are a societal attack on women. Because of that, feminists make a targeted effort to impose discussion of female victims on any and all discussion about sex crimes.
This is especially true of discussions on the lack of resources dedicated to preventing female on male sex crimes, and the lack of recourse available to male victims of female sexual predators.
The moment MRAs point out that male victims get thrown under the bus, feminists step forward with claims like "Well, the vast majority of victims are women, and the vast majority of perpetrators are men..." as if, even if it were true, that would excuse condoning and enabling any sexual victimization of men and boys by women and girls.
The moment MRAs point out that there are different standards in criminal court between accused men and boys, and accused women and girls, feminists attempt to derail with claims that, when the varnish is taken off of them, amount to the assertion that male perpetration is caused by masculinity, but female perpetration is imposed by male-perpetrated oppression. Their conclusion is that women shouldn't be held as accountable for their crimes as men should be held for theirs.
The moment MRAs object to double standards on consent, bodily autonomy, and responsibility wherein male consent is assumed, male suffering is presumed less, and male agency is presumed higher, feminists attempt to enforce aspects of male and female gender roles that they find conducive to limiting to only women claims of victim status which rely on excluding from the putative victim's experience having had the agency to refuse the interaction, and male and female gender roles which they find conducive to widening the spectrum of scenarios in which they can apply that exclusion.
A prime example of this is discussion on when sex while drunk ceases to be consensual and becomes rape, as feminists scramble to define drunk rape to exclude male victims of female perpetrators while simultaneously maximizing the perception of female victims of male perpetrators. They ignore that consumption of alcohol is a choice. They ignore every shade of drunk between stone cold sober, and unconscious. They refuse to stick with a clear and concrete standard for what constitutes incapacitated, and to apply that term equally to both sexes, in an effort to ensure that the term "incapacitated" can be applied regardless of a woman's actual capability, but never to a man. They promote myths and stereotypes about men, alcohol, and the presumption of male consent.
The statement "I don't give a damn about female victims of rape" is an obvious response to the constant haranguing by feminists who will not let a discussion about male victims remain about male victims, and who use shaming language to try to shut down discussion of issues related to the sexual victimization of men and boys by women and girls. What makes that obvious is the context of the previous statements, beginning with the point that men are treated as responsible for women, continuing on with the point that feminists don't just fail to give a damn, but actively attempt to exclude male victims from the public discourse, and hammered home by the point that female victims have a shitload of dedicated advocacy and resources.
In singling out the one line and the point about feminists marginalizing male victims, commenters complaining about that statement are responding to a recent part of an existing argument as if that part exists independently of the argument;
MRAs: Discussion about male rape victims and the issues related to them.
Feminists: You're not paying proper homage to female victims. You can't have a discussion about rape without talking about female victims. If you do that you're marginalizing them. And men are bad, because men rape women. Male victims don't matter because patriarchy.
MRAs: Female victims get discussed all the time. Discussion of male victims doesn't take anything away from discussion about female victims. Men are not bad. Rapists are bad. Not all males are rapists. Not all rapists are male. Not all men have power. Not all people with power are men, therefore not patriarchy. Further attempts to discuss male rape victims and the issues related to them.
Feminists: Female victims have it worse! Implication that women having it worse means male victims don't deserve any support or recourse. Talking about male victims is whining and an attempt to derail discussion about female victims. Talking about female perpetrators is misogyny. Saying it's not okay for feminists to say that all men are rapists is rape apology. Tone argument. Shaming language. Patriarchy. Let's be friends. You should let us take over the dialogue on this issue. You're not doing it right.
MRAs: Females don't have it worse. (Evidence.) Even if female victims did have it worse, that wouldn't excuse condoning victimization of males, or discriminating against them. Discussion of male victims still doesn't take anything away from discussion about female victims. Re: talking about female perpetrators... What's misogyny to the goose is misandry to the gander. We talk about perpetrators. You generalize perpetrator behavior to the entire male population. Who does that make more hateful? Tone argument is a derailing tactic. Shaming language is only a statement of opinion. Not all men have power. Not all people with power are men, therefore not patriarchy. Laws and policies that define rape to exclude male victims and due process to exclude accused men were lobbied for and celebrated by feminists. You're not helping. Further attempts to discuss male rape victims and the issues related to them.
Feminists: NAFALT! Further comments that very often prove otherwise. FEMALE VICTIMS! Mocking language. STFU! PATRIARCHY!
It's after years of this type of exchange that MRAs are starting to respond to "You're not allowed to have a discussion about male victims of anything without paying proper homage to female victims and the feminist narrative on victimization that says you're responsible for preventing female suffering" with "I'm not your bodyguard. I don't care about female victims. Female victims already have plenty of discussion and support. I'm here to talk about male experiences and issues, a discussion which your movement has deliberately attempted to silence."
To which multiple people have responded "Tone argument!"
Which, in the context of the larger conversation, is more of the same bullshit that some of us have been dealing with from feminists for decades. It doesn't get any fresher with age.
To do this, they've deliberately ignored the context provided by other parts of the statement, in which he points out that a lot of men have begun to decide that men are not the world's unpaid bodyguards, and they don't owe it to anybody to intervene when a crime is happening to a stranger, including female strangers.
Since he also pointed out that while MRAs are accused of misogyny and rape apology for refusing to adhere to the traditional male gender role of protector, feminists have actively worked to cover up male victimization and marginalize male victims, Mr. Elam's feminist critics are making the claim that the refusal he describes applies only to women, and that he's encouraging it exclusively in retaliation for feminist efforts to erase perception of male victims. Some have even gone so far as to state that they only want to debate those two parts of the video; the refusal, and the aside they're treating as the motive for it.
In other words, they're deliberately taking parts of the statement out of context for the purpose of making them fit the arguments they want to put forth.
The sentence with which they're stating offense is set within the context of a wider argument. It's not "I don't give a damn about female rape victims because feminists don't give a damn about male rape victims." It's "I'm not required to involve myself in other people's violent conflicts just because of my gender. I'm not required to advocate for female rape victims because they already have extensive advocacy, and I'm not required to make discussion about female rape victims a part of every dialogue on gender issues in which I participate. Also, if you're concerned about marginalization, look at feminists; they've actively and willfully marginalized male victims."
Understanding the roots of the discussion helps.
Male victims of rape can't be discussed without feminists targeting the discussion for derailment with intent to impose their ideological narrative on the issue. According to that narrative, men and boys are perpetrators, and women and girls are victims. If it's ever acknowledged that men or boys are victims, it can't also be acknowledged that women or girls are perpetrators; either the perpetrator must also be male, or the responsible party must be the victim himself, other men, or other boys... or the victim has to be whining or lying. That's not the main thing the statement feminists are taking out of context speaks to, however. According to the feminist narrative, male victims can never, ever be the primary topic of a discussion about sex crimes, because to them, sex crimes in general are a societal attack on women. Because of that, feminists make a targeted effort to impose discussion of female victims on any and all discussion about sex crimes.
This is especially true of discussions on the lack of resources dedicated to preventing female on male sex crimes, and the lack of recourse available to male victims of female sexual predators.
The moment MRAs point out that male victims get thrown under the bus, feminists step forward with claims like "Well, the vast majority of victims are women, and the vast majority of perpetrators are men..." as if, even if it were true, that would excuse condoning and enabling any sexual victimization of men and boys by women and girls.
The moment MRAs point out that there are different standards in criminal court between accused men and boys, and accused women and girls, feminists attempt to derail with claims that, when the varnish is taken off of them, amount to the assertion that male perpetration is caused by masculinity, but female perpetration is imposed by male-perpetrated oppression. Their conclusion is that women shouldn't be held as accountable for their crimes as men should be held for theirs.
The moment MRAs object to double standards on consent, bodily autonomy, and responsibility wherein male consent is assumed, male suffering is presumed less, and male agency is presumed higher, feminists attempt to enforce aspects of male and female gender roles that they find conducive to limiting to only women claims of victim status which rely on excluding from the putative victim's experience having had the agency to refuse the interaction, and male and female gender roles which they find conducive to widening the spectrum of scenarios in which they can apply that exclusion.
A prime example of this is discussion on when sex while drunk ceases to be consensual and becomes rape, as feminists scramble to define drunk rape to exclude male victims of female perpetrators while simultaneously maximizing the perception of female victims of male perpetrators. They ignore that consumption of alcohol is a choice. They ignore every shade of drunk between stone cold sober, and unconscious. They refuse to stick with a clear and concrete standard for what constitutes incapacitated, and to apply that term equally to both sexes, in an effort to ensure that the term "incapacitated" can be applied regardless of a woman's actual capability, but never to a man. They promote myths and stereotypes about men, alcohol, and the presumption of male consent.
The statement "I don't give a damn about female victims of rape" is an obvious response to the constant haranguing by feminists who will not let a discussion about male victims remain about male victims, and who use shaming language to try to shut down discussion of issues related to the sexual victimization of men and boys by women and girls. What makes that obvious is the context of the previous statements, beginning with the point that men are treated as responsible for women, continuing on with the point that feminists don't just fail to give a damn, but actively attempt to exclude male victims from the public discourse, and hammered home by the point that female victims have a shitload of dedicated advocacy and resources.
In singling out the one line and the point about feminists marginalizing male victims, commenters complaining about that statement are responding to a recent part of an existing argument as if that part exists independently of the argument;
MRAs: Discussion about male rape victims and the issues related to them.
Feminists: You're not paying proper homage to female victims. You can't have a discussion about rape without talking about female victims. If you do that you're marginalizing them. And men are bad, because men rape women. Male victims don't matter because patriarchy.
MRAs: Female victims get discussed all the time. Discussion of male victims doesn't take anything away from discussion about female victims. Men are not bad. Rapists are bad. Not all males are rapists. Not all rapists are male. Not all men have power. Not all people with power are men, therefore not patriarchy. Further attempts to discuss male rape victims and the issues related to them.
Feminists: Female victims have it worse! Implication that women having it worse means male victims don't deserve any support or recourse. Talking about male victims is whining and an attempt to derail discussion about female victims. Talking about female perpetrators is misogyny. Saying it's not okay for feminists to say that all men are rapists is rape apology. Tone argument. Shaming language. Patriarchy. Let's be friends. You should let us take over the dialogue on this issue. You're not doing it right.
MRAs: Females don't have it worse. (Evidence.) Even if female victims did have it worse, that wouldn't excuse condoning victimization of males, or discriminating against them. Discussion of male victims still doesn't take anything away from discussion about female victims. Re: talking about female perpetrators... What's misogyny to the goose is misandry to the gander. We talk about perpetrators. You generalize perpetrator behavior to the entire male population. Who does that make more hateful? Tone argument is a derailing tactic. Shaming language is only a statement of opinion. Not all men have power. Not all people with power are men, therefore not patriarchy. Laws and policies that define rape to exclude male victims and due process to exclude accused men were lobbied for and celebrated by feminists. You're not helping. Further attempts to discuss male rape victims and the issues related to them.
Feminists: NAFALT! Further comments that very often prove otherwise. FEMALE VICTIMS! Mocking language. STFU! PATRIARCHY!
It's after years of this type of exchange that MRAs are starting to respond to "You're not allowed to have a discussion about male victims of anything without paying proper homage to female victims and the feminist narrative on victimization that says you're responsible for preventing female suffering" with "I'm not your bodyguard. I don't care about female victims. Female victims already have plenty of discussion and support. I'm here to talk about male experiences and issues, a discussion which your movement has deliberately attempted to silence."
To which multiple people have responded "Tone argument!"
Which, in the context of the larger conversation, is more of the same bullshit that some of us have been dealing with from feminists for decades. It doesn't get any fresher with age.
No comments:
Post a Comment