Privileged Comment Extravaganza!

This post exists purely for the sake of debate from privileged people who disagree with the sentiments I’ve expressed anywhere within this blog. This means if you are:

‣ A man objecting to my stance on female oppression
‣ A heterosexual objecting to my stance on queer rights
‣ An able-bodied person objecting to my stance on disability
‣ A (disabled or not) non-wheelchair-user objecting to my stance on wheelchair users’ rights
‣ A middle or upper class person objecting to my stance on poverty
‣ A Christian in the Western World (including specifically the USA) objecting to my stance as a Pagan
‣ A thin person objecting to my stance on fatphobia

then you should share your opinions here. Just copy and paste a link to the entry to which you wish to respond, and then go about your comment as usual. I will reply to your comment in the context of the linked post. This allows the post to remain a safe space for the minorities involved, yet still allows privileged people the chance to disagree with, question, or discuss my posts.

Please be sure to familiarize yourself with my comment policy, specifically the rules on not using slurs or making threats. Otherwise, go to town. Feel free to object to as much as you’d like, and I will reply. If the conversation goes nowhere, or devolves into breaking the rules of my comment policy, I maintain the right to shut down the comment thread, for the sake of everyone involved.

Happy commenting!

Advertisements

About bunnika

shout at the brick wall; if it doesn't hear you, shout louder
This entry was posted in blogly business. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Privileged Comment Extravaganza!

  1. James says:

    Well, I think I made a mistake. Even though I don’t know if I was disagreeing with anything rather than offering my perspective on the first point as a victim. I can’t remember at all what exactly I wrote. If it belongs here, I’m sorry.

    • bunnika says:

      It’s okay; you’ve done a lot more than most in even acknowledging that this is the place to comment, so I’m just going to copy-and-paste the comment you left on the original entry, and reply to everything here.

      Your original comment:

      So, Imma be that dude. ya know, that dude who isn’t all sunshine and joy. I take personal issue with #1. Everything you said is right, but the point isn’t to put focus on men at all. It’s perfectly fine that people focus on women. It isn’t fine however that virtually NOTHING is said about those male victims. It’s kinda like it’s okay if I were to write a book with only male leads. It’s not okay if I wrote a hundread and all had male leads.
      Even though #1 about DV, I can’t help but to read it about sexual abuse.

      It’s a difficult thing to bring across to another survivor, because I know that you aren’t wrong. However, it truly feels that it’s impossible to be an ally and to care about my own abuse. Does that make any sense? I can only be in one of those modes at once it seems. I know it isn’t women’s place to care, but it’s like, It feels wrong to confront/go to women about male victims, but it’s terrifying to even thinking about confronting men. I’d rather remain silent then even try that.

      Really, you’re arguing against a straw feminist here, whether we’re talking about DV or sexual assault. It’s the most common straw argument people run into, I think, and I can understand how it’s especially difficult for a survivor, but let me explain why this isn’t an argument you need to make here:

      First, I have never and would never tell a victim of any sort of violence that they aren’t allowed to advocate for themselves, and have their voice heard. Male victims of DV and SA get hung up on this with feminists when we’re asking that our space be ours. This doesn’t mean there is no place, should be no place for you and your story, but just that we are fighting a battle both similar to, but also incredibly different from yours. Both of our assaults and the resulting injustices are based in patriarchy, they are encouraged by systemic misogyny in both men and women. But they need different approaches, and they need their own safe spaces.

      Feminist victims of DV/SA need our own space because the way we are silenced is different from the way male victims are. We need our own space because we constantly have our stories drowned out with discussion about men, as if your suffering matters more. And this is not to diminish the problems men have with getting justice or being heard, but truly, even women are quick to go “BUT MEN GET RAPED TOO” every. single. time. a woman discusses her experience. It’s silencing, and women at large are silenced more than men, and we need safe spaces like this so we can learn how to advocate for ourselves, to make our voices heard in the greater social sphere. And that will ultimately help male victims of DV/SA, because if we can actually make society believe that women are equal with men, people will believe male victims when they speak up about female abusers. It will make people understand that DV and SA are not “feminine” victimizations, and male victims of female/male/intersex/agender abusers are not any less worthy of respect simply because they were victimized.

      And I understand how scary it is to have that conversation with men. I’ve stared a man in the eye when he gaslit my experience as a rape victim, and told me that rape is “a matter of perspective.” (Which sure as hell sounds like code for “I’m a rapist, but I don’t see myself that way” but I’ma let that go for now.) It’s terrifying, and I understand that. You would not believe the threats of violence and rape I’ve had leveled against me just for writing this blog. (I don’t publish those comments.) But I do it, because it feels important to me, not only on a personal level, but to offer a sense of comfort and community for my fellow survivors.

      This is sort of the answer you’re left with: You need to find or perhaps found your own community. You have every right to a safe space that isn’t misogynistic, but that doesn’t mean you need to insert yourself in a space designed for women. (Where sometimes, women are struggling with such anxiety and fear of men, that your presence could be triggering.) The problem comes when this gets warped by MRAs into communities where women get blamed for wanting these spaces. It becomes a forum for furthering misogyny, which does jack squat to actually get justice for male victims.

      Such a community is even perfectly within its rights to be male-only! There is nothing wrong with victims needing the security of not being exposed to people who remind them of their abusers, particularly in the early stages of recovery. But being male-only doesn’t mean it has to be anti-feminist, it doesn’t mean it has to be an MRA breeding ground for discussing how women and “misandry” are to blame for male victimization. But that’s how it turns out far too often, and frankly, that fucking sucks for guys like you. But that can’t be what women have to worry about, and it can’t be what you bring to the table in discussions of female abuse. It’s something you need to find or create your own table for, and that is an effort I would support wholeheartedly, because every survivor deserves that. But it’s not the responsibility of women to create those spaces, or open up our own to you. Too often we’ve been torn down for it, had our spaces stolen, and been silenced. By speaking up for ourselves, we are speaking up for all victims of gendered violence, because we are working to tear down the patriarchy that spawns this injustice in the first place.

      • James says:

        Let me begin by saying that I truly and sincerely appreciate your reply. It wasn’t a light handed comment for me to submit and I knew that you didn’t have to acknowledge it; especially because this space exists for a specific reason. I’m writing this as a personal reply because I don’t want to force my presence here anymore than I already have. I wish I could offer a well thought out reply to yours, but there isn’t anything I can add or take away. When I read or hear something stating that women are assaulted far more than men, I become acutely upset. Sadness and loneliness set in immediately. I got defensive with you, and I apologize.

        After reading your reply, and rereading it, and rereading it again, something about it strikes me deep down. It’s odd really, that I am completely without words. I read this at like 12:00 my time, and it’s now 1:50 and i still can’t put together a true response. So I’m taking it as a sign that there isn’t anything I SHOULD say. This may sound silly, but now I feel like I could make a space of my own.

        Either way, thank you.

        • bunnika says:

          And thank you for commenting respectfully, even though this is such a sensitive subject for you. I wish you the best of luck in recovery, and in finding or creating a support system for yourself, and other men in your position. If you’d like, you’re welcome to link me to any such communities, and I’ll gladly pass along the information as a resource for others on my Tumblr and Facebook pages.

  2. bunnika says:

    https://bunnika.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/baiting-mental-illness
    Delaney on April 18, 2013 at 11:25 PM said:
    I’d also like to point out that mania does not always manifest in anger or nastiness or incoherence. It can also manifest in increased productivity and creativity and feelings of elation or euphoria. This discussion of mania makes it sound as if it is only ever negative and dangerous and that mania is always this way, which I think just perpetuates another harmful stereotype about manic states.

    • bunnika says:

      Why this comment is ableist: You DO NOT get to tell me I’m not properly representing my own goddamn mental illness. Oh, mania being only negative is a harmful stereotype? Well it’s also the only way I experience it and fuck you for negating my experiences. If you have super-happy-funtime mania, go write about it your damn self instead of coming into a safe-space post and telling me I’m doin it rong. I write about my experiences, I cannot pretend I have experiences I don’t. That was a wholly inappropriate and ableist thing to say, not to mention belittling and cruel to someone who’s obviously struggling with these very negative manifestations. Now stay the fuck off my blog.

  3. bunnika says:

    Peter Lane-Collett (https://www.facebook.com/peter.lanecollett) on June 9, 2013 at 4:29 PM said:

    You said “The people who like inspiration porn, they’re giving us the same role as a puppy stranded in flood waters. These animals need that charity, they are truly incapable of rescuing themselves, and fans of inspiration porn act like being disabled is a lifetime of being a cat stuck in a tree.”

    Sadly some people with disabilities are absolutely in need of that charity as they are completely incapable of “saving” themselves. Without their families, carers or the support of a caring society in general, these people would not be able to survive. In that way, these PWDs are very much like the puppy or kitten.

    Do people have the right to feel good about seeing images of disabled folk getting help? Of course, why not? Does it make some people feel grateful they too are not disabled? Probably and again, why not? Are PWDs inspirational? Well for sure, some are. Lots of people are inspirational. Are they inspirational simply because they are disabled? Well that’s just plain stupid. It’s like inspiring people because you have blue eyes. I am a PWD and I have blue eyes so I must be really be someone special. I do think that most disabled peoiple hate that “you’re so inspirational” thing. We are just living our lives like everyone else, maybe doing a better job than some and a worse job than others. Wow just like the non-disabled side of the community.

    • bunnika says:

      My original reply is recorded as a screenshot. The relevant text is as follows:

      I can’t even with this “some people are like puppies” privileged bullshit. (And yes, it’s still privileged even if you are yourself disabled; clearly you are not disabled in a way that you’d deem “puppy-like.”) So I’m just gonna see if other people have the energy for your bullshit, because the logic used here, comparing people to animals? It’s literally been used to justify eugenics and the mass murder of disabled people, so FUCK YOU SO HARD.

  4. bunnika says:

    https://bunnika.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/snippet-a-culture-of-victimhood/
    Matthew Chiglinsky says:
    January 15, 2014 at 11:46 PM (Edit)
    I think the key point of being considered a victim is how you fight back. Do you simply complain and expect other people to fight for you, or do you really show bravery and strength and take action yourself? (The first type of person is a victim to me.)

    For instance, when people demand a minimum wage increase, I agree with them, but maybe what they should really consider doing is going on strike. Hit The Man where it hurts. Get up and get organized. If you aren’t brave enough to hurt the system where it counts, then maybe you deserve to be a brainwashed slave. (I’m unemployed, by the way, because I got tired of bending my own principles for reasons that were not even related to money.)

    Here’s another example, one that doesn’t even involve the fear of starving or going homeless. I have a post on my blog that compares gynecology to rape, but truth be told, I really don’t blame gynecologists for the situation. I blame brainwashed women for willingly taking their clothes off and not questioning whether the situation is wrong. I created that post to encourage more of them to say, “No.”

    Finally, here’s an even more mild example. My dentist always used to want to X-ray my teeth on every visit. I said “No.” at least once a year, because I didn’t want all that radiation going through my skull. I no longer even have a dentist, actually. I eventually just said “No.” to everything.

    • bunnika says:

      My original reply is recorded as a screenshot. The relevant text is as follows:

      I’m not even going to touch on the rest of the comment, because this is what floors me:

      I have a post on my blog that compares gynecology to rape, but truth be told, I really don’t blame gynecologists for the situation. I blame brainwashed women for willingly taking their clothes off and not questioning whether the situation is wrong.

      So what you’re saying is that you think it’s okay to blame rape victims for their own rapes. Let’s not even debate whether gynecology is rape, because we’re talking about the justifications in your own twisted mind. You even say these women are brainwashed by some outside force, but it’s still their fault? You are fucking disgusting, never comment on my blog again.

  5. Gaius Baltar says:

    This is actually intended for the circumcision post but I saw that comments are closed there.

    “Oppression is not always one class against another. Men systematically oppress men to prime them for violence against women. And yes, it is designed to reduce pleasure (as you admitted it does) to restrict men to intercourse. The bare minimum for reproduction (and sometimes not that) is left.

    In effect, it’s designed to weaponize the penis. It is designed to harm women. As for the comparison to FGM, you can’t prevent that comparison because most of the world’s cutters are making it. MGM is being used to perpetuate FGM in Africa, and has caused hundreds of deaths. It’s also being sold as a total cure for HIV. How many women have been infected by that myth?

    When arguing any human rights issue, it’s necessary to start where the other person is and then gradually move them to your position. FGM started with MGM and the rationales behind them have always been the same. I’m appalled that there are people who say MGM is worse or who make threats, but think about where they’re coming from. Think about it, because you can use it.

    It’s not enough to have the right ethics. Lots of good people have simply been wiped out. The question isn’t whether people are right. Morality has very little to do with most people’s daily decision making processes. The question is why people think the things they do. Cause, not reason. The ethical arguments (for any cultural practice) are usually just rationalizations after the fact. It’s not a question of whether the two practices are comparable in a pissing-contest sort of way. The question is what links them in terms of causality. The ethics are just ideas in our heads (I’m sorry to say).

    This is what a lot of people miss about patriarchy – it only claims to be for the benefit of men, but murders men at three times the rate of women. What it is really intended to benefit is us replicating, and driving men insane with frustration helps that. People are organic von Neumann machines designed to eat and replicate. To that end the species will put men in a certain position as a class, but will harm men in any way it has to to maintain the status quo. It will do the same to women but only to the extent that they can still be used for breeding.

    Or to put it another way – instead of telling men what they’ve done wrong (a lost cause with men or women), show them what this system did to them and why the patriarchy is their enemy. The reason is right between their legs.”

    Misandry is most definitely real. It’s part of patriarchy.

    • bunnika says:

      Men oppressing men isn’t misandry, it’s misogyny. If you understand that this is the patriarchy, I’d think you’d understand that. Misandry would only be possible in a matriarchy, which we do not have.

  6. Gaius Baltar says:

    I really am sorry for the wordiness here…but…

    Men cannot help women if they are told to ignore the controls that are specifically imposed on men. If they try to help women without addressing the programming (and physical coercion) that causes them to harm women, all they can do is buy into whatever mass-marketed pink-ribbon corporate feminism reaches them first. Yes, men are suffering. And they don’t know it. And they’re being told to sympathize with millions of women whose stories they don’t even know, without knowing their own stories or being able to sympathize with themselves. How are they supposed to see patriarchy as their own enemy and not just the enemy of women?

    So a man beating a boy to toughen him up has nothing to do with women. It would still be wrong in a culture that was sex-segregated. A boy who has been raped is not helped by being told how his experiences are actually about women. In that moment it is the boy who is suffering. If this is only wrong because he might later be violent to women (assuming he’s even straight), then his entire worth and right to be free from violence are predicated on the interests of others. The violence that women endure from men is a small sampling of what men do to each other (and women largely encourage), esp. in terms of outright killing. Both from ordinary murder and from war, men die at three times the rate of women and are expected to do so with ‘pride.’

    Oppression of men as men is misandry. It needs to be distinguished from misogyny a) to avoid diluting the idea of misogyny and b) because sometimes it relates to women and sometimes it doesn’t. Anything that would constitute misogyny against a woman constitutes misandry against a man. Misandry is being surgically weaponized against one’s will. Misogyny is being turned into a toy for men to use. Misandry is Arlington National Cemetery. War is about killing as many of the enemy’s men (and our own!!!!!) as possible. Because that’s how animals operate. Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. When every person’s worth depends on whether their suffering harms some other people, that’s the route we’re headed down.

    And you can be offended and say that this has negative moral implications, but I’m not talking about right and wrong. I’m talking about cause and effect. People operate on the programming they aren’t aware of. The things that come out of their mouths are just smokescreens to convince them that they’re making choices. For instance – patriarchy. A very simple one-word description for something far more complicated. It’s not an end unto itself. It’s not there to empower men over women. That’s just another means. It is about genetic competition regardless of the cost to the individual of either sex. And if we don’t know what it is, our destruction of it will require something equally oppressive to achieve the same physical result. Pregnant women, dead men.

    ‘We,’ the voices in our heads that we call ‘ourselves,’ are a recent development. We’re passengers in bodies that weren’t made for our happiness but to get us to replicate. And only very, very recently have we developed any ability to question things. Patriarchy is not a human invention. It predates us. And the ideologies that we’re fighting against are only the surface. They’re just elaborate excuses for things we were doing before we could walk upright. Eating as much as possible and breeding as much as possible.

    Oppression is just our first, simplest description for intraspecies Darwinism. Not as a philosophy but as a zoological phenomenon that nobody invented. And some feminists will tell you there’s nothing biological about it and that you can’t look at it scientifically at all because that means you have to condone it.

    Because lots of people in social justice activism aren’t about solving anything. They just want to be ‘right.’ Because their morality is more real to them than what’s physically happening and because they don’t want to see themselves as part of an ecosystem that doesn’t revolve around them. To many feminists, immoral = unnatural. Sound familiar? It’s the equivalent of shouting down the person whose theory of bacteria doesn’t jibe with the evil-spirits explanation. Well, the ideas in an individual’s head aren’t much more real than evil spirits are, unfortunately. The behavior they have in common with lions and monkeys is real.

    A Jewish woman is killed in an anti-Semitic bombing. That’s not misogyny. A Jewish man is killed in the same bombing. That’s not misandry. Intersectionalism requires examining how each person’s identities are used against them. Erasing them and making it about other people isn’t compatible with any concept of human rights (although nobody seems to subscribe to that concept any more – it’s all about being able to accuse individual people of privilege without knowing anything about them, because we think other people’s flaws make us better people when just being American is monstrous). And when we are looking for reasons that one person’s suffering doesn’t matter because they ostensibly have one type of privilege (offset by who knows what other factors), we’re arguing against the concept of human rights.

    When men are told that everyone else’s suffering but theirs is more important (esp. when men in America are told to consider the suffering of women on the other side of the world before their own or indeed anything that happens even to women in the US), all they hear is, “Man up.” Which is what they’ve been doing for thousands of years. It’s not like they have friends the way women have friends. Most men have no close friends at all and don’t know how to make them. They have absolutely no one to talk to. And who knows how to deal with that problem? Women.

    Circumcision also functions as an emotional lobotomy.

    And yes, many women explicitly state that they hate men and do have the ability to harm men and boys psychologically and physically. On the other hand you have the intactivist women who are largely feminists as well.

    The other reason FGM keeps coming up in discussions of MGM is that FGM advocates often start out by downplaying MGM. They use it as a starting point in many cases, explicitly stating that cutting boys is beneficial. So MGM activists already have that misconception to counter. They didn’t start the comparison. The cutters started it and the first-wave anti-FGM movement continued it. Yes, I take intactivists to task when they get too heated. I’ve never heard one feminist accuse another of being unfair to men even in the face of comments about how we should all be killed at birth. When I hear the statement that feminism isn’t about hating men, it’s always directed at men and not at women.

    And yes, I fight for women’s rights as well. Not in spite of my views on men’s oppression but because of them. And if you wonder why feminists get so many posts like this, it’s because there are no men to talk to – and because feminists are the only people who know how to discuss things like this at all.

    Again, sorry for wordiness, and I do appreciate your stance on cutting. Long story short – if women are capable of cutting girls, what does that tell you about what men can do to boys? When men bring up things like this with feminists they are seeking female leadership.

    • bunnika says:

      Men cannot help women if they are told to ignore the controls that are specifically imposed on men.

      And who’s telling them to ignore that? Not me. I’m just asking them to acknowledge the root of those controls as patriarchal.

      And they’re being told to sympathize with millions of women whose stories they don’t even know, without knowing their own stories or being able to sympathize with themselves.

      It’s really gross to imply that human beings cannot sympathize unless they also suffer something similar. I sympathize with a lot of causes that in no way affect me, because I’m capable of reflecting on experiences beyond my own. It’s not hard.

      A boy who has been raped is not helped by being told how his experiences are actually about women. In that moment it is the boy who is suffering.

      More of this fallacy about feminists telling rape victims they don’t deserve treatment or respect unless they’re female. I have never said that. Rape victims deserve respect as rape victims, and they should all receive treatment. Male rape victims should have a space all their own where they can safely discuss their experiences and how society contributed to them. Feminists don’t want to deny them that, we want them to stop trying to take over our spaces. Everyone deserves a space, but their own.

      The violence that women endure from men is a small sampling of what men do to each other (and women largely encourage), esp. in terms of outright killing.

      This is really dismissive of male-on-female violence.

      Oppression of men as men is misandry.

      So done with this whole argument. If it stems from patriarchy, it is misogyny.

      patriarchy….It’s not there to empower men over women.

      Please stop using the word “patriarchy” if you don’t understand what it means.

      ‘We,’ the voices in our heads that we call ‘ourselves,’ are a recent development. We’re passengers in bodies that weren’t made for our happiness but to get us to replicate.

      This philosophical stuff is pointless. This is not objective, and can’t be debated. What we individually believe to be the point of life has no bearing on this conversation. Everyone will have a different view here, based on biology or sociology or spirituality or any of a number of other things.

      Patriarchy is not a human invention. It predates us.

      What exactly is your point here? Matriarchy predates us as well. Some animals are patriarchal, other matriarchal, it has nothing to do with humanity, because we have a sentience that demands better of us.

      Oppression is just our first, simplest description for intraspecies Darwinism.

      You think very little of human beings.

      To many feminists, immoral = unnatural. Sound familiar?

      No, because making this about “natural” or “unnatural” turns this into a biological debate, which it isn’t. Biology should not be used to justify misogyny.

      A Jewish woman is killed in an anti-Semitic bombing. That’s not misogyny. A Jewish man is killed in the same bombing. That’s not misandry.

      Who would say it is?

      Intersectionalism requires examining how each person’s identities are used against them. Erasing them and making it about other people isn’t compatible with any concept of human rights

      I cannot shake out what erasure you’re talking about.

      And when we are looking for reasons that one person’s suffering doesn’t matter because they ostensibly have one type of privilege (offset by who knows what other factors), we’re arguing against the concept of human rights.

      This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of intersectionality. It’s not about having one type of privilege somehow erasing other oppression (as if being male could erase the oppression of being black), it’s about accepting that one sort of privilege (male privilege) can exist alongside of another kind of oppression (racism), and they can interplay in complicated ways. A person’s suffering always matters on an individual level, but where there is no social or cultural torment to exacerbate it is an avenue where social overhaul is not required.

      When men are told that everyone else’s suffering but theirs is more important

      Again, you’re conflating individual and social, which does not work.

      Most men have no close friends at all and don’t know how to make them. They have absolutely no one to talk to. And who knows how to deal with that problem? Women.

      Really confused about this. It’s not factual, and seems a judgment call on something that varies greatly person to person. Most men I know have more close friends than I do, but as that’s personal experience, I can’t say it applies to any greater social pattern.

      Circumcision also functions as an emotional lobotomy.

      If you understand that I’m against circ, why do you feel the need to tell me why it’s bad? I know it is. I can’t quite grasp your metaphor here, but the sentiment “circ is bad” is inherent, and I get that.

      The other reason FGM keeps coming up in discussions of MGM is that FGM advocates often start out by downplaying MGM. They use it as a starting point in many cases, explicitly stating that cutting boys is beneficial. So MGM activists already have that misconception to counter. They didn’t start the comparison. The cutters started it and the first-wave anti-FGM movement continued it.

      Please provide proof of this.

      I’ve never heard one feminist accuse another of being unfair to men even in the face of comments about how we should all be killed at birth.

      Then you really haven’t met many feminists.

      And if you wonder why feminists get so many posts like this, it’s because there are no men to talk to

      Then create spaces for men to talk about this. Philanthropy starts at home. Create feminist spaces for men, discursive spaces for men, encourage men to talk about the patriarchy and misogyny and social norms. It is not the job of feminists, of women, to provide you with this. If you don’t like things, change them. Start your own blog, and open up your comments to men, even exclusively, to create a safe space for male discourse.

  7. Gaius Baltar says:

    “And who’s telling them to ignore that? Not me. I’m just asking them to acknowledge the root of those controls as patriarchal.”

    But there are so many billions of people behind the controls. And lots of oppression by men against women happens outside of any framework related to family structure. It would be very easy for someone to propose another oppressive system that does the same things but has no nuclear families. Patriarchy is a method. It too has roots, and not all of them are within the sphere of ideology.

    “It’s really gross to imply that human beings cannot sympathize unless they also suffer something similar. I sympathize with a lot of causes that in no way affect me, because I’m capable of reflecting on experiences beyond my own. It’s not hard.”

    This is a very important point and I agree. I was speaking specifically to a man trying to sympathize with an experience that *is* similar to his own (esp. if it was male-role conditioning that could harm women later). If we’re talking about something totally unlike his own experiences then obviously he should defer. But if there is a similarity, it makes it that much easier to broach the subject.

    “More of this fallacy about feminists telling rape victims they don’t deserve treatment or respect unless they’re female. I have never said that. Rape victims deserve respect as rape victims, and they should all receive treatment. Male rape victims should have a space all their own where they can safely discuss their experiences and how society contributed to them. Feminists don’t want to deny them that, we want them to stop trying to take over our spaces. Everyone deserves a space, but their own.”

    Agreed. I was referring specifically to the use of the word misogyny. I should have said that I don’t think hatred of men and hatred of women should be seen as the same thing, but as related. If they’re referred to as both being misogyny, the interaction between them could be missed.

    “This is really dismissive of male-on-female violence.”

    I take it we agree that violence against women cannot be justified. So no factual statement can lead to that conclusion. 77% of murder victims are male. That number does not require me to make the leap of logic that violence against women should be ignored.

    “What exactly is your point here? Matriarchy predates us as well. Some animals are patriarchal, other matriarchal, it has nothing to do with humanity, because we have a sentience that demands better of us.”

    Sentience is not well defined, and we have only had it for a very short time. One of the first things we did with that sentience was sublimate it to hive minds called deities, specifically to avoid questioning our actions. The first thing we did with our sentience was hack it to slow its development. Humans have been patriarchal since before spoken language. We may have evolved from something else that wasn’t matriarchal, but we are still operating on a combination of instinct, and patriarchal culture that evolved to reinforce it.

    As evidenced by the development of feminism in only the last few centuries, and the fact that out of 7 billion people most are still totally in thrall to the status quo even when it kills them. I’m not justifying it. I’m simply trying to describe the enormity of the problem. It is smarter and more powerful than individual people are and is stronger than any one culture (and is stronger than the movement against it), because it evolved specifically to harness billions of minds. That’s how it gets women to cut their daughters. The female cutter is one mind who has been ‘hacked’ by a network of millions of other minds.

    “‘Oppression is just our first, simplest description for intraspecies Darwinism.’

    You think very little of human beings.”

    What do you think I mean by this statement? I’m saying that we are blinded by the belief that religion and patriarchy are what they claim to be rather than smokescreens for animal behavior. I take it on faith (because I have to) that you are right about our sentience demanding more. I’m saying that this is conscious thought (which you are doing) vs. programmed animal behavior (patriarchy). No statement I;ve made leads to the conclusion that the status quo is good. It’s a foregone conclusion (to you and to me at least) that patriarchy is wrong. I’m not saying people should act like animals I’m complaining that that is all they’ve been doing. You can use many other mammals as a control group. There are plenty of species who carry out the same behavior without the aid of language or culture. And often the differences between their behavior and ours can be linked to specific anatomy.

    But so much of feminism is about forcing people to use the correct terms according to the correct definition, and a difference in analysis or terminology is taken to mean a total reversal in someone’s ethical position. As I said, no scientific observation can constitute justification for something the observation is intended to correct. For example – if someone genuinely proves tomorrow that FGM makes it impossible to ever get Alzheimer’s, the ethics of the practice do not change. It would still be unethical even if it had demonstrable benefits. That instantly obliterates anything a doctor might think up to justify it. Ditto for any other unethical practice.

    But when you insist on patriarchy meaning a certain thing and all issues being discussed in terms chosen by a few college professors, you are taking the discussion off of scientific causality and taking these physical events back into the realm of ideology.

    The purpose of ideology is to mask any literal examination of what motivates human behavior. Ideology did not create patriarchy, and it will not destroy it. In any scientific sense (we are talking about a population of animals), ideas do not exist at all when distilled down to the individual. But an evolutionary approach allows you to look at deities and ideas as evolved predators that metabolize other ideas, people and resources. Ever heard the term ‘consumed by an idea?’ Billions of people’s brains have been consumed in the thinking up of the ideas you’re fighting. You can’t hack the whole Internet with a few hundred laptops.

    Another reason for the computer analogy is that a scientific approach to the causes of human behavior is necessary to understand the threats posed to our health and social interaction by machines. The medium is the message, as much with computers as with DNA. People’s behavior and ideas are influenced by their technology (radical feminism couldn’t have existed without the printing press and grew further with computers, and nobody discusses how many people die to make computers), and we’re running headlong into new physical circumstances without understanding the ones we came from.

    “No, because making this about “natural” or “unnatural” turns this into a biological debate, which it isn’t. Biology should not be used to justify misogyny.”

    Examining the causes of a problem is a step in solving it, not justifying it. Human beings are a physical phenomenon. Our behavior is largely determined by the same impersonal forces that govern any animal population. It’s religion that tells us we’re something else. No fact that we discover about that phenomenon automatically leads to one ethical conclusion or another. But we do need to understand that what we have been doing is animal behavior and that’s why it’s wrong. Evolved behaviors are not for the benefit of the individual animals themselves.

    “This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of intersectionality. It’s not about having one type of privilege somehow erasing other oppression (as if being male could erase the oppression of being black), it’s about accepting that one sort of privilege (male privilege) can exist alongside of another kind of oppression (racism), and they can interplay in complicated ways. ”

    I was describing how most people I’ve talked to use the concept of privilege to directly attack a specific person. That is their idea of intersectionality, not mine.

    “A person’s suffering always matters on an individual level, but where there is no social or cultural torment to exacerbate it is an avenue where social overhaul is not required…
    Again, you’re conflating individual and social, which does not work.”

    When I said ‘a man’ I was referring to men as a class, not individuals. Bad phrasing, sorry. I was referring to the forms of male suffering that result from men’s complicity in the macho role. More to the point, I’m talking about showing men that the patriarchy is their enemy and only claims to be good for them.

    “If you understand that I’m against circ, why do you feel the need to tell me why it’s bad? I know it is. I can’t quite grasp your metaphor here, but the sentiment “circ is bad” is inherent, and I get that.”

    And I greatly appreciate that. I referred to circumcision that way to point out another aspect of it which is misogynistic. I also think that mothers being coerced into it by doctors and fathers is a thing.

    “‘The other reason FGM keeps coming up in discussions of MGM is that FGM advocates often start out by downplaying MGM. They use it as a starting point in many cases, explicitly stating that cutting boys is beneficial. So MGM activists already have that misconception to counter. They didn’t start the comparison. The cutters started it and the first-wave anti-FGM movement continued it.’

    Please provide proof of this.”

    And just in case I wasn’t clear, by FGM advocates I mean anti-FGM advocates. I was sure I’d fixed that…oh well. Proof. The rush to change its description from circumcision to genital mutilation, to privilege their own culture over that of Africans. Harvey Kellogg, the father of American circumcision who also promoted burning the clitoris with acid. The very involvement by Westerners in a foreign country’s practice without any examination of its own. The fact that no culture cuts girls that doesn’t cut boys. The fact that male circumcision dates back 6,000 years.

    Most of these articles have FGM as the main topic but all reference MGM (why can’t they stick to FGM?):

    Appropriating FGM to argue that MGM is not mutilation at all (despite FGM bans covering even a nick), lying about anatomy and medical risks of MGM, and claiming sufficient knowledge of male anatomy to decide that the whole penis would have to be destroyed to make a comparison:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sheryl-saperia/infant-circumcision-canada_b_1646749.html

    Conflating intactivists to MRAs though most are feminist women, again lying about the effects, claiming that all cut men have ‘sexual function,’ and claiming that all intactivists consider MGM worse than FGM:

    http://abstractnonsense.wordpress.com/2006/10/28/male-versus-female-circumcision/

    Claiming that male babies cannot feel pain, that alterations of genital tissue are ‘not analogous’ no matter how mild the female form, and that it may ‘slightly decrease’ pleasure but that doesn’t matter because no one knows:

    http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/06/29/comparing-circumcisions/

    Prefacing an article on FGM by stating that MGM has legitimate benefits:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carina-kolodny/female-genital-mutilation_4_b_4734728.html

    And throughout all of these, their descriptions of FGM focus only on the most severe forms which are less common, as opposed to the other forms which may be harder for even a doctor to identify. Like what happened to an actual baby girl in Indonesia whose mom just posted about it on Facebook. Her form of circumcision is extremely common and is not at all discussed by American FGM campaigners. I’d never heard the term for this form of cutting (a slit in the hood) until she made her post.

    Bearing in mind that Americans are experimenting on black men to promote circumcision in Africa, leading to more HIV infections for men and women who mistake it as a total cure. They also all emphasize that MGM is religious but not part of patriarchy while FGM is never religious but still patriarchal. And there is no discussion of the fact that nearly all cutters of girls are women (due to the myth that the clitoris can kill a man, and for the sake of ‘female bonding’ over the ritual). The motivations are described purely in Western terms with hardly any quotes from cut women or cutters as to the motivations. Americans can pinkwash anything. They also imply that if FGM was done cleanly, removed less flesh or had medical benefits, that that would justify it.

    Most Americans oppose FGM. Most Americans still support MGM. They’re not able to even approach the subject of FGM without using MGM as a starting point. And why would men who are cut? Whenever MGM comes up the immediate response is that men in America must be more concerned with a practice that occurs outside their country before thinking about what happened to them directly. Very few Americans are actually fighting FGM in Africa, and the average American man has very little influence over the social norms in his own country – let alone the other side of the world. No matter what, what happened to him can never be about him.

    More lies about the patriarchal motivations and effects, and all intactivists being smeared as considering MGM worse than FGM:

    http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/11/12/why-male-circumcision-and-fema/

    The AHA foundation going so far as to say that the hood of the clitoris does not have a role in sexual pleasure, for the sake of devaluing the same tissue in boys:

    “The prepuce is the “hood” or fold of skin that surrounds the clitoris and has no impact on sexual arousal or pleasure.”
    http://give.theahafoundation.org/blog-0/bid/151562/FGM-is-Not-Female-Circumcision-and-Other-Thoughts-on-Terminology

    More claims that MGM has benefits in an article on FGM. Why does she have to bring MGM up at all? Oh – same building, same day.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20circumcision-t.html?_r=0

    Male circumcision doctors being recruited to cut girls, and a claim that the Quran doesn’t mention FGM at all:

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/nov/18/female-genital-mutilation-circumcision-indonesia

    And last but not least, a woman who was voluntarily cut and is using MGM and lies about intactivists to promote FGM:

    http://www.fuambaisiaahmadu.com/writing.html

    Again, I don’t think you’re wrong about anything. Good call on setting up a new forum, too. Thanks for that.

    • bunnika says:

      To be completely honest I feel like we’re going in circles. I don’t think our fundamental disagreements are any huge divide, and I don’t think either of us is going to present reasons compelling enough to sway each other on the intricacies.

      That said, you’ve been respectful and reasonable in discourse, and even provided sources when asked (which is literally something that never happens, at least not unless you count someone’s MRA blog as a “source”). That’s why I’m publishing this comment, even though I 100% do not have the spoons to go through it point-by-point. Like I said, I think we’re just going to go in more circles, and I don’t feel as if I need to have the “last word” or anything like that, so I’m content to leave this here unrebutted.

      Thanks for engaging in mature debate, it’s not something I encounter too often, sadly. I’m okay with shaking hands and parting respectfully, hopefully that’s fine by you, too.

  8. Bloom says:

    https://bunnika.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/some-truth-bombs-about-rape/

    I’m a political leftist who saw those statistics (the CDC ones) in an image a while ago, and needed them again.
    An article was published yesterday in an online french newspaper I read, written by a highschooler. I’ll sum some of it up here because it was interesting.
    He told of a discussion with a girl friend about a rape case. She explained that the woman who cried no was still consenting because she sucked the guy’s dick before, and then she responded to the contradicting arguments of the author by saying that he didn’t know what he was talking about and shouldn’t discuss it because as a male he couldn’t be raped.
    That motivated him to do some schoolwork about the subject of male being raped, and he started talking with various adults. A male professor said that a male should just tighten his ass and fight back, and when asked about female rapists, just laughed. So then he went to talk about it with the female school nurse, who said it didn’t exist, and accused him of trying to obfuscate the problem of male rapists and oppose the struggle of women against rape. Then he went to see a social worker, who politely told him that she couldn’t help because she never heard about an actual case.
    Then in the comments some guy said he couldn’t understand how a man could be forcefully made to penetrate someone, and that such cases were surely exceedingly rare.

    So I wanted to post the picture of these two tables. I googled for them and found myself here.
    And now I want to answer you.

    “Yet, in all my discussions of women being raped, I have never once argued that men don’t get raped, or that male victims should be ignored. I’ve never said that men who are raped suffer less than their female counterparts, or that their violations are any less serious.”

    I didn’t read much more than this post of yours, and I think you should rethink about that.
    Now, it’s true that you said that men get raped, and that being forced to penetrate is rape. And you’re right about it. I’m not comparing you to that school nurse.
    On my side (not to do you a favor, but because it’s true), I agree that the problem lies with traditional, sexist representations and the social constructs called gender. I wouldn’t call it “the patriarchy”, because I think that concept is only useful when defined as an effect instead of a cause. But anyway, feminism isn’t to blame, except for having yet to achieve total victory against the old order.

    The question is, what are you trying to demonstrate with this post, after all your disclaimers about how you don’t forget male victims ?
    That male victims are “far less” numerous than female victims, and that male perpetrators are “far more” numerous than female ones.
    What for ? What relevance is there to the numbers ? Why do you feel the need to say “far more” instead of “more”, or instead of just quoting the rates ?
    Because you want to convince people that we CAN gloss over male victims. That we can just say that they exist, then talk about the real problem, female victims.

    Who cares whether they’re 10% or 25% of the victims ? It’s all the same to you, apparently, since you’re saying that this study comforts your original point, when you mentionned the 10%. And saying that there’s a difference, like the guy who pointed you to this CDC survey did, is “MRA bullshit” to you.

    You were originally saying that it’s okay that campaigns against rape don’t mention male victims, because they’re “so few” that it doesn’t matter in regards to the “long-term problem”.
    10% or 25% aren’t so few to me.
    As a comparison, we can think about the “completed alcohol/drug facilitated penetration” cases of the CDC report. They make up 25,5% of the female rape victims (lifetime data), or 21,2% (last 12 months).
    Is it wrong, then, to focus on such cases of rape, because they’re “so few” ? Would it be okay if campaigns against rape didn’t mention them ?
    I think statistical minorities are worth attention. They shouldn’t get all the focus, obviously, but they should get a minor but significant part of it. I also think you would agree on that with me…
    if you weren’t so wary of agreeing with MRAs.
    A simple “yes, campaigns against rape should mention the minority of male victims and female rapists” would be justified, and it would bring an agreement with reasonable people, and would spare you from the accusation of supremacism from the unreasonable ones. You prefer to stop at “I never said they shouldn’t mention them… but it’s okay that they don’t.”
    I can’t see any reason for that, except a desire to upset people who care about the issue.

    What if they were, say, 44,4% ? It seems that you can gloss over that too.
    You spent the time to look into this study in depth after that “MRA bullshit” comment. You searched for some information that attenuated his claim (which was that you minimized the number of male victims). You pointed out the part of the victims that weren’t men but boys, and the number of women being forced to penetrate missing from the total numbers of victims and skewing the results, and “gave it to the MRA’s” as if they were responsible for the oversight.
    Okay, you missed the part where the authors explained that they DID record this information, it was just too small to produce a statistical estimate from the responses… but I still think you paid attention to what you were reading.
    You also got other statistics, for example that of RAINN, that uses the data of the 2003 National Crime Victimization Survey to say that 10% of the victims were males… even though for those surveys rape “means vaginal, anal or oral penetration by the offender(s)” and thus do not count men “made to penetrate” quite well.
    And despite all that intellectual effort, you completely ignored a major piece of information, relevant to the subject, right there in the tables.
    Over the 12 months before the survey, the number of men being forced to penetrate is roughly equal to the number of women victims of “completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration”, and “drug facilitated penetration”. If we add the figures for sexual coercion to get a total for rape cases, we get 6 616 000 victims of rapes of both sexes, and 3 680 000 (55,6%) of them were women, while 2 936 000 (44,4%) of them were males.
    And that’s when I count attempted violent rapes on females as rapes and don’t count anal and oral rapes on men since there’s no figure for them.
    That stands out like a sore thumb.
    First because that’s half of the tables. Second because it is completely unexpected, I have a hard time believing it myself. Third because it doesn’t fit well with the lifetime statistics. And last but not least (or it shouldn’t be the least to you) because it contradicts what you’re saying here, that women are “far more likely” to be raped. You could argue (even though you’d be wrong) that “far more likely” describes the situation just as well whether it’s 10% to 90% or 25% to 75%. Not when it’s 45% to 55%. 2 936 000 people to 3 680 000 people. So you read it, you noticed it, and you ignored that sore thumb because you were looking for ways to counter and dismiss the post of that other guy, not for useful information about the matter of rape.

    There’s a lot to be said about it, though.
    Was the sample size significant ?
    If so, did women become almost as sexually aggressive as men in recent years ?
    Or did past cases of such rapes go unreported for some reason, maybe because men were taught to dismiss them ?
    Or were the recent cases in that study overreported, if that is possible ?
    Why is there such a gap between this and criminal statistics ?
    If the discrepancy is due to the fact that male victims are “far more likely” than female victims to not report their rapes, should we focus on males when we address the issue of unreported rapes ?
    Do we need to teach women not to rape ?
    But you don’t think that much about it. Because you’re certain that even if male victims and female rapists bear mentionning, only female victims and male rapists deserve analysis… regardless of the actual proportions they each might represent.

    You don’t argue that male victims are inexistant or that they should be ignored. You just argue against people asking for them not to be ignored, and against those who challenge your numbers…
    And you just dismiss them, their actual numbers, their specific issues, or their place in the general issue of sexual violence, as irrelevant to that “long-term problem”.

    .

    There. Sorry if I’ve been verbose or windy, or if you feel there was violent rhetoric.
    I don’t think I’m objecting to your stance on female oppression in this post, or to any other stance listed. But I suppose you would still like to hide it from the regular readers, as well as from the ones freshly arrived from a google search like me, so I’ll just put it here directly, and make my reluctance about it obvious.

    • bunnika says:

      You don’t argue that male victims are inexistant or that they should be ignored. You just argue against people asking for them not to be ignored, and against those who challenge your numbers…
      And you just dismiss them, their actual numbers, their specific issues, or their place in the general issue of sexual violence, as irrelevant to that “long-term problem”.

      I feel like this is the crux of what you’re saying. But it’s not true. My objection is to people coming into feminist spaces and making the discussion about male victims. I think spaces should exist for that discussion, I would support campaigns to that end, and argue for the important of their existence. But they do not belong in feminist spaces, where the patriarchal roots of male-on-female rape are being discussed. It’s derailing, and delegitimizes the conversation that needs to exist about male entitlement to female bodies. And most of the time, the people making those arguments don’t do jack to support male victims, they just use them as a prop to further their agenda of never letting women talk about women’s problems.

      There’s a saying that it’s not a man’s job to make feminist spaces his own, it’s his job to make his own spaces feminist spaces. This goes for rape support and discussion as well. Taking over safe spaces that female victims need as a shield from those who have victimized them is not the answer. I would extend that men who have been raped by women would also benefit more from a space without women, where they can get support from other men. Those spaces should be created, but it’s not my place to do so, and I don’t want my voice drowned out by a sea of men.

  9. https://bunnika.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/sorry-men-you-are-not-oppressed-the-magical-mysteries-of-misandry/
    https://bunnika.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/sorry-men-youre-still-not-oppressed/

    Maybe misandry isn’t a problem where you’re from but it is a serious and ever-growing problem here in India.

    1. It’s a country where all the laws are skewed towards women giving them undisputed power in legal matters.
    2. If a woman files a police report against someone, that person WILL be locked up first and WILL have to go to court to prove his innocence. There are no laws to make medical exams necessary for a conviction. All one needs is circumstantial evidence.
    3. Why I brought that up is because the latest report by the Delhi Commission of Women (Govt. of India) noted, after thorough revision that 53.2% of all rape charges filed between April 2013 and July 2014 were false. That’s right. More than half of the alleged rape victims made false claims. And there is no set framework in place that holds these women accountable for that either.
    4. As an effect of this, men are truly worried about the prospect of marriage. They don’t want to get married because they are scared. Which, doesn’t seem all that unfounded considering that the number of suicides among married men is more than double that of women.
    5. We have an anti-dowry law here, Article 498A, that allows a woman to not only file a case against her husband(to-be) but against the entire household, including children, again, without any evidence whatsoever. And dowry is a serious crime here and can land you in jail for up to 2 years.
    6. The exact same laws apply in cases of domestic violence. A woman’s word of mouth is good enough to throw a man and his family in jail until his trial.
    7. Speaking of the anti-dowry 498A law, in 2013 as many as 23,00,000 people were charged with this and a mere 15% of the cases turned out to be genuine.
    8. The Govt of India is on record saying that they have absolutely no laws that protect men against domestic violence, rape, false cases of rape and dowry, etc.
    9. Men are even scared to use public transportation nowadays because they fear that if they accidently bump into a woman or accidently push them or whatever in rush hour traffic, not only will the woman beat him up, but the onlooking crowd will, inevitably join in. And of course, the man can’t defend himself against a woman – cause then he’ll be thrown in jail for violence against women.

    I don’t know what the situation is in your country but this is everyday life for 700 million men. That’s almost 1/6th of the male population of the world which is a huge proportion. Men ARE oppressed. You just don’t seem to know it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s