To legislate, or not to legislate? Rape complicates the question.

This morning, the following question was raised in Reddit's /r/mensrights:   
"In the VP debate, Paul Ryan said they'd make abortion illegal, except in cases of rape. Wouldn't that result in women, who are no longer able to get an abortion otherwise, falsely accusing men of raping them? "  
(Discuss.)

I began to leave a short comment:

Women already falsely accuse men of raping them. 

That does not change the right or wrong of legalized use of abortion as a means of birth control.

What it does, and will continue to do if the legislation in question increases that behavior, is show that women as a group cannot be afforded an elevated level of trust with the privilege of automatic credibility as accusers. This doesn't mean we're less trustworthy than men as a group. If men were given this kind of power, there would be those who would abuse it, as well. In other words... people cannot be automatically trusted with such an imbalance of power.

However,  that really didn't fully communicate my thoughts on the matter, and they're not going to fit in the space of a single comment.
 
This debate brings out two very important points to me, both of which should be clearly and fully stated.

First, there is the question of why the circumstance of rape would be a reason for exception in a law banning the use of abortion for birth control.

The argument as to why Republicans want to outlaw abortion is that the baby is a living human being with equal right to life to that of any other human.

Does the rape of one parent by the other change the nature of the baby as a living, human being? If so, how? Are we saying that the offspring of criminals are guilty of their crimes? Does that translate over to all rape victims, or is it determined by the sex of the victim?

In other words, if we are going to allow raped women to abort, are we going to allow raped men to demand an abortion as well? If not, how is that not discrimination against men? Are we ready to admit that women's feelings are more politically important than men's feelings, or is there some justification someone can offer me for enforcing parenthood upon raped men? One that does not come across as terribly hypocritical?

What about rapists who commit their crime after parenting children with the victim or with other partners? If the parent of a 5 year old commits rape, do we execute the 5 year old because he or she is made no longer human by his or her parent's crime?  If the behavior of the parent does not change the 5 year old's status as human, the can someone logically explain to me why an unborn baby is so affected? And if you cannot do that, please explain to me why it is acceptable to execute a living human for the crimes of his or her parent, because unless that status is changed, that is the real, unvarnished nature of the act of aborting a rape baby.

Is excluding rape babies from the protection of the proposed law really the right thing to do? Is the law about protecting the rights of the helpless unborn, or is it about enforcing responsibility upon women?
Don't get me wrong - I am pro-life. I oppose a mother's choice to abort and a doctor's choice to perform the procedure, unless a dying baby who cannot be saved is going to also take the mother's life in the process, a rare circumstance that becomes more so with the continued advancement of innovation in the field of medicine.

This is just to say that it makes no sense to legislate control of the procedure on the life-affirming basis Republicans use to argue it, but then make an exception for a circumstance that does not change the applicability of that argument to the protected subject.
 
Second, there is the point on the mangling of due process in rape cases under the guise of protecting women.
If making the use of abortion for birth control contingent upon the circumstance of rape results in false allegations, does that not clearly demonstrate that women will use false allegations for their own personal gain?

And if women will use false allegations for their own personal gain under that circumstance, when there are other options that need not involve lying, does that not indicate the habit among some women of committing that act very lightly?

Does anyone in the legislative bodies of the US really believe that kind of lying hasn't been going on since the start of legislative attacks on men's due process rights in the name of protecting women from abuse?

Does this not show clear justification for the repeal of every law protecting women from being held accountable for leveling of and continued assertion of false allegations of rape and abuse?

If the Republicans really are going to do this - to outlaw the use of abortion for birth control, but make the nonsensical exception that raped women can abort, then they had better be prepared to also legislate heavy penalties for the misuse of that concession by women. By making that exception, they'll have made access to a convenience contingent upon the sacrifice of one's partner. They'll have incentivized malicious prosecution the same way the Violence Against Women Act and other legislative "protection" of women who accuse men of abuse have done. Good-by rape shield laws. Good-bye VAWA. Hello prosecution of perjurers in rape cases, and pursuit of charges against women who file false rape reports with the police. Otherwise, there would be no deterrent to a woman's decision to wreck some poor guy's life just so she can have the convenience of choosing to terminate an individual human life in lieu of the other birth control and custody-avoidance options which are available to her.
 
Republicans, you need to either shit or get off the pot.

If abortion is murder, it's murder regardless of how the baby was conceived.

It's murder regardless of the character of the parents.

It's murder regardless of why the baby might not be wanted.

It's murder regardless of how sorry we might feel over the indignity and pain the raped parent has suffered, or the feelings that might be associated to parenting a rape baby.

And if it's not murder under those circumstances, if our feelings change the nature of the crime... then it was never murder in the first place, and you have no business proposing any legislation based on the belief that it is. 

Effeminition: Feminist Logic, an editorial piece on reproductive rights and child support

Due to the number of choices possessed by women, the graphic could not be sized to fit this blog. To better read the text, right click on the image below and select "view image" from the menu. Use the magnifier to see the full sized image, or feel free to download by dragging it from the page to your desktop. My only stipulation for use is that it remain unaltered. This image is my work. If you want an altered version, make your own.

For those who do not understand why the male flowchart has no "yes" option for abstinence, click here.

Feminists tell me that the movement and its advocacy are about promoting female autonomy, independence, and strength... our right to make our own choices and live by them...

...until we get pregnant. Then, all bets are off. We're not autonomous. We're not independent. We're not strong, and our choices are meaningless. Instead of living by them, we're to demand that others pay for our decisions. We're to hold others responsible. Cry victim, and let loose the dogs of court!

The mental process behind this apparent change of heart is one of twisted and self-serving rationalization. How else can anyone, after making a broad series of choices, each along the way requiring the confrontation of an unwanted possibility, taking the path of greater risk with no preventative measures, ignoring the opportunity to eliminate the outcome, passing up multiple avenues of escape, then demand restitution from the person she left behind six or seven decisions ago?

Frequently, I'm confronted with the argument that if a man doesn't want to be saddled with a support order, he shouldn't have sex, should have his genitals surgically altered for birth control purposes, or should wear a condom. Feminists make these arguments as if the man somehow miraculously impregnated the woman without her participation. There she was, blithely going about her business, walked past the wrong horny asshole, and BAM! Where the heck did this baby come from?

My objection to the responsible man argument is one which I think should be readily apparent, but recent discussion has demonstrated to me that to many, it is not. In deciding to write about it, I struggled to come up with an artistic representation of how I see this, without graphic depictions which I see as unnecessary to the discussion. Huge thanks to my friend Mitschu for reminding me that flow charts exist and for the link to Lucidchart.com, where the charts in the graphic for this entry were made.

As the graphic shows, the process by which we arrive at the situation used to justify a court-ordered payment from the father to the mother is one which is predominantly controlled by the mother. By no means is the circumstance of being the primary caregiver for a child an involuntary circumstance for her. It is certainly not one which can reasonably be considered to be inflicted by the father, given the series of steps taken between the moments prior to participating in sexual intercourse and the moment when the mother files a support claim. How, then, do those who oppose the idea of a paternal parental surrender equal in effect to maternal "safe-haven" abandonment justify their position?

They resort to the same series of logic fails used to justify other feminist positions.

This begins with the Gatekeeper to Consent argument, which considers the pursuit of sexual gratification to be one directional. Men are assumed to have only the option of pursuit. Women are assumed to have only the option to refuse or relent, with relent being an inflicted condition rather than a voluntary one, as indicated by the perception not that the woman decided she was interested, but that the man talked her into it. This is the basis for beginning the debater's argument, "If a man has sex," rather than "If a couple has sex." The wording is designed to limit responsibility to the man right from the beginning.

It continues with the Appeal to the Helplessness Charge. The Helplessness Charge is the feminist requirement of assumption that during any given experience, the woman has no alternative option to letting events progress unchallenged. If options are acknowledged, feminists accuse the debater of blaming the victim. What they really mean by this accusation is that the debater is threatening the status of victim, as having viable alternatives to suffering a condition or experience moves the individual from the status of victim to the status of participant. No one feels sorry enough for a participant to give her any power or restitution for any suffering she might claim as a result of her participation.
The point at which the debater in this argument appeals to that charge is in only offering the admonition that the male should have used either surgical or prophylactic birth control. This is the use of misdirection to limit the perception of options. It focuses on the few options available to the male participant, while ignoring a wealth of more effective options available to the female.

Further, it ignores the very arguments in the debate over the feasibility and potential value of a male form of ingestible hormonal birth control. The idea of hormonal birth control for men was protested and dismissed under the thin argument that men would lie about being on it or forget to take it, and in doing so trick women into having unprotected sex. The proposal of a male pill has been treated as an attack on female reproductive control. Bloggers and commenters even discussed the topic as if the addition of a male birth control pill to the mix would somehow eliminate women's concurrent use of birth control. In the course of discussions on the topic, the thought that women shouldn't be expected or required to leave birth control up to men has been repeatedly expressed. 

In hypocritically stark contrast to that is the discussion on pregnancy, support, and parental surrender, where it's only the man who is considered responsible. This ignores the variety and effectiveness of available forms of female birth control in order to support the treatment of pregnancy as a malady inflicted upon hapless, helpless women by heartless, domineering men.

Arguing for male responsibility in the event of birth, but against it in the event of birth control options, is more than slightly hypocritical.

This takes us to the culmination of the sex act, when both sexes have had equal opportunity to prevent pregnancy. Each partner could have abstained. Each partner could have used birth control. Each even had the chance to make the use of more than one method a condition upon which consent was contingent. For the sake of argument, let's say that it doesn't matter what choices were made, because pregnancy can happen in spite of birth control. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that birth control was used and failed. It can reasonably be argued that at the moment of conception, neither partner is any more or any less at fault for the situation. Neither party is exempt from responsibility. If the options stop at this point, with no other chance to alter the situation, then it would be reasonable to expect both parties to bear equal culpability, and equal rights. Neither parent should be considered more or less responsible based on gender. If this was the circumstance being addressed, arguments against paternal parental surrender would have merit.

Since that is not how things are, they do not.

After the moment of conception, the father's options stop. Under the feminist "My Body, My Choice" argument, the father is given no right to decide whether the pregnancy may progress, or must be terminated. To this end, she has immediate options, short-term options, and surgical options. The father has no say in these options. He cannot prevent them, and he cannot enforce them. He may not make even minor decisions related to the impending birth of his offspring. The purpose of stating that fact is not as an indictment of it, but simply the establishment of an important understanding: The statement does not judge or condemn. It only points out that this is how things are.

Any decision made after the conception of a baby, whether that is to continue or not, is made by the mother, and only by the mother. The feminist argument "My Body, My Choice" deserves to be answered with, "Your Choice, Your Responsibility." If the father chooses to be in agreement with the mother in her decision, it's reasonable to expect him to back that up by offering equal support, sharing the expense and effort involved in whatever mutual choice is made, whether it be abortion or birth. If the two parties are in opposition, however, the mother's choice legally trumps that of the father. It is therefore unjust to assign him responsibility for that choice. If the mother chooses to be in disagreement with the father in his wishes regarding the pregnancy, it is reasonable to expect her to back that up by supporting that choice on her own. She should not have the right to demand assistance financing her choice from an individual who is in opposition to the choice she is making.

There are those who argue that not awarding the mother a child support payment would force her to have an abortion if she fears that she will be unable to financially support herself and the baby. This is a false argument, which depends on the person to whom it is presented being distracted by feelings of sympathy.

Having the right to make a choice does not equal having the right to have someone fund that choice. Lack of funds does not equal force. The legal choice is still there. No one is telling the mother that she is required to travel to an abortion clinic, go through the pre-op precess, sign her consent, pay for the procedure, and have it done. No one is telling her that she is not permitted to make a different selection from the available options following birth: claiming full custody, shared custody with or custodial surrender to family, open or closed adoption, or safe-haven abandonment. Feminist arguments in this area can be simplified to the following: But those choices are hard. Making those choices is emotionally challenging and can be emotionally painful. Backing that choice up financially will be hard work. A woman shouldn't have to go through all of that. You only want to punish her for having sex.
The same advocates who argue that men should be saddled with a potentially crippling, often arbitrary financial burden as punishment for their lack of forethought in having insufficiently protected sex with a fertile woman actually argue that women should be exempt from the emotional consequences of our actions despite an equal lack of forethought in having insufficiently protected sex with a fertile man.

Women are not entitled to force anyone to pay for our choices just because we are women.

Choice extends beyond pregnancy, after childbirth, when the mother's choices include four possible ways of not accepting caregiver status. The first possibility hinges on whether the father wants custody. Certainly, if the mother feels burdened by the circumstance of parenthood, and the father wants to step in and take responsibility, he should have that right. In fact, in a truly gender equal legal system, even if there is a custody dispute because both parents want to take responsibility, then from birth, both parents should start out with an equal chance of being awarded custody, and an equal burden of proof in determining which living arrangement would be more beneficial for the baby. In a situation like that, following a situation in which birth control and abortion choices were equal, and in which expectations and enforcement of support would be equal regardless of who had custody, it would be reasonable to expect a father who declines to take custody of his child to back up that choice with support.

Since that is not the case, as the mother does not have to recognize the father's choice related to birth, that is not a reasonable expectation. Further, the father is given little or no say in who does act as a caregiver. By creating a series of hoops for him to jump through, states limit the rights of fathers to challenge adoption or safe haven abandonment if the mother chooses to exercise either option without his consent. The father's rights are further limited if he and the mother are not married, and the mother chooses not to even tell him about the pregnancy. Under the My Body, My Baby fallacy, some women feel entitled to bypass fathers' rights to choose to take a caregiving role in their children's lives.

Even if the first two (relinquishing custody to the father or to family) are not available due to lack of willing participants, that still leaves two other choices. Given the removal of "relinquish custody to the father" as an option, there should be no challenge from him should she opt for adoption or "safe-haven" abandonment. In fact, even a father who wants custody may find it difficult to prevent adoption. Regardless, the mother is not legally required to claim custody and financial responsibility after birth. There is no outside entity which will make her choice for her. As with the decision to carry and give birth, the decision of the mother to retain or relinquish custody following birth is a unilateral personal choice. The making of such a choice does not entitle one to demand supporting funds from an individual who had no part in the decision.

Under today's system of medicine, law, and policy, a woman's condition of custodial motherhood is a not just a choice, but a step-by-step series of choices, for the majority of which the father does not have anything even close to an equivalent. A woman's reproductive and custody options far outnumber those of a man. In addition, some of her rights are considered greater than his, and some trump or eliminate his. Men have traditionally had little recourse when their reproductive or custody rights have been violated by women. It is therefore inexcusable to assign blame to the man for the results of the woman's decision, and even more so to enforce upon him a financial payment to her for making that decision. This is why, in an unwed parenting situation, there needs to be an option for fathers who truly wish to walk away, have nothing to do with the mother or the child, and not pay any restitution to the mother. If true equality is what feminists seek, they should have no problem with the concept of parental surrender applied to paternity, where from any point prior to conception to the moment he decides whether or not to sign a custody and/or support agreement, the father could sever all paternal ties, rights, and responsibilities the same way a woman can when allowing adoption or using a safe-haven drop-off location.

On feminist denial of biological differences between the sexes

This is one of the ways in which feminism handicaps everyone. In advocating the social and legal enforcement of the denial of human biology, feminist activism creates a stifling and oppressive environment for human interaction. We cannot treat each other as equal humans if we confuse equal with identical. As soon as we allow that misconception to be layered over our handling of interaction, we force ourselves to choose between conflicting responses. Do we accept the perception of unequal treatment, as real, existing differences conflict with ideology which denies them? Do we enforce unequal treatment as we try to use artificial means to make up for the differences we're expected to deny?    
   
This, in turn, dramatically hampers the ability of the sexes to work together in team situations, by discouraging the recognition and use of strengths, and the recognition and transcendence of weaknesses... because we're not supposed to notice that most often, those strengths and weaknesses do run along gender lines. Feminist advocacy then further complicates the issue by compromising its own position in the most hypocritical fashion, refusing men the honesty of admitting that these differences exist when it would facilitate positive outcomes for men, but insisting upon highlighting those same differences when it would facilitate desired outcomes for women. Examples of the denial range from high impact hypocrisy such as the refusal to admit in the context of the work/pay discussion that overall, men are more heavy-labor capable, to lower impact obfuscation such as the "men never ask for directions" lament, which ignores the ability of men to utilize the more reliable tool available to them - a map. Examples of the highlighting range from the legally impacting claim of female inability to defend the self or escape in a domestic conflict, or the perceived inability of a woman to verbally communicate "no" when confronted with unwanted sexual advances, to subtle man-bashing jokes about lack of male empathy or the more observable state of men's reflexive responses, a socially accepted generalization.
  
By enforcing the false denial of an existing set of factors, and then manipulatively enforcing the exclusion of specific circumstances from that system of denial, feminist ideology impairs men's ability to relate to women. When physical differences affect interaction between opposite sexes, the man is put into a catch-22; he is not permitted to acknowledge or notice the difference, yet he is required to accommodate or defer to it. He may not treat the woman as less capable of performing heavy labor, yet he must make up for the heavy labor she does not perform. He may not treat the woman as more physically fragile, yet he is required to refrain from subjecting her to the level of physical testing to which he is accustomed. He is expected to display feminine empathy, while simultaneously crediting the woman with greater empathic intuition. He may not ascribe to her any level of caregiving capability, but he is not permitted to usurp her assumed right to claim superior caregiver status. How can one form a cooperative connection when the rule is that whatever one does is wrong? Where is the role to be filled, and how does one fit into it?

To women, the same attitude of systemic denial acts as a personal growth barrier.
In order to achieve personal growth, one must first be capable of discerning and assessing one's existing advantages and shortcomings. Self-improvement depends on the practice, honing, and benevolent exploitation of strengths, and attention to weaknesses with a focus on reducing or overcoming them. If one is expected by one's peers to ignore the influence of one's sex on those characteristics, it becomes rather difficult to address them. Do we admit to, and make use of, any stereotypically female virtues if in doing so we're betraying those who claim the right to pretend those virtues are not feminine? Do we admit to and strive to overcome stereotypically female faults if in doing so we're foisting that stereotype onto other women? By treating the acknowledgement that biological factors which affect human characteristics can fall along gender lines as a sexist attack on women, feminist advocacy robs women of the opportunity to be our better selves. We're asked to sacrifice our individual progress to feed the political power of the movement.

Of the many ways in which this unwritten order manifests itself, nothing is more damaging than the mandate of willful helplessness and the victim charge. The social advancement of the female sex should be dependent upon building a belief in our ability to overcome obstacles, our choice to embrace responsibility and own it, and our tendency to survive adversity and come back having sharpened ourselves for the next challenge.  
Go ahead, life. Make my day.

Instead, feminist advocacy tells the general population to expect us to fail. It says that when faced with confrontation, we aren't tough enough to stand up for ourselves. When faced with academic challenges, we aren't smart enough to compete. When faced with competition, we aren't determined enough to win. When faced with a bad situation, we aren't independent enough to escape. When we get knocked down, we aren't resilient enough get back up and keep going. We must have reparations. We must have concessions. Feminist hypocrisy says that though men must treat us as successful achievers, we cannot attain that condition on our own.

This rides on the treatment of the concepts Greatness, Success and Achievement as having only male characteristics, and assigning negativity to characteristics traditionally considered female. A woman who does great things without acting like a man cannot be recognized for her accomplishments without compromising the feminist "alike" concept of nondiscrimination.

When physical differences affect interaction between opposite sexes, the woman is put into a catch-22; she is not permitted to acknowledge or notice the difference, yet she is often expected to use it as a crutch. How can one form a cooperative connection when the rule is that one must ignore one's nature? Where is the role to be filled, and how does one fit into it?

It is not male sexism which refuses to place equally high value upon a great caregiver and a great scientist. It is female sexism which does that, by insisting upon identical, rather than equal standards to those of men, emphasizing the nature of the job over the quality of the work. It is not male sexism which condemns female sexual freedom. It is female sexism which does that, by insisting on treating sexual gratification as a commodity, and women who don't keep it guarded as scabs in a perpetual strike. It is not male sexism which holds women inside dysfunctional and damaging relationships. It is female sexism which does that, by insisting upon assuming the position of victim for the purpose of exploiting the power of blame.

A woman's greatest disability is in feeling obligated to hold to the feminist standard of being dominated, and feminism's greatest dependence is on the laywoman never figuring that out. When we know that we don't have to lay down and cry for help instead of living our own lives... when we realize that the phantom oppression to which feminist leaders claim we're still subjected after over a hundred years of radical activism is not real... we are free to determine the courses of our own lives, define success for ourselves, and reject the controls imposed upon us by the only system of oppression we have left: Matriarchy.

Effeminition: Consent

One of the most convoluted, fickle, and hypocritical aspects of feminist dogma is the variety of stated positions on sexual ethics and accepted sexual norms. This is an area where feminism just can't seem to make up its collective mind whether to claim authority or affliction. Instead, advocacy and dissertation on various points within the topic wanders all over the grid, depending on which answer to the subtopic best lends itself to achieving the desired rights to responsibility ratio of all to none.    

This is blatantly evidenced by feminism's meandering promulgation of advocated social and legal rules governing consent to sexual contact.

Early on it was argued that women were being held back from experiencing sexual equality by falsely applied moral and social rules. The assertion was that women, as independent adults, are entitled to pursue sexual gratification in the same manner and with the same moral abandon attributed to the behavior of men. The truly liberated woman, it was argued, has every right to casually partake of the smorgasbord of available partners at her leisure, without fear of loss of reputation or status as a result. Society has no right to tie morality to one gender. Therefore, in the name of equal rights, women must be allowed to be equally promiscuous. One tangent to this is condemnation of the allegedly male practice of "slut shaming" (castigation and devaluing of females who engage in casual sex.) The label of slut shaming may be used honestly, as in response to the treatment by either sex of female participation in casual sex as misbehavior, or it may be abused, as in response to the treatment of female cheating on a male partner as mistreatment of the male partner. 

Contrasting the sexually liberated woman position is the gatekeeper-to-pursuit position. This depends on the treatment of women as perpetually reluctant and men as perpetually ambitious toward sexual interaction. For this treatment, the hard-won position of female independence and entitlement to obtain pleasure is abandoned in favor of that of "gatekeeper" to the male's role as purser of sexual gratification. Despite claiming privilege and power under the sexual freedom umbrella, the gatekeeper-to-pursuit position designates gratification as a commodity, women as proprietary owners who must always be persuaded, and men as forever seekers who are required to persuade. It leaves no room for the idea that the female might desire gratification and therefore choose to initiate, or that the male may not desire contact with a specific female or at a given time. Males are assumed to be in a constant state of implied consent, based on that assumption of perpetual sexual ambition, combined with a denial that they may have a standard of attraction. This combination is used to excuse women from ever having to obtain male consent, while simultaneously requiring men to always obtain female consent for sexual interaction.

In the dating arena, this has led to an environment of expectation wherein men must ask permission for each and every step along the path between introduction and orgasm, handling their partners' supposedly cripplingly fragile emotional and mental states as if they are courting soap bubbles which might burst and expire upon the slightest deviation from The Rules.

Complicating this environment is the treatment of the female as helpless. It is never to be expected that the woman might voice her feelings in the event that a male's advances are unwanted. The treatment of women as capable of self-assertion would rob the female participant of her freedom from responsibility for her own sexual behavior. Therefore, it must be assumed that the otherwise strong and liberated woman's disabling psychological weakness may prevent her from verbally refusing sex. This leads to the capability among women to use withholding information to transfer the responsibility for their own sexual decisions to their partners. Simply by not speaking up, a woman may imply consent through physical reciprocity, while reserving the right to later claim defilement and injury due to lack of stated consent.

This is taken to the extreme in the choice by mainstream feminists to treat even slight intoxication as an incapacitating condition when determining female ability to consent. While it is accepted that society, and in particular, the legal system, will hold any individual responsible for his or her intoxicated actions in any other area of behavior from drunk dialing to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, feminist advocacy expresses the expectation that women who have consumed any alcohol will be exempt from responsibility for choices they make related to sexual interaction.

The gatekeeper-to-pursuit argument also uses the assignment of sexual roles to impose the status of consent upon males without offering them a choice. In fact, domestic abuse victim advocacy returns entitlement to women by treating a man's refusal to consent to sex as an act of abuse against his female partner. This advocacy applies the label "withholding sex" to rob men of consent agency, effectively requiring them to perform upon demand.

The contrast among these assertions appears senseless as it ranges from treating women as proactive and empowered to treating women as withering and powerless. Until one looks at the larger goal which is achieved by doing this dance, it is difficult to understand why a political faction would handicap itself in this manner. After all, the contradicting arguments are easily pointed out and played against each other. Why, then, are they used this way?

The answer is in how this combination may support the use of abuse and rape labeling to control every nuance of male-female relationships. Under feminist doctrine, women have the right of indiscretion with impunity coupled with proprietary ownership of consent agency and an implied entitlement to male consent. Be it "No" or be it "Now," feminism demands immediate obedience by males without question. The combination denies male choice under the guise of female empowerment, while simultaneously placing every responsibility related to interaction squarely upon the shoulders of the man and enabling the woman to criminalize his part in the experience at any time, including after the fact. The ability to retroactively apply the abuse label or the rape label is a powerful weapon, with applications ranging from excusing oneself from relationship rules to vengeance following a break-up to leverage in custody and property disputes.

Feminist activism has made the terms rape and abuse into sacred and untouchable concepts, the wielding of which may be used to constrict the options of an opponent. To varying degrees, it has become socially and even legally unacceptable to question the veracity of any such allegation no matter how wild it is or how sparse the evidence. In this context, having license to apply those terms to circumstances which are devoid of genuine injury, exploitation, or assault provides women with an incredibly destructive legal force; the power to assert, and not be contradicted; to demand, and not be denied. These rules of engagement which feminism applies to sex and relationships are not about protecting women from victimization at the hands of men. They are designed to provide women with a trump card for use in the pursuit of female power over men.


Also see the response post to the "fan" who copied the text of this post in its entirety, (but not the cartoon) then re-posted it in his own blog intertwined with straw man arguments and denial.

Effeminition: Equal Work

One of the more oft heard complaints of the radfem brigade is the touting of the wage gap myth in support of the "equal pay for equal work" battle cry. This continues despite the fact that said myth has been debunked. This is the highlighted by questions introduced by the Consad report, which indicates that much of the difference in average earnings can be attributed to the worker's life choices and willingness to sacrifice other perks in life for the benefit of higher earnings.

It is also especially important to note the collective effect of anything that can be considered hazard pay on the numbers used to support the wage gap myth. The hazard pay effect is attributable to the difference in job choices between the sexes. Among the higher paying items in the job market are The Most Dangerous Jobs. These are not jobs which women are being kept out of due to discrimination. These are jobs women are not actively seeking to take. On top of the prohibitive risk factors, this is in part due to the time demands. Seasonal jobs often mean daily work for weeks or months, with long hours, hard labor, and no days off in between. Further, the labor demands for these jobs require physical strength, labor endurance, fatigue endurance, and a brand of emotional toughness which is beyond what most women possess or seek to test within ourselves.

Among the results of the discrepancy in representation between the sexes in the most dangerous of jobs is what I would refer to as The Risk Gap and The Death Gap. The first thing that stands out in these statistics is the huge difference in the number of male workplace fatalities, versus female fatalities. While this accounts for only a segment of the whole workforce, it skews the numbers on both sides of the argument, creating an apparently higher average pay rate for men, and an apparently lower average injury and fatality rate for women overall.

In addition, this effect spills over into the regular workforce, including professions more evenly populated by both sexes. Higher injury and fatality rates in first responder professions can be attributed to greater risk-taking by male first responders. Higher rates in the private sector can be attributed to heavier workload requirements given to men, including higher weight assignments and riskier positions in manufacturing and construction, and even in hourly, bottom-rung positions such as retail sales and health care aide positions. Right or wrong, employers and coworkers in general do have higher performance and labor expectations for men.

Taking into account the various factors affecting women's earnings, can we honestly continue to use the phrase "equal work" to describe women's contributions in the workplace? In light of the body of work which women will not do, whether that discrepancy is caused by life choices or unwillingness to risk, or inability to perform, are we really justified in demanding legislation to artificially boost our pay? Is the feminist concept of fairness in this case not incredibly biased? How does the assertion that pay should be artificially evened out via legislation not add up to ungrateful beneficiaries of risk-takers and hard-laborers demanding to be handed undeserved recognition and rewards on the basis of sex?

Addendum: Speaking of the body of work that women will not do, I just ran across the following related article. I want to tell you a story

The Seriousness of the Charge

I'm seeing the same poorly thought out, hypocritical response whenever the issue of false rape allegations garners the attention of radical feminists. It's a single response, divided into multiple concepts designed to disguise its nature, with most discussions relying on a single one of those. I'm not going to provide links to discussions, partly because some are old and I can't easily find them any more, and partly because I don't want to feed the trolls involved. I'm addressing it here instead, because having personally witnessed the shoving of families through the meat grinder that false allegations represents, I'm more than a little focused on that issue. Also, I think it might be good to have the disguising concepts of the feminist response put into words and discussed all in one place.


Denial comes to mind first. Though it's no longer the most notable response, it's one of the most ridiculous, in light of the existence of proof to its contrary, in cases like the Brian Banks story. The existence of proof makes it the easiest to counter. Because of that, I'm not even going to address it beyond mention.


More often and more effectively used is the attempt to marginalize and minimize. There are several methods to this.


There is the assertion that if a man is not guilty, he has nothing to fear. The wrongness of that assertion is highlighted by cases of false conviction (again, with the recent example of the Brian Banks story.) Even we ignore existing examples, there is still the ordeal he must go through; mandatory investigation, public defamation, and possibly being tried on the charge. During the ordeal, he faces discrimination and suspicion at the hands of his peers, and possibly also harassment and violence. If he's underage, the chance of violence increases, because social violence among youth is more tolerated than among adults, due to the expectation among adults that kids will sometimes fight, to and the fact of reduced legal repercussions for fighting while underage.

Imagine gym class for an accused boy who is believed by the other kids to be guilty of raping a girl.

There are also still the factors which lead to false conviction. Under legislation like the Violence Against Women Act, and policies enacted by police precincts and procedures followed within the court system, a male accused of rape is considered guilty until proven innocent, a daunting and perilous standard. Conviction may occur in the absence of evidence. Worse, even if he is acquitted, the allegation can stick to his reputation. An accused male who has been acquitted faces the likelihood that to some, he will never again be just a guy, but always seen - and treated - as a falsely acquitted rapist.

However, just for a moment, let's assume that assertion is true; that the falsely accused are never convicted. How does that justify subjecting anyone to the experience, putting him through the rigors of an investigation, damaging his reputation, and possibly forcing him to defend himself in court? Is it really believed within the feminist community that the hope of an acquittal negates all other aspects of the experience? Does feminism now consider no harm to be done even if the only worst harm is evaded? Does this mean that it's okay for men to fantasize about rape,  joke  about rape, and threaten women with rape, as long as they don't actually do it? After all, if a woman is not actually getting raped, then she has nothing to fear, right?


There is the assertion that false allegations are not a big deal because their occurrence is rare. This is contradicted by existing factors within their own community. Victim advocacy on the topic of rape calls for treatment of allegations as credible without doubt, including when there is not sufficient evidence to support that. Even lack of conviction is not viewed as vindication of the accused, but as an instance of the perpetrator getting away with the crime. The assertion of rarity, based on loyalty to the concept that female accusers must not be doubted, is circular reasoning - a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with. (Because we are not allowed to doubt the credibility of alleged rape victims, it must be accepted that false allegations occur only in the rarest of circumstances, when evidence against the accusation is overwhelming.)

Broadening of the definition of rape to include incidents in which the alleged victim was not averse to the interaction until after the fact has further muddied the water, by creating a conflict between what feminists consider rape, and what rape actually is (and is considered to be by the law.) This manner of twisting the definition turns sex into a form of entrapment in which the woman may withdraw consent after the event. The fact that the man involved did not force the encounter by any means does not deter radical feminists from applying the label "rape." This leads to filing of allegations which get tossed out or struck down because the accuser was never actually victimized. These cases, in turn build an area of disagreement, in which the term rape has been falsely applied to sexual encounters in a way supported by feminist ideology. That disparity in viewpoint is the key to a lot of feminist dismissal of the falsely accused.    

Basing the assertion of rarity, in any part, on loyalty concepts like regret as evidence of rape, and guilt until innocence is proven, is an act of begging the question, or basing one's belief on a false premise which one has accepted to be true. (The allegation cannot be false because the woman feels raped, or because the man must be perceived as a rapist.)

Still, just for a moment, let's accept that assertion as true. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that only one in a hundred allegations actually turns out to be false. How does that make the act of falsely accusing any less wrong, any less serious, or any less harmful to the victim, the falsely accused? Does he suffer less because of the rarity of his plight? Does the "fact" that other accusers are honest reduce the damage done to this victim's life? How about we apply this to rape. If we get the occurrence of rape down to 1 in 100 women, can we just let it go and not prosecute the perpetrator in that one, simply because the crime is rare? If it doesn't happen often, then it doesn't merit much attention, right?

How is this an accurate or honest way to measure the severity, seriousness, or wrongness of any crime? Applying the rarity-as-an-excuse standard, misdemeanors such as moving violations while driving (running a stop sign, speeding, improper lane change,) which are committed with greater frequency than any assault, should be taken much more seriously, discussed at length, and subject to greater legal consequences than say, anything as comparatively rare as rape. When played out to such an obvious extreme, the concept that rarity excuses the behavior is exposed in its lack of logic.   

There is the assertion that false allegations are not harmful to the accused. In reality, false allegations can be extremely harmful, both immediately and in the long term. The falsely accused suffers, and faces, damages.

• his reputation takes an immediate hit
• he will be at least temporarily imprisoned
• there will be at least the financial loss involved in paying bail
• regardless of the outcome of the trial, there will be at least some in his community who will always view him as a rapist

In addition, the stress of dealing with the false allegations and the ensuing mandatory investigation can

• damage his existing relationships with family and friends
• cause him problems at work due to lost time, reputation issues, and hostility resulting from reputation issues
• cause stress-related health problems, including anxiety, depression, elevated blood pressure, digestive issues, and exacerbation of existing health conditions

He faces an uphill battle, being accused of one of those crimes for which discriminatory law requires that the accused be treated by the court as guilty until proven innocent. If he cannot prove his innocence, he faces

• imprisonment, followed by
• abuse by fellow prisoners and guards because of the nature of his conviction

If he survives that long enough to be released, he is subjected to invasion of privacy via

• sex-offender registration
• publication of said registry for public viewing, including online access
• forced self-identification to neighbors

as well as

• compromised freedoms (regarding where he may or may not reside)
• reduced employability
• loss of right to bear arms

Falsely accused boys, whose selves are still forming at a rapid rate and strongly subject to outside influence, and whose community includes the closer-knit and less private environment of school, would face issues not present for adults.

• frequent and consistent violent bullying and harassment in response to his damaged reputation
• lost education opportunities, as the accusation could lead to his being barred from attending school during the investigation, or if convicted
• reduced academic achievement, even if allowed to attend school; caused by stress, time lost to compliance with investigation and hearings, and possibly educator bias
• loss of time-specific personal development opportunities, in the delaying or prevention of enrollment in youth programs and activities which won't be available to him when he's older 
• greater susceptibility to the emotional and psychological repercussions of the terrible lessons the experience may teach him, including damage to his ability to trust both authority figures and women
• change to the path of his character development by subjecting him to incarceration, where defensive behaviors must be adopted, at an impressionable age
• damage to his developing self-image, and possibly his future ability to emotionally connect with sex partners, due to a possible mental association of sex with betrayal
•  potential damage to the formation of his entire sense of self, as kids' beliefs about themselves can be shaped by what they are told and shown that their respected or loved elders and those in authority think of them

Regardless, let's just for a moment pretend that assertion has merit. Let's assume that every time a male is falsely accused of rape, it doesn't change his life in any way. Aside from how absurdly difficult to hold, and insulting to the accused, that assumption is, there is also the question of why that makes it all right to create a false alarm in the community. Let's compare it to pulling a fire alarm when there is no fire. Since no harm is done to the building, is that okay, feminists? Should we treat false fire alarms as if no harm is done, when police and firefighters are occupied, resources are used, and a disturbance is created around the source of the alarm? Should we enact legislation to protect false alarmists from prosecution? After all, since no damage is created by the false alarm, the alarmist hasn't done anything wrong, right?

There is the assertion that the experience of being falsely accused doesn't feel as horrible as being raped. This kind of statement can only come from someone who has never seen the devastating effects false accusations can have on an individual's life. It's not just dismissive of the damage done to the accused, but insulting to the intelligence of the listener or reader, who is apparently expected to not be able to imagine how the fear, shame, humiliation and other feelings often associated with rape may also be experienced by the falsely accused.

Subjected to perception of guilt within his community, and because of that, treated as a walking perpetrator, the accused will experience a sense of being violated, coupled with a response of indignation at the assumptions others are making. He may feel betrayed by the accuser, and/or by other people he expected to know him better. He may feel outraged by behaviors exhibited by those around him in response to the allegations against him. He may feel frustrated and confused by the dissonance between his knowledge of his innocence, and his experience of being treated by those around him as guilty.

He may have a sense that his own personal choice, or control of self, has been taken away from him. He may be stricken by a sense of helplessness or powerlessness. By creating a false public impression, the accuser has robbed her victim of a level of personal sovereignty. It is no longer enough for him to live within the bounds of common decency; he can now be viewed as an indecent person through no action of his own... in fact, his actions don't matter. He has been robbed of his right and his ability to shape his reputation through the behavioral choices he makes.

He may be oppressed by the hostile environment that a discriminatory public attitude toward him can create; reluctant to confront the stares, whispers, and sometimes open aggressiveness of individuals who have judged him by the accusation, rather than by any evidence. Even though he knows that he did nothing wrong, he may pick up and carry the guilt lobbed at him by a judgmental public. There is a vulnerable, naked-in-public  feeling in knowing that everyone around you may have a bad impression of you in mind as they interact with you, more so when it's a concrete belief that you've committed a crime thought of by most as an atrocity. He may be humiliated and ashamed at what strangers might think of him, made to feel dirty or tainted by the allegations against him.

He may feel like a predatory presence or perverse outcast among other people in response to the knowledge that that is how others see him. This can lead to a level of phobia... fear of interpersonal interaction within the community in which his reputation has been tarnished, or even of going out in public at all. That phobia may be made worse by others' treatment of the victim. He can end up isolating himself and becoming depressed, even suicidal.

There is also the fear of the other potential consequences of those allegations, as described above, all of which can take an emotional toll. As with the experience of rape, that emotional toll can, and often does, last well beyond the duration of the experience of facing false allegations, which can arguably be said to last much longer than the experience of rape.    

However, let us again take this assertion to its logical conclusion. Let's accept, for a moment, the belief that being accused is a less horrible experience than being raped. How does that justify advocating tolerance of the behavior? The argument basically is that because the experience of the victim is thought to not be emotionally traumatic, the crime is not a crime. Taken to its logical extreme, that assertion excuses embezzlement, tax fraud, grave robbing (the victim is dead,) destruction of public property, and a host of other serious crimes which do not emotionally traumatize anyone. Or rather, that we should not prosecute a rapist who victimizes an individual who is too mentally disabled to understand or care about the experience. Since it's not as emotionally upsetting as forcible rape, it's not worth addressing, right?
    

There is the assertion that addressing and combating the use of false allegations is an attack on actual rape victims. This assertion is based on the pretense of an either-or competition, pitting the rights of rape victims against the rights of the falsely accused. The claims are as follows: First, that the effort to prevent men from being wrongfully convicted would create a legal environment in which legitimate rape allegations would not result in conviction due to the court's requirement for actual evidence; and second, that penalizing women for leveling allegations proved to be false will discourage legitimate rape victims from coming forward.

The first claim, offered as an argument in support of rape victims, is really an attack on due process. What the debater is really articulating is the belief that women should be able to expect to accuse without evidence, yet automatically be believed... or turning it around, that when accused by women, men lose their right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the very base upon which the western concept of due process is framed.

The second claim, also offered as an argument in support of rape victims, is really an attack on the value, or weight, of the human rights of men in comparison with the human rights of women. It amounts to the assertion that some men may be subjected to involuntary sacrifice of their rights, reputations, health, families, and freedom, to foster the emotional comfort of some women.

Taking the attitudes of these claims to an extreme end, one could justify the abolition of due process. If affording accused criminals the right to due process is a violation of the rights of crime victims, then there should never even be hearings held to determine the validity of criminal charges involving a victim. As soon as there is an injured party, it doesn't matter whether the party convicted is guilty. It only matters that someone is convicted. Who cares about a few human sacrifices when there are women to protect, right?

Finally, even in the one concession that ever gets made in favor of addressing and effort toward prevention of false rape allegations, there is the move to transfer victim status from the accused to uninvolved women. This is done by stating, as one's reason for condemning the act of false accusation, the fear that public awareness of the existence of false allegations will negatively impact the credibility of real rape victims. Doing this marginalizes the real victim, the falsely accused, and ignores the ordeal he suffers at the hands of his accuser, in favor of steering the discussion back around to a female-centric perspective.  
 
Of all of the various ways in which feminists dismiss the wrongness, ignore the impact, and marginalize the victims of false rape allegations, this one is both the sneakiest, and the most blatant. It's sneaky in that it involves a pretense of support, and blatant in its designation of men as irrelevant and disposable. It relies solely on the treatment of the human rights of men as having less value or weight than the human rights of women.

That attitude is at the bottom of all of the ways in which feminists dismiss and marginalize male victims of false rape allegations. The hypocrisy is that these self-described fighters for equality cannot abide any acknowledgement that the human rights - or human experience - of men are equal to their own. Doing so would take away the Mantle of the Oppressed that gives women the power of Blame, used to maintain the privilege for which feminists have so passionately fought since the 1960s, and the soapbox from which feminist ideology is preached. This is the way that the feminist response to false rape allegations against men reveals the underlying basis for feminist advocacy; that they fight not for human equality, but for female power, and they're willing to ignore, step on, or sacrifice anyone who gets in between them and their achievement of that goal.