Why do feminists lie about male rape victims

Feminists and feminist-led researchers choose to exclude from the definition of the term rape male victims who, instead of being forcibly penetrated, were "made to penetrate," or forcibly enveloped.

Part of their excuse for this exclusion is the claim the category "made to penetrate" includes incidents during which the perpetrator has forced the victim to use a body part other than his penis to penetrate the perpetrator's body part in order to sexually stimulate the perpetrator, and since the penetrating body parts aren't sexual in nature, the sexual violation of the victim is diminished.  
   
These are the same groups which define it as rape when a woman is forced to sexually stimulate a man's penis with her mouth, a body part which is also not sexual in nature. They also define it as rape when a female victim is forcibly penetrated by a perpetrator's fingers, even though fingers aren't sexually stimulated.   
   
They define a female victim as a victim of rape if the perpetrator engages her genitals in a sex act against her will, or if a male perpetrator engages her in a sex act with his genitals against her will. Excluded from this definition is when a female perpetrator engages her in a sex act with the perp's genitals against the victim's will.

They define a male victim as a victim of rape only if a male perpetrator engages the victim in a sex act with the perp's genitals that involves penetrating the victim against his will. Excluded from this is any traditional sex act that engages the victim's genitals, and when a female perpetrator engages him in a sex act with her genitals against his will.  
   
In other words, the definition isn't written to exclude behaviors that aren't significantly sexually imposing, invasive or traumatic, but specifically to minimize the number of female sex crime perpetrators who would be counted as rapists.

Another excuse feminists and their followers make for this discrepancy is the claim that including incidents of being forced to penetrate would make statistics inaccurate because that category would include males who were forced by a third party to penetrate other victims.   
   
Let's take another look at that idea.    
   
A third party forces two people to perform a sex act, and feminists only want to consider one of them a victim, because... ?    
   
There really isn't an answer to that question which justifies considering one victim's experience rape, but not the other victim's experience. In fact, even if you consider the female experience of sexual assault to be a greater violation of bodily autonomy by reason of penetration, in this type of scenario, the male victim has the added horror of being forced to subject the female victim to that violation. In addition to feeling dominated and violated because he has been raped, he'd also have added to that pain a sense of responsibility for his co-victim's suffering, and being forced to commit what, if he's like most males, would be an evil act representing a violation of his most basic nature, as offering protection is one of the most basic ways in which a male human nurtures other humans, and being forced to hurt someone (especially someone he perceives as more vulnerable than himself) would feel fundamentally and deeply wrong.    
   
It would be a horrifying experience.    
   
It's dishonest to suggest that the horrifying experience of being forced to perform a sex act against one's will is not rape simply because one is male, or simply because there's another victim upon whom the experience is also inflicted. Tailoring one's ideological approach to sex crimes to exclude male victims of female perpetrators isn't rational, but it does suit feminism's predatory exploitation of proxy victim status in women, and it does suit their equally predatory exploitation of presumed perpetrator status in men. Female victimhood is most exploitable if women are seen as wholly innocent. Male perpetration is most exploitable if men are seen as solely guilty. Show that females aren't universally innocent, and males aren't commonly guilty, and you lose the basis upon which feminist organizations like NOW have lobbied for law and policy that discriminates against men, purportedly for the protection of women. You lose the basis upon which these groups have demanded grants and other funds dedicated to feminist-led initiatives, organizations, and services dedicated to female victims. You lose the feminist ability to use accusations of rape apology to try to shut down discussion about false accusations, and other men's issues related to discrimination against men in criminal court.   
   
That's really where the bottom line is; it's not about the semantics feminists try to use to excuse their choice to exclude male victims of female perpetrators from the definition of the word "rape." It's about money, power, and influence, just as it is with every other area of feminist hypocrisy.

Riddle: When is rape not rape?

When CNN reported on the Steubenville case and a after talking about the crime itself throughout the trial, a female reporter expressed sadness that the boys' actions had destroyed the existing course of their lives feminists came out of the woodwork to condemn even that minor expression of sympathy and describe the boys as monsters and derelicts because of their actions.

Where they were right: Once it was determined that the boys' actions were, in fact, rape, the story should have been about the victim. It is not the business of journalists to sympathize with convicted criminals over facing the consequences of their actions, no matter how clean-cut they otherwise appear, any more than it would have been their place to analyze the girl's behavior and experiences, talk about what she faces, or otherwise speculate on the topic. Rape is rape, even if the perpetrator's appearance is as persuasive as that of Dorian Gray, even if the perpetrator is popular, even if the perpetrator has likeable characteristics, and even if the perpetrator is a teen. None of these things excuse ignoring another person's inability to refuse or resist one's actions. Coverage sympathizing with the convicted Steubenville rapists was unprofessional and wrong. Period.

Where they were wrong: Having done something terrible and stupid does not make an individual a monster, not a human, not deserving of basic human consideration even when he has failed to show basic human consideration for another person, and even though conviction and punishment are justified. It makes him a criminal person, who must face the consequences for his actions, not someone whose humanity should be forever dismissed. While his humanity should not be the focus of journalistic discussion, neither should the desire to rescind it. There is a world of reasons why taking that attitude is a mistake, not the least of which is that it denies the individual's responsibility for his actions; Monsters cannot help what they do. People can. That distinction, when the concept of "monster" is applied to criminal actions, kills the possibility of reform, and makes it so that society is forever damaged by the creation of yet another perpetually unpayable debt. No matter how rightfully averse we are to the crime, no matter how justified we are in condemning the actions and the attitude that led to them, it is not the business of society to take a similar attitude in response... unless we wish to cease being a civilization, and become a mob.

Also relevant is the fact that the very basis of the feminist "Teach men not to rape" campaign is that incidents like this happen because the rapist doesn't know any better - if that campaign is based on genuine belief, then it is incredibly hypocritical of feminists to turn around and say "but in this instance, despite expressions of confusion and denial by the accused, the act was deliberate, harm was intended, and they're monsters!" This is not to say that rape is not wrong, not horrible, or not deserving of condemnation and penalty; just that allowing oneself to fall into such a pattern of hatred following its discovery that one goes back on one's own promulgations... is duplicitous, and renders previous declamation rather hollow. Criticizing CNN's reporters for journalistic professionalism was right; dumping vitriol upon the names of the convicts after the ruling was hypocritical in light of other feminist advocacy on the topic.

And so is their (lack of) response to this, in light of their response to Steubenville. If it is right to define rapists as nonpeople, then why aren't the same feminists coming out of the woodwork to condemn this article expressing sympathy for a woman, legally permitted to own a gun, own a house, join the military, vote for president, travel outside the country by herself, be responsible for a child... who had sex with someone who isn't even old enough to be trusted with a driver's permit, or to hold a job other than a paper route? Why does the change.org petition to halt prosecution of an accused rapist just because the perpetrator is a woman who is gay have nearly as many signatures as were offered on the petition to demand that CNN apologize for showing sympathy to rapists who were straight boys? Why did so many people decide characteristics with which they identify or sympathize were reason to socially exonerate an accused rapist?

Is it because they consider (NSFW) this to be a good rape?

Dear Feminist America,

Stop advocating against victims of lesbian rape. Stop treating women and girls whose right or ability to refuse sexual contact has been contravened or ignored by other women as if they have not been assaulted, abused, used, and betrayed by their rapists. Stop treating female perpetration of rape like it is nothing. Stop treating RAPE as though gender makes a difference in its severity, its impact on the victim, its meaning to the perpetrator, or its seriousness as a crime.
Dear Feminist America, stop perpetuating rape culture, you massive cult of hypocrisy.

Feminism, your hypocrisy is showing.

There is a story I came across writing a recent post which just... stuck with me. I knew as I read and re-read the post, trying to figure out why it remained on my mind, there must be a reason. When I compared it to recent events, and recent discussion, I realized the detail which had been tugging on my attention.

At one of the links, a woman describes her experience of, after telling a man no, being beaten and subdued by him, forced onto a table, her legs tied apart, being drugged, and having foreign objects and his hands inserted into her vagina against her will.  
   
The story came out in 2011. I only learned about it recently as I dug into the story I was highlighting in the post, about that man's lucrative business endeavors and their relationship to feminist activism on a specific topic.   
   
So, there's this story, out in 2011, describing this horrendous experience which is obviously violent, forcible rape. It made national news - ABC published it. I have not seen a single blog post, comment, call to action... nothing from feminists.

Total. Radio. Silence.  
    
Why? Why let something so heinous slip by? Where is the outpouring of support for this woman? The calls for prosecution? The demonization of the perpetrator and anyone with anything in common with him, as feminists tend to do with such cases? 
  
There won't be any. This woman's experience does not follow the rules. It isn't something they can use to further their agenda without hurting another agenda which is apparently more near and dear to their hearts than preventing rape.   

This rape happened to involve an abortion, one the patient didn't want.  
   
Family members brought her to the clinic against her will. She was in the treatment room when she told the doctor the truth. This is a physician, accountable to the Hippocratic oath: First, do no harm. This doctor, whose job it is to help the patient, instead violently forced her onto the table, stripped her, restrained her, drugged her, and performed the sexually invasive surgery against her will. And not one feminist organization has stood up to protest that behavior. No organized support has been offered to the victim. No organized effort has been made to ensure that this type of atrocity is not committed again.

Feminist groups support victims whose experiences they can use to further their political goals. When a victim's experience doesn't do that, these groups are more than willing to leave her by the side of the road and continue on their quest for political power.  
   
Similarly, feminist groups only descend upon and demonize an individual or group in the context of their advocacy or ideology when doing so provides a springboard from which to further their political goals. Their hatred and ire are reserved for those upon whose broken sociopolitical 'bodies' they can stand in order to feel that they've elevated themselves to a more persuasive position, from which they can more effectively lobby for the enactment of law and policy that suits their political agenda. When an individual or group's dysfunction or malevolence cannot be used in that manner, feminist groups are not averse to cooperation with them, sometimes even willing to offer them some protection, sometimes to the point of sacrificing the interests or well-being of those for whose benefit they are claiming to advocate. They'll compromise everything to prevent said dysfunction or malevolence from staining the image of the feminist crusade.

This is one reason among many why the men's rights movement must not fall for the claims, often made by individual feminists, that the two ideologies are opposite sides of the same coin, one benevolently fighting the good fight to end discrimination against men, the other fighting the good fight to end discrimination against women. It's not true - mainstream, active, real-world-affecting feminist groups do not give a rat's ass about ending discrimination against women. They care about political issues, and they're willing to be as ruthless, heartless, and sexist as it takes to further those goals.

If MRAs start losing sight of that fact, and begin trusting this two-faced, backstabbing, pathological frenemy that keeps trying to invade and control the evolution of the men's rights effort, we'll allow into our midst the equivalent of Tolkien's Grima Wormtongue; a living poison whose only goal is to subdue and control the movement's activism for its own gain, ready and willing to turn on any ally the moment our efforts are in even the slightest conflict, or even just whenever we cease to seem useful to them.

Hey Gawker - your slip is showing.

Yesterday I posted a brief note on Adrian Chen's short memory, a reminder that though today he's all about attacking people he does not like at the expense of innocent and helpless parties associated with them, in the past he has condemned that very behavior.

Since then, my view of the situation has been expanded, and I stand corrected.

Adrian Chen is not the problem. His writing is only a symptom of the site's larger issue of hypocrisy and journalistic feculence.

I realize now that Chen's outrage is entirely manufactured, and Jezebel's might be as well. Gawker's theme is Yellow Journalism, internet style; sensationalizing the mundane, demonizing the merely annoying, exploiting and capitalizing on anything that will draw page views.

Why else would the same organization whose various writers so vehemently decry the violation of privacy-in-public publish a sex tape made without the knowledge or consent of the participants? What great logic!

I thought, well, maybe the difference is newsworthiness.

Wrong.

Guess what website has an article full of the very type of photos which were Chen's excuse for doxing violentacrez? Surely it couldn't be...

Gawker Writer Maureen O'Connor has written a post chronicling both the deliberate and accidental nudity of one of America's most famously dysfunctional young women. Which is great... er, wrong. Because exploiting the bodies of young women for the viewing interest of one's subscribers is totally wrong, isn't it?

Isn't it, Gawker?

Oh, the Hypocrisy! (When Gawker Became the Cyberpolice)

In July of 2010, I happened across an article about the effects of the release of the personal information of an eleven year old girl by the users of 4Chan's /b/ message board. I still remember the author's castigation of the perpetrators, titling his work "How the internet beat up an 11-year-old girl," clearly showing his disdain for the way these cruel, vicious monsters had gone after their rival.

Their crime? Well, at the time, I'd never seen a name for it, and one wasn't given by the author. Instead, he wrote:

The Internet started picking on Jessi Slaughter relentlessly. But it was more than just mocking: People started circulating Jessi's real name, phone number, address and links to all her social networking accounts.

Doxing. According to TermWiki, doxing is "gathering and publicly posting the personal information of an internet user online." Doxing is generally done for harassment purposes, as was the case in this story. According to the author, it was pretty bad.   

Someone prank called her. According to Encyclopedia Dramatica, pranksters spammed her Facebook and MySpace accounts, had pizzas delivered to her house and were considering sending call girls off Craigslist to the address. (Encyclopedia Dramatica currently has a three part section on "How to troll" Jessi: 1) "There are pics of her holding her boobs" 2) "Tell her to kill herself" 3) "Tell her dad that we are going to beat her up.") Slaughter's information and videos also shot through tumblr, aided by the blogging platform's reblogging system.

The story described how the situation escalated when the girl's father made a youtube video in reply to the group harassing his family. Unfamiliar with the any area of the internet, and angry beyond measure (as any parent would be, considering some of the material sent to his house and his daughter's email account) he was inarticulate to the point of senselessness. Needless to say, the video coined memes.   

The author went on to dispense parenting advice that would be useful only to people to whom it would already be obvious - those with common sense. He then castigated Tumbler as a community for their participation in the sharing of the girl's personal information, and finally pointed out that the attack had, after all, been leveled against a kid.

An update written just a few days later further documented the harassment which had resulted from the Doxing of Jessi Slaughter, including the fact that it had resulted in the child being temporarily placed in a safehouse under police protection, and temporarily barred from internet use, and also in police investigation of some of the harassment.

I read every part of the story. I ranted about the stupidity of parents letting an eleven year old surf the 'net unsupervised. I shook my head at the low to which /b/ had sunk, that they would consider an eleven year old worthy of an organized attack. I raged over the stalkerish, creepy act of sharing a private citizen's personal information over the internet. And it struck me that this author was doing everyone a great service, by reporting on the dangers of having one's identity and whereabouts posted in a public forum. 

So who should we thank for this great exposé on the value of maintaining one's internet anonymity? Who should we thank for showing us the villainous nature of doxing? Who has clearly demonstrated that he knows damned well what far reaching and catastrophic effects to one's life can come from having one's personal identity exposed to the meatgrinder that is the internet? Who is this bastion of public concern and journalistic integrity?

 
Oh, that would be one Adrian Chen of Gawker, who recently doxed a man for the clearly heinous crime of being intensely unpopular... and male. Adrian Chen, who clearly demonstrated over two years ago that he knew how pervasive and punishing the effect of publishing that information could be. Adrian Chen, who knew he was endangering the subject of his story, exposing him to the possibility of anything from harassment to assault, to being fired from his job. Adrian Chen, whose actions just led to the removal of the supporting income of not just the guy he didn't like, but an entire family, including a disabled woman, which is ironic as hell considering his choice was made after reading complaints from self-identified feminists on reddit who should at the very least feel protective of her. 

That's right. Doxing is wrong, unless you're a Gawker reporter with a warped and historically blind sense of self-righteousness. And picking on the young and helpless just for being associated with someone you don't like is wrong... unless you're a Gawker reporter with an inflated sense of social justice.

Way to go, ace. You just walked in your own shit.