Voices

Views from elsewhere

Can men be feminists?

Men have to be part of feminism, but that doesn't mean they have to run the show.

By Caroline Criado-Perez Published 24 August 2012 10:14

Galloway claimed that Assange engaged in nothing worse than "bad sexual etiquette". Photograph: Getty Images

A couple of days ago on Twitter, the hashtag "MenAgainstRape" started to trend. Some people found this a positive and heartening response to a week where the hashtag "RapeApologist" also got some traction. A week where Todd Akin coined the phrase "legitimate rape", which we must suppose somehow stands in opposition to "illegitimate rape"; a week where Akin’s emergence onto the world stage reminded us that the GOP’s VP candidate actually thinks that the tautologous "forcible rape" is distinct from "rape" (which, unless it’s modified by "forcible" is, what, consensual?); a week where George Galloway, in direct contradiction to English law, claimed that, even if guilty, Assange engaged in nothing worse than "bad sexual etiquette".

Others, however, saw the hashtag as problematic. A typical response was that men being "against rape" should be considered the default position: the need for a hashtag was in itself disheartening. They also felt it demeaned the majority of men, who were, of course "against rape" – who wouldn’t be? It would be like coming out in favour of kicking puppies. Or murder. Of course as a society we are, by default, "against rape".

A more significant problem with this hashtag was that, as was demonstrated by Akin’s desperate back-pedalling, even these new hate-figures are "against rape"; they just reserve the right to dictate, in defiance of law and science, what actually constitutes rape. Since Galloway denied that Assange’s actions fitted in with what "most people" understand by the term "rape", he could also join the "MenAgainstRape" Twitter-fest – why not? He’s surely against rape too – whatever it is he considers that to be.

There was, however, another concern. One that had more far-reaching implications for the feminist movement than that of the hashtag’s assumptions about men or how helpful it was at effecting change against rape apologists. And it could be summed up by quoting the following tweet: "Way to make it about you".

The objection in this case was that men were seeking to cast themselves as the heroes of the piece; the archetypal white knight brigade, sweeping in to save women from the dastardly, and equally mythical, pro-rape army. As far as I’m aware, even MRAs wouldn’t go that far – mostly.

The idea that what the feminist movement needs is men is clearly problematic; as a brilliant Onion piece has demonstrated, there is potential for men’s involvement in feminism to be taken as a sign that women can’t "manage their own movement"; that all we ladies need are some "balls" and we’ll get what we want. And let’s face it, the situation isn’t helped by articles such as this one which promotes male feminists to the extent that it elevates John Lennon above such inspirational women, and yes, feminists, as Hildegard, Christine de Pizan, and even Mary Wollstonecraft. While the historical ignorance displayed by this piece is such that it exclusively uses examples of men who were born after these aforementioned women died to illustrate its bizarre claim that "men were actually the first feminists in history", it is nevertheless a telling example of a tedious tendency that assumes women lack the wherewithal to initiate their own emancipation.

So perhaps it’s little wonder that certain sections of the feminist movement react negatively towards the concept of men calling themselves feminists, and want them instead to be "feminist allies" or "supporters of feminism"; perhaps it is fair enough to want one place where women are indubitably in charge. Perhaps.

But while this stance is understandable, it is nevertheless problematic. And it does a disservice to the over-arching aims of the feminist movement.

To return to balls (I’m a woman; I’m envious of them), the idea that that’s what feminists need, to "grow a pair", is of course in itself problematic: feminism isn’t about turning us into chicks with dicks; feminism rather seeks to counteract a patriarchal system whereby the bullish behaviour implicated in "having balls" is seen to have a higher value than behaviour which might suggest that terrible "castration complex" that Freud lovingly thought caused us ladies such problems. And this is before we even address the issue that having "balls" in itself should dictate any one type of behaviour. In fact, that tired old phrase, trotted out with such unthinking regularity by so many in the face of someone’s less than "ballsiness", actually serves to exemplify why we as women should not semantically exclude men from the feminist movement.

Rebecca West once famously said that "feminism is the radical notion that women are people". And her choice of the word "people" is crucial. The implication of her statement is that "people" is an over-arching term, encompassing both men and women. That being the case, what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander; or, to put it another way, society should serve "people" rather than genders.

But of course society doesn’t. It serves an elite. And this elite does not include most women – but neither does it include many men. Patriarchy is what makes us think that "balls" are symbols for aggressive go-getting behaviour; patriarchy also makes us thinks that this is the type of behaviour that should be rewarded above all others. And patriarchy also means that any man who doesn’t "live up" to this stereotype is thereby considered a lesser man – perhaps even, horror of horrors, "a girl". Those men who don’t easily fit into the alpha male category have the choice of being taunted as "pussies", or learning to behave in an acceptably "ballsy" way that enables them to keep up with their peers.

This type of attitude, which manifests itself both in David Cameron’s tendency towards intellectual belittlement, or this example of outright aggression, can be seen in its earliest stages in the typical gender bullying that takes place in schools and which moderates so many young girls. I still remember the very school lunchtime where, age 11, I realised that I had to start toning myself down, because the boys weren’t reacting positively to my atypical attitude; it was a demoralising moment that many girls who grew up in a boisterous household with two older brothers will recognise. So I learnt to soften myself, just as many of the boys who objected to my angles no doubt had to toughen themselves up.

This kind of damaging stereotype doesn’t stop at the playground gates. It follows us, men and women, up through school, and out into the office, where men are told to be forthright, to wow with words, while women are told to manipulate these powerful men through flirtation. This attitude rehearses the stereotypical roles that both men and women are expected to play – and too bad for women who lack the desire or ability to flirt. And good luck to men seeking promotion who never learnt to throw their genitally-inflected weight around.

Men have to be part of feminism. They have to be part of feminism because societal gender stereotypes affect them as well as us. They have to be part of feminism because the stereotypes that delimit male behaviour act to further quash female potential. And they have to be part of feminism because, through its narrow worldview that segregates us into two opposing sectors of humanity, patriarchy demeans and diminishes us all.

Those men capable of seeing the damage caused by the current system of patriarchy should be welcomed as feminists. But this doesn’t mean they have to run the show: surely it would be buying into sexist assumptions about male power to assume that they would.

Caroline Criado-Perez has just completed at degree in English Language & Literature at Oxford as a mature student, and is about to start a Masters in Gender at LSE. She is also the founder of the Week Woman blog and tweets as @WeekWoman. This post first appeared on her blog here

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: feminism

More from Caroline Criado-Perez

View the discussion thread.

98 comments

Mon, 2012-09-10 16:00 — Allmenarerapists (not verified)

I am a son a brother a father and a husband. Of course i am not a feminist

Sun, 2012-09-09 02:56 — arcieres (not verified)

@HURU, you are in a mistake, it a mith to think that traditional society mean that men doesnt love women or women arent happy. Fathers, husbands, sons and all men in generally, always have loved the women, its only that there werer a more funtional organization before. In deed, for example, men doesnt need women to have a normal job; men always were more than enough to do all the work and build the world that we know now; even more, with the increase of tecnology the men workforce have been replaced generating unemployment. In other hand if women wouldnt have other job, and focus all their energy in the job of care and make happy their family, we could expect level up the quality and stability of the society overall. ¿Dont you think so?

Sun, 2012-09-09 02:41 — arcieres (not verified)

My heart say me that something is really wrong with feminism. The time will show us how feminism is going to bring the humanity down.

Fri, 2012-08-31 16:50 — Hu Ru (not verified)

I was a son, I am a husband and father to women. I care for and love them, and wish them to be safe and fulfilled.......what's to know - of course I'm a feminist FFS.

Fri, 2012-08-31 06:14 — zeny (not verified)

those teens resposible for kidnap n torture shdve been jailed n caned,even the girl.if u say her baby is innocent,fine,cane her after her birth,and give the baby up for adoption.a sadistic psycho like her isnt fit to be a mother,she'd just abuse her own kid or turn him/her into a rapist

Fri, 2012-08-31 06:11 — zeny (not verified)

from what ive seen,feminists are never there when the society needs them to administer justice for women.there was once a case in singapore nearly a decade ago where a group of teens kidnapped a girl,probably due to some petty feud.they tortured her by sticking sharp objects and a doll even up her vagina,and held her captive for a few days.one of her captors was a girl.in the end,because they were underaged,they were only put on probation and the girl was let off early due to her pregnancy.kidnap and rape are heinous crimes individually,and both are committed by those teens.how can they be let off,even their names unpublished,because they were underaged?how can that bring justification to the victim?aware and scwo,the women groups of singapore,uttered not a word against the verdict which let these monsters get off the hook with just a little penalty.instead,aware sees it fit to drone on non substantial matters,like their claims on lack of female reps in directorial positions and ministers,some 'sexism' awards,and their part in organbising a slutwalk,all of which promotes more sexim rather than reduce.

Fri, 2012-08-31 05:23 — fabrizzo (not verified)

feminism claims pornograhy n sex jobs are exploitation of females by male dominating over them,or consent to it if it were done willingly as a choice.i support the former,though in my opinion,its more like the exploitation by females on certain male's desire for sex in an attempt to earn quick money.the latter couldnt be more wrong as it acknowleges vice performed by their own kind,and still advocates their protection,leading to much possible abuse of such shaky standpoints which puts their dishonorable job at no fault of their own.real equalitists would call for the abolishment of all sex related vices,plus urge all women to behave n dress decently in public(wrt to the men,at least),no matter how liberal they are.

Fri, 2012-08-31 04:57 — fabrizzo (not verified)

i do agree with feminists who see both sides of the story n address wrong on both ends.problem is those executing it only do it from one end-their own.and as i said feminism associates with females too much,if its about equality n fairness for all it should merge in with human rights groups.that way both genders are included,and members dont get the idea theyre only serving women first n foremost.

Fri, 2012-08-31 04:45 — fabrizzo (not verified)

why should any man be a feminist if feminism fails to speak for their rights?and the root word for feminist is female,so u get the idea.a more humanly universal term should be used to be inclusive to both genders,rather than feminism.

Wed, 2012-08-29 07:45 — KMFDM72 (not verified)

Any man who calls himself a feminist believes women are weak because feminists see themselves as victims.

Wed, 2012-08-29 07:44 — KMFDM72 (not verified)

Any man who calls himself a feminist believes women are weak because feminists see themselves as victims.

Wed, 2012-08-29 00:19 — Posh Tosh (not verified)

Seems the ladies hold he trump card - If she gets pissed and shags off then may consider a rape allegation as an after thought.

If she gets pregnant and a free house to live in - then no comment.

If she has an abortion then the male has no say in the discussion.

If the male is proven to be the father - well he pays the mother for the next 18 years.

A parasite industry shipped in and exploited by others.

Including the illegals waiting around the school gate for a minor to impregnate.

Does not happen - Yes it does!

Nice benfits systen - do not have to pay and can stay here to leech!

Tue, 2012-08-28 22:03 — atFeministPrncess (not verified)

JamesTheCritic needs to STFU because he clearly has no freaking idea what he's talking about. Rape is rape regardless of who the perpetrator is - all rape should be illegal. (DUH?) Your suggestion that laws against rape within relationships are actually harmful to women is so warped that I seriously urge you to seek therapy.

I have to stop reading these comments now because I'm going to be sick.

Mon, 2012-08-27 22:03 — Huan Kerr (not verified)

Hypocrite.

I was born a man (I didn't choose this, it was out of my hands). All my life it's been guilt by association: Men are pigs, men rape, men are chauvinists and now men are lousy feminists.

Will you for once please get your head out of your arse and maybe try and imagine what it's actually like to be a man nowadays?

Why do I call you a hypocrite? Because you complain about men objectifying women, and then in the next breath talk about how envious you are of us because I have balls.

You know what? You're a shallow, spoilt brat. You've gotten so used to seeing yourself as a victim that you've lost your sense of perspective.

Tue, 2012-08-28 20:22 — aromyofonesown (not verified)

You have entirely missed the point of this article. If you are not part of the patriarchal elite, which has been clearly defined in this article, then you are also being oppressed by people who would label you a pig, a chauvinist or a rapist just for being a man. The author is STICKING UP FOR YOU in this article.

I suggest that you, sir, take a minute to try and imagine what it's actually like to be a woman these days? I imagine it must be really awful to have people automatically assume that you, too, are any of the above-mentioned things because of your gender. However, I also assume that such perceptions mean that you can walk home in the dark without carrying a rape alarm, feeling jumpy and terrified of shadows and noises, wary of passing men and cars and trying to prepare yourself to run if you were attacked. Paranoid? Probably. But because of the culture we live in that puts the responsibility on women (primarily) to protect themselves as best they can, this is the reality of our lives.

You are probably also paid more than your female counterparts. People probably regularly assume that you are the authoritative, calm, logical one over your female company. The media is not full of men being objectified to the extent that women are - regardless of that one film 'Magic Mike'. There are many male protagonists in films or books for you to identify with, rather than the sidekick or the love interest, again and again. It is unlikely that you would have to plan your career around maternity leave, or assume that the brunt of the housework/childcare will fall to you, regardless of whether you work full-time or not. No one will try to force you to grow a baby, bond with something inside you for 9 months, then give it up for adoption/keep it in difficult circumstances rather than allow you the right to choose what happens to your body. Advertising directed at your demographic would not try to make you/assume you already were worried about your clothes, how dirty your clothes are, how dirty your kids are, how dirty your house is, bladder weakness, your period ruining everything, being fat/wrinkly/old/flawed etc etc.

Obviously the balls envy comment was sarcasm. Maybe you should research penis envy before you're so quick to cry hypocrisy.

I really don't understand how you could have read this article and responded in that way. Perhaps you were just outraged at the headline, I don't know. But there were some very valid points made, including the need for men to try to really understand female issues that they don't experience before they take a definitive stance on them, or speak on behalf of women.

We were born women (also, not a choice). No one is blaming you for being a man and not a woman. Feminists do not hate you. I obviously cannot speak on behalf of every feminist, but anyone hating the straw 'men' is misguided in their fury. Some men who are aware of the absolute terror women (who have many beloved men in their lives) feel when alone in a deserted street with someone unknown and physically stronger than them, take alternate routes to reassure them. While extreme, it is worth remembering that the majority of rape victims are women and the majority of rapists are men.

You know what? You have male privilege. While the issues men face today because of inaccurate perceptions and requirements should in no way be underestimated, it is entirely unproductive of you to attack women who write coherently and ... about how 'patriarchy' (the current system that rules men, as well as women) affects us all. It's sad that you seem to feel guilty about your privilege and attacked by feminists who are just trying to defend everyone's right to equality - regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexuality or class. It strikes me that you are the one with a limited perspective.

Wed, 2012-08-29 11:51 — WeekWoman (not verified)

Who are you and are you on twitter? We want to declare our undying feminist love and solidarity for the amazing, cogent and just generally brilliant fight you're putting up here.

Tue, 2012-08-28 14:53 — JustMe (not verified)

"then in the next breath talk about how envious you are of us because I have balls"

Ever heard of sarcasm?

Tue, 2012-08-28 14:53 — JustMe (not verified)

"then in the next breath talk about how envious you are of us because I have balls"

Ever heard of sarcasm?

Sun, 2012-08-26 20:11 — Terence W. (not verified)

If I was falsely alleged to have committed sexual assaults against women I'd be very anxious to clear my name.
Assange is not just a fanatical anti-American, fanatical-Jew hater and an Islamist sympathiser - he's also probably guilty of the rape charges he faces. That's the reason he has jumped bail. He is a coward.

Sun, 2012-08-26 10:41 — anonymous coward (not verified)

I am very uneasy about the glib and populist criticism of 'rape apologists' over the Assange case. It is dangerous to make comments about cases before they go to trial because we do not know all the evidence but there is legitimate cause for concern with what we have heard.

Rape is sec without consent and without reasonable belief of consent.The reason Galloway amongst others have expressed doubt is that there seems at the very least a reasonable belief of consent.

Clearly consent can not be given while asleep but consent can be given a few hours earlier an it is reasonable that consent is assumed the morning after.

Consent is not indefinite but consent in the evening would reasonably assumed to continue into the morning unless withdrawn.

The issue with the condom is of a similar nature and it is telling that neither of the women involved seems ot have considered that rape had taken place following the events concerned.

The attitude to rape has completely changed in a relatively short period of time. There was a time when the victim would be the target of public scorn and shame and rape was often euphimised as 'seduction'. Now there is little or no shame is attached to the victim and there is universal condemenation of perpetrators and much shame to being accused. This is endangered if the act of rape is cheapened to situations where consent is given. The entire debate is dangerous as appearing to prejudge one way or the other but there are grounds for legitimate concerns about the case against Assange.

The article as a whole seems to condem men whatever they do, if they join a group against rape they seeking to cast themselves as heros and seeking to undermine womens autonomy and independance. This treatment of mens public voice seeks to remove any legitimacy from mens opinions effectively to silence men as not worthy of holding or expressing an opinion. This exactly the treatment of women that was fought against by the original feminists. This sort of lazy sexism is common place especially amongst 'feminist' writers. I recommend the author tests future articles by reversing the treatment of male and female in any article and seeing of they can still stand by the opinions.

Thu, 2012-08-30 10:06 — Derrington (not verified)

Silencing women is still very much in evidence today, as any female journalist or blogger or indeed I will tell you. I also have been raped twice before the age of 15, beaten by two separate partners for calling them out when lying to me and numerous other acts of gender violence. I prefer to reference feminism as equality campaigners, since I think the term feminism separates us out once again. I think many enlightened men can fight on the side of equality for all and hope to see more of them do so as the hashtag 'men against rape' recognises the current attitude towards rape in mainstream men's media such as on line porn as one of hatred and violent sexism towards women and female children, and which portrays a psychopathic attitude towards the victim that is scary to anyone that knows a bit about how media propoganda works in dehumanising a group of people prior to a major assault on their rights to life and liberty. The men that recognise this psychopathic attitude amongst their fellow males are exactly the ones I think we need to be courting to help turn the tide of women hating amongst the younger generation of men growing up now.

Sun, 2012-08-26 13:21 — WeekWoman (not verified)

Never ceases to amaze me how few people bother to read properly before commenting; if you read the article properly you'll see that the author actually welcomes male feminists. See the line 'Men have to be part of feminism'. And the discussion of the #MenAgainstRape was reporting the various sides rather than condemning men - again, suggest reading properly before trigger-finger commenting? Just a thought of course...

Sun, 2012-08-26 05:19 — SMASH (not verified)

I agree that men must be a visible part of the fight for women's rights and equality. Because of that, I recently started a facebook page: Straight Men Against Sexism & Homophobia (SMASH).
If anyone out there feels the same way, you are welcome to like the page to help us all show our support.

Sun, 2012-08-26 12:57 — WeekWoman (not verified)

Are you on twitter?

Mon, 2012-08-27 01:25 — SMASH (not verified)

Not yet. Will hopefully branch out to that, and more.

Tue, 2012-08-28 16:15 — WeekWoman (not verified)

Please do let me know when you do!

Sat, 2012-08-25 21:30 — Texan99 (not verified)

I can't tell you how much time and effort I've put into getting across to seemingly intelligent and well-meaning men the simple notion that feminism is the radical idea that women are people, not just defective men. It often seems that we don't have any word definitions in common.

As for the idea that women are supposed to get what they want by flirting with powerful men, well, I've just never bought it, that's all. I've never flirted with any man, preferring instead to make my intentions plain, and if I did flirt, it sure as hell wouldn't be to get something from a powerful man. What I want from a man is a partnership; everything else I can get quite well for myself.

Sat, 2012-08-25 20:29 — Fraziel1

"1 in 4 women will be raped in their lifetime" , Rubbish,I do not believe that statistic for a second. It is a stat almost certainly gleaned from some men hating feminists who no doubt regard feeling a girls arse as rape.

"I am guessing this comment will be removed
It would if it was the guardian website.." thankfully this is not the Guardian as they employ and army of people to delete and censor anything they believe to be inappropriate even if it is perfectly legal to say it, thus completely undermining freedom of speech.

Feminists are usually liberal left socialists who by their ideology render themselves incapable of objectivity. The new statesman ran an article not that long ago stating that in a survey the large majority ( over 70 % if memory serves correctly) of women who considered themselves working class thought the feminist agenda was irrelevant to them. It is elitist wealthy liberals concerned with triviality like muff marches ,s*l*u*t walks and a load of other rubbish that due to their cosseted comfortable lives they find objectionable. Most other people concern themselves with real important issues like feeding your kids, getting a job, being able to afford to run a car, the mortgage etc. Feminists must be opposed politically

Thu, 2012-08-30 10:16 — Derrington (not verified)

#Speaking as someone who has been raped twice and was unable to report it ... you know nothing about the subject of rape and therefore are not in the position to comment. Your opinion is not fact and the portrayal of feminism in media such as The Sun and Daily Male (sic) is such that most people don't allay themselves with a movement that fought for women to be recognised as human beings not property like slaves, to have the vote, to have the right not to be raped in marriage and is currently fighting against sexist violence in the home DV and the dehumanisation of women in men's media such as on line porn. Of course, some people may think these issues are twaddle, because they have a penis and largely are unaffected, but I didn't have to be black to join the anti apartheid movement - I could recognise injustice and didn't need it to directly affect me before I took action on behalf of others. Buts that's just me, obviously you are a pro rape in marriage, women should be property, male supremist ... we all have our agendas

Tue, 2012-08-28 21:28 — aromyofonesown (not verified)

Oh well if you don't believe it, then I suppose we should all dismiss it entirely. Almost certainly, the men-hating feminists you speak of, who have such a stranglehold on the media, have pervasively spread their wicked lies. Why do you think that is? Because they hate men and sex? What actual feminists have you personally spoken with/read their writings for you to be so almost certain?

And no, 'feeling a girl's arse' is not rape. It is however, usually unwelcome if unsolicited. I can speak from experience, even if the owner of the 'arse' has not complained, most if not all women would find that intimidating, rude and totally unattractive. I feel sorry for you if you have been taught that women's arses are there for the groping, regardless of whether you know them/they find you attractive/they have been flirting with you.

Another straw man: the Guardian's 'army of people' specifically employed to destroy freedom of speech. How kind of you to unmask the liberal newspaper, most of whose publications would not exist were it not for the freedom of the press it upholds, for being the militant censor-machine it really is.

'Feminists are usually liberal left socialists'. Yet another sweeping generalisation . Maybe you only know a handful of people who have openly called themselves feminists. It is true that feminism - which wants the oppressive social system and mores to change, is in its nature, progressive and left-leaning, but many feminists support right-wing politics and economics. I'm surprised that the militant feminist media censors have yet to bring your attention to the many, MANY feminists who are conservative/communist/moderate, who advocate more/less/the same influence of the state wielded over different topics. I'm sure your imaginary feminists all want the same thing (destruction of the male gender, perhaps?) but in reality, we just want equality.

The 'ideology' you know so much about? Yes, I would say it is impossible to be 'objective' about issues that directly affect you, as a woman. This does not result in hysterical band-wagonning as you seem to imply; feminists do not blindly support the rantings of their militant leaders, because, these leaders do not exist. If you actually did some research into feminist communities, you would find women and men discussing their experiences of discrimination and prejudice and suggesting ways to deal with them. It is not a conversion to men-hating, it is a place for women to realise they are not alone.

Feminism is also global - while Western feminism concerns itself with the 'load of other rubbish' that they still face in a society that is supposed to be equal and is still far, far from it. However, it also concerns itself with women's issues all over the world that Western women do not face.

How do you suppose single mothers or housewives or working women have been affected by the recession? Being such an expert on the stats, I'm sure you know women have actually been affected more than men. Maybe that 70% of working women heard the words, 'feminist agenda', and thought: militant feminists, triviality, rubbish. Maybe if the 'agenda' was spelt out with everyday situations these same women inevitably face, the offensive attitudes that portray women and their issues as trivial, irrelevant rubbish will persuade them otherwise.

Poverty is absolutely relevant to social freedom, economic independence and truly comfortable lives. Your ignorance clearly stems from your cosseted, comfortable elitism.

Sun, 2012-08-26 09:15 — Pavlova

I think if you define female rape as a man penetrating a women without consent, then 1 in 4 is an under estimate. I don't know any woman who this hasn't happened to.

Sat, 2012-08-25 18:45 — BarryMayor (not verified)

No need to worry about feminism getting over run by men or most women, for that matter.

As long as feminism continues to be, as Marissay Mayer put it, "militant" and "negative", and as long as it continues to be so anti-male, no matter how much it claims to try to advocate for women, there's no chance that men in general will have any interest in joining a movement that is against them. Men can help women without being anti-male.

Sat, 2012-08-25 09:21 — Jamesthecritic

Unfortunately feminist's focus has turned to punishing men for their abuse of women rather than working out why "some" men abuse women in the first place. Creating laws such as relationship rape laws which cannot be enforced does women no good. It just becomes a game of evading punishment by the all powerful state authority.

Wed, 2012-08-29 11:34 — cordthehag (not verified)

Feminism's focus isnt all down to either 'punishing men for their abuse of woman' or 'working out why some men abuse women'. That is down to the various and indiviual groups fighting against injutices. These groups or individuals have distilled their battles from a perspective that understands that the pervasive and almost total sytems of patriarchy enable men and limit women in many many walks of life. This can work in many and subtle ways, from people focussing on how sexy someone looks, to denying them promotion or equal pay to silencing them through disaproval,stigma or discounting their concerns. Both men and women can be the policemen of the patriarchal systems. ie to give a crude but effective example - mothers holding down their own daughters during FGM

Sat, 2012-08-25 18:03 — Pavlova

What makes you say that relationship rape laws can't be enforced? Rape within relationships is a form of domestic violence, they are eminently enforceable.

And you can't find out why men rape, if you write off the majority of rape as a non-crime. Where would be the motive or the funding for investigating something that doesn't have a label and isn't counted?

Sat, 2012-08-25 20:48 — Jamesthecritic

It isn't enforcable really. I was specifically talking about relationship rape. No man is going to admit he raped the woman so it will always be his word against hers. Also, most women do not want to go through the process of going to the police station, being confronted by unsympathetic police officers, having a genital exam, being cross examined in court, having their life put on hold etc. A lot of women continue in relationships with men who raped them and have no desire to put him in prison or punish him. So they weigh up the pros and cons and decide it isn't worth it to go to the police. The point is, having a law against relationship rape creates a false sense of security. Rather than setting the boundaries themselves, the women assumes that it is the state's job to protect them, which as I say, it can't. So they get themselves into certain situations (and I am not blaming the victim here) and then presume that all will be fine because the law is there. I believe if there were no relationship rape law, women would take greater responsibility for themselves, be more active in setting the boundaries, and men wouldn't over step the mark as much. There would be more of a debate in society about what is acceptable in male female relations and consequently the small number of insensitive men who do not realise the devastating effects of sexual assault would be more likely to get the message. Part of the reason for that is that men who do bad things to women would be more likely to admit and discuss their wrongdoings because they wouldnt be fearful of getting punished. Instead what you have now is largely a taboo topic that only gets discussed when someone dares to put there head above the parapet to challenge the status quo, and a fruitless debate on what is and isn't rape. It is fruitless because people get confused between the act of rape and the crime of rape. The definition of rape is fixed. The crime of rape is an opinion of the people who created the law.

I suspect what women who have been raped really want is an apology, an explanation, and a sense of trust that she won't be raped again. This is more likely to happen without a relationship rape law.

Sat, 2012-08-25 22:47 — Pavlova

All sorts of allegations come down to one person's word against another's. How to you prove you've been mugged and didn't give your wallet away? How do you prove fraud or burglary or arson allegations against somebody or doping in the absence of a positive drugs test? Sometimes there is forensic evidence, often not. It comes down to a balance of probabilities.

Women who are raped by dates, boyfriends or husbands, fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, babysitters may face an uphill struggle to prove their allegations, but it can be done. Especially when you have patterns of behaviour, other witnesses or more than one victim coming forward.

I can't believe you seriously mean that women have to deal with domestic sexual abuse without the help of the law or the state. How enforceable do you expect that would be? Abused women do not make the best prosecutors in the world. It often takes the state to step in to pursue a case on their behalf. It certainly usually takes the state supporting them and coaching them through it.

And what about the threat to wider society of domestic abusers or date rapists? Do you imagine that those Rochdale traffickers didn't rape their wives on their nights off? Or that date rapists aren't serial rapists? Rapists tend to victimise many people, repeatedly, over years, until they face effective sanctions.

Sun, 2012-08-26 07:28 — Jamesthecritic

Well I think one of the motivations for rape is breaking the law and getting away with it. And the sense of power that gives the abuser over his victim. Men rape when they know they will get away with it. They don't rape when they know they won't. They aren't stupid. If it wasn't a criminal offence, their reason for doing it would go away, and so would a lot of their power..

Why can't women deal with domestic and sexual abuse without the law or the state? This is the problem I have with feminism, it underestimates women. Most women actually deal with domestic and sexual abuse without the law and the state already. They do not use the law or the state because most abuse victims do not report it. They don't want outside interference if they can help it. I can't remember exactly the statistics but it is something like 30 incidences of abuse before they go to the police on average. So, currently they do not deal with it effectively. Most women put up with abuse. I predict that if there wasn't a law against domestic/sexual abuse they would get out at the first incidence or give an ultimatum.

There would be less date rapes if there was no law against it. If women were aware there was no law against date rape, the whole dating scene would be different. They would be more cautious and wouldn't get themselves into dangerous situations. They would feel the need to protect themselves and be more vocal about what is and isn't acceptable. There would be a greater debate in society about what is and isnt acceptable to women. The onus would be more on women. At the moment the law gives them a false sense of security.

I don't think it is true when you say rapists tend to victimise many people for many years. Nor is it true that they only stop when they come up against police, the law and prison.
I think they can stop for many reasons.

Regarding the rochdale traffickers. These were Muslim men who thought white girls were fair game. If there wasn't a law against abuse the parents of these girls would have taken a greater protective role. Instead, you had these love-starved girls who were enamoured by the attention these Asian men gave them. Attention their parents probably never did. I think on balance there should be a law against what these men did. But as for your question on whether these men raped their wives. I don't know. I know there is less respect within Muslim cultures for women. So it is possible. But I still think that having no law against sexual abuse would mean these wives would be more likely not to tolerate it. The onus would be more on them rather than the state to do something about it. And if the Muslim men wanted their wives to stay with them then they would obey them.

Sun, 2012-08-26 09:12 — Pavlova

"Why can't women deal with domestic and sexual abuse without the law or the state? This is the problem I have with feminism, it underestimates women. Most women actually deal with domestic and sexual abuse without the law and the state already"

Why can't women deal with crimes committed against them indoors by relatives without the help of the law? Really?

You want women who are being abused to become fiery campaigners for justice within their homes agains their abusers, when there are no laws to protect them, no courts, no sanctions? What do you expect them, to do about it? Vigilantism?

No most women do not deal effectively with it already without the help of the state. Many of the, stay in abusive families for years and years, 52 end up dead every year, often along with their children. Thousands of kids grow up traumatised by watching their mother getting beaten up and raped and many of those go on to abuse others.

Don't you realise that abusers are very good emotional manipulaters, that women who are raped by people who they are in relationships with will frequently doubt their own judgement or blame themselves? Will be ashamed? Will be dependent on his approval? Will be protective of their man? Won't be sure if what he's done is okay or not, or whether it's their duty to give him sex. This whole area is one of the hardest of all for women to see and act clearly, there are strong emotions and historical beliefs at play. Expecting abused women to deal with such men is utterly ineffective. Demonstrably so.

And you still haven't answered the point I made about domestic violence not staying within four walls. Men who rape their wives, girlfriends and dates, rape other people too. They will also rape colleagues, they divorce and remarry, if they are taxi drivers they will rape passengers. If they are in other positions of trust they will rape people in their charge. Don't you think the state has a duty to prevent that of it can?

Do you apply this same theory to domestic child abuse? How about domestic fraud and theft?

Is your problem that you think you can only impose laws out doors? In your world would a wife be able to prosecute if her husband pursued her into the garden? What about if she was too scared or unwilling, would the state step in if it was bothering the neighbours rather than just the kids?

Sun, 2012-08-26 11:13 — Jamesthecritic

I don't think you grasped many of the points I was making. Maybe you didn't read it properly. Perhaps you should read it again until you understand me.

I never mentioned relatives sorting it out as an alternative. My point was women and society knowing there was no law against domestic abuse to protect them would change the mindset of the woman and the man. It would change the mindset of society. It would change what is socially acceptable. Social custom is often more powerful than law in changing behaviour. When government dictates social custom by passing laws which are unenforceable, there will be no change in behaviour. There will be no debate either because everyone assumes it is the government's job to tell them what is what and how to behave.

I think you have a warped view of what a domestic abuser is. You have created this picture in your head of this callous monster and a cowering woman who are perpetually like that. Now there may be odd instances like that but I doubt a woman would stay in the relationship if there wasn't some measure of happiness. You need to understand what motivates a man to abuse a woman, what he gets out if it. Why a woman puts up with it. One of my points is that having a law against domestic abuse actually adds to the power of the man. In this case of rape, of the type (allegedly) committed by assange, there will often be no evidence. In fact there will nearly always be no evidence. Add that to the fact that there is nearly no desire for women to go through the further trauma of 'pursuing justice' and what you have is a victimised woman with nobody to turn to. If she knew the state wasn't there to protect her she probably wouldn't be in that position in the first place. The man would have less motivation to do it because, as I said, part of his motivation is breaking the law and getting away with it.

My problem is that if we are all working under the assumption it is the state's role to protect us from each other and punish us when we harm each other then that makes for an unhappy dysfunctional society. Particularly for men, who feel they are constantly under watch and who are never forgiven but punished instead. A society where the presumption is that men are bad until they prove otherwise, and even of they do prove otherwise, there is then something suspicious about him. So you can see why the motivation for men to be good towards women is lessened. It will also mean that people can never quite trust each other or know each other fully. Is he being nice to me because that is what he feels obligated to do due to social pressure, or is he being nice to me because he genuinely likes me? The more the government watches over personal relationships, the more we distrust each other and the more isolated we become.

Sat, 2012-08-25 08:51 — Pavlova

Although being against rape should be the default position and ought to be unnecessary to state, sadly, as can be seen from some of the comments below - it isn't. Excusing rape is the default position for many, if not most, men and also women. When you oppose a majority standpoint silently then you collude.

Rape isn't an exclusively feminist issue, it's a human rights issue and if men want to have a voice in combatting it then good luck to them.

Let's face it, if favouring rape is going to be seriously combatted in the near future, we need the people who mainly do it, and who run all of our institutions to be part of the solution. One statement made by a high profile male has much more power to influence the misogynists than hundreds of statements made by women. Misogynists don't listen to women, that's their mission in life.

Sat, 2012-08-25 03:02 — YKhromosomeRevolution (not verified)

ManWomanMyth
A voice for men
Esther Vilar
ChickWritesWhat
ManoSphere
The Spearhead
Dalrock
Male Disposability
Game
The Red Pill
men going thier own way
Ghosting
Female Sentencing Discount

Congratulations, you are now infected with memes. Go..Google and Learn

Sat, 2012-08-25 01:29 — Bolz Dheep (not verified)

Feminists just banned morning sex, people.

So, let me get this right, instead of surprising the girl sleeping in my bed, that I just nailed a few hours earlier, with a morning wood insertion to rouse her from her slumber, I'm supposed to tap her on the shoulder and ask, "honey, am I still allowed to have sex with you?"? That ruins the whole thing!!1

Feminists need to be raped hard to remind them what real rape is.

Sat, 2012-08-25 19:37 — rbhu7_82 (not verified)

"honey, am I still allowed to have sex with you?"? That ruins the whole thing!!1

If you think that, clearly you are not mature enough to having any form of sexual relationship. You are most likely a rapist yourself.

Sat, 2012-08-25 18:58 — Seja75 (not verified)

Okay, clearly that comment was repulsive and vile for many reasons and it's taken me several hours to get beyond screaming with rage in order to articulate an actual response.

Here is what I want to say to you Dheep...

1 in 4 women will be raped in their lifetime I think it's fair to say your wish will be partially achieved. Yay for you, that must make you feel like the big man right now.

But just step back from that for a moment and count the number of women you know, maybe even love. Is it more than 4? 2 grandmothers and a mother, that makes 3, then your lucky girlfriend and we're already at 4... Add some colleagues, exes, in-laws, cousins, sisters, nieces. It's almost statistically impossible for you not to know a rape survivor. A woman within your circle who has been subject to the worst violation imaginable and it was probably at the hands of someone she knew, maybe even trusted. She's unlikely to have gone to the police, she probably didn't tell anyone. But she's carried the pain, the anger, the guilt, the shame around with her forever after. Turning on the TV to hear some politician or comedian or former X Factor winner trivialising her experience is like a knife to the stomach. She's already doubting if her pain is valid, maybe it was okay, maybe it was her fault, she probably shouldn't have dressed that way. What was she thinking...

And you think that's okay do you? You think we shouldn't fight to protect that survivor, the one that you know , you don't think she deserves better? You don't think that's something both genders need to work for?

How dare you minimise her experience. How dare you wish that pain on anyone. How dare you threaten that on anyone.

You should be ashamed beyond words of what you said.

Sat, 2012-08-25 12:46 — B Pike (not verified)

This message doesn't warrant a response, it's that disgusting, but I'm going to give it one anyway.

Before I get to your 'point' I'm going to deal with the last sentence of your post, because frankly it makes me feel sick. Did you honestly just say that feminists 'Need to get raped'? To be honest, I don't even have words to reply to that, but I'll deal with your issue of 'real rape.' I assume by 'real rape' you mean 'scary man down the back of an alley with a knife proper rapey rape.' Because it's obvious that the majority of rapes are committed by people the victim knows or is in a relationship with aren't actually real rape

Look, rape is defined as this :

"Under section 1(1) SOA 2003 a defendant, A, is guilty of rape if:

_ A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of B (the complainant) with his penis;

_ B does not consent to the penetration; and,

_ A does not reasonably believe that B consents."

Lets examine your morning sex example shall we?

You (A) penetrate The girl sleeping in your bed (B) with your "morning wood insertion" Tick.
B has not consented, as she is asleep. Tick.
Since B is asleep you cannot reasonably believe that she consents, as she does not have the capacity to do so. Tick

Congratulations, you just raped someone.

Feminists haven't 'banned morning sex,' they're raising awareness to the fact that rape is sex without consent. No matter what the situation, if you have sex and you don't have (enthusiastic) consent, then you are a rapist. It's really very simple.

Sincerely,

A Male Feminist

Sat, 2012-08-25 19:39 — rbhu7_82 (not verified)

Take a bow, totally correct.

Fellow male feminist.

Sat, 2012-08-25 09:47 — Jamesthecritic

I am guessing this comment will be removed
It would if it was the guardian website..

In the scenario you outline, mr dheep, we have to think about the effect, of doing what you say you would do (nail her, once again), would have on the woman to determine whether this rape is a bad thing. And also whether, after this has happenned, there should be a social pressure for her to go to the police station; in other words whether there should be a law against this specific type of rape. Just for the record, it is a rape because you do not know whether the woman wants to "be nailed" as you put it.

So what is the effect on the woman? This is the key question that determines whether it is a bad thing. It depends on many things. One of the main things it depends on is whether there is a law against it. There is. It falls under the definition of rape in the sexual offences act 2003 . Consequently, that creates a social pressure for her to view what has happenned to her as a bad thing. If there wasnt a law against this type of rape then her reaction would be different. Currently, it is the government which has set the boundaries of the relationship by determining which rapes are a crime and therefore a bad thing. If that were not the case the woman would feel an obligation to discuss things with her partner, and set the boundaries herself. It would also mean that the woman would have greater control over how she reacts to the rape and the emotional consequences of it. I feel this scenario would actually be more empowering position for women.

Mon, 2012-08-27 23:36 — lover (not verified)

James...why have you not asked women what they "feel" would make them feel more self power? It is precisely your self focused premise that makes feminism so important and necessary. How about understanding the importance of having BOTH legal protection AND women's VOICES regarding rape? Have you ever imagined such a thing? Your argument is so hyper-rationalized and linear that you have totally forgotten how to be empathetic to human beings. You make yourself sound totally ignorant of the reality of women's experiences. You've totally missed the big picture here. Almost like you are autistic. Start asking women what their boundaries are and stop preaching that women should be responsible for being raped. How about actually having a legal system that wasn't patriarchal? Do you really think women are relying on government to feel safe and protected? How incredibly ignorant. The men who have actually listened to what women want, when women tell them are the ones who feminists enjoy the company, solidarity, and support of. Do you not realize that the bi-product of patriarchy is a lot of men who tell women to "shut-up" or discredit women when they speak their truth? There are plenty of men out there who have enough back bone to stand up for women's rights. These men are also enjoying healthy relationships with women. It also benefits men to understand the disease of domination in society and in intimate relationships. There are plenty of men out there who do not use their penis as a weapon...and we need more of those and feminists welcome these men. As a side note to everything I've read here, people should ask a feminist what "feminism" is instead of listening to popular media. This takes courage, maturity, and empathy. And as a feminist (because I believe in human rights and the end of ALL forms of oppression), I love and am loved by men who really listen to women's stories and experiences.

How about empowering men to NOT rape a woman? Women don't want to have to discuss with their "partner" that she doesn't want him to rape her. What about such a discussion sounds healthy to you? It should be the responsibility of the man to decide (because he has a moral conscience and has unlearned misogyny) not to rape her. If we didn't live in a misogynist society, no person would even begin to suggest that a woman should be responsible for setting such a boundary. Do you really think it would feel empowering for a woman to have to tell her partner to not rape her? Really?

Sat, 2012-08-25 11:05 — WeekWoman (not verified)

As a woman I can assure both you and the charming Mr Dheep that it
would not. Contrary to popular belief, women are not easily led fools
who need to have their minds made up for them by the law. We are
perfectly capable of judging for ourselves whether or not sex has been
forced on us against our will. If it has, that's rape. If we haven't
said yes, I'm afraid that's rape. I feel utterly sick to my stomach
knowing there are men like you and the other rape apologists out
there.