Just because someone doesn't go to college doesn't mean they can't open their mouths about campus assault. Just because you're not one of two members of an abusive marriage doesn't mean it's 'none of your business.'

 Reply

Yeah, but when you're dealing with a group of people who are 90/10 male/female, a more productive discussion would be discussing who's doing the raping and how they're getting away from it.

Reality is polarized in this situation. It's not like men don't protect one another. Why can't women talk about womens' issues without being reminded that men have it bad, too?

 Reply

I am not trying to diminish the fact that men primarily rape women, I'm not trying to deny the fact that women are in at a power disadvantage either in the Armed Forces or the world at large, and I'm not trying to bring attention specifically to the fact that men are also raped.

But I think (as noted by Benedict) it's likely that men who rape men are also raping women - they are habitual offenders - therefore, it serves a purpose to encourage men to treat their fellow soldiers as soldiers and look out for them whatever their sex - in order to purge the most violent and frequently transgressive from the "team," and ultimately, society in general.

In essence, I'm saying that we need to focus more on the violence itself, the power relationships, and the people involved - perp, victim and any witnesses, than the angle that "men are dangerous" - rather some men are dangerous, and it is likely that they are dangerous directly to other men as well, and by their actions, detract from unit cohesion, which endangers everyone.

Sexual assault is a social problem, not just a deplorable act - I think most here would agree that at it's root, it is the exercise of a leveraging of power, plain and simple. BUT - the circumstances surrounding these acts, and the dynamics that allow them to survive and perpetuate are far more complex, as this is where social forces, law and circumstance converge.

I dare say that the more men have to rely on women in combat, the fewer assaults will be tolerated by the rank and file. Perhaps that is the ultimate answer. Social pressures can be invoked in this sense, the camaraderie and protectiveness can win out over the group alienating the individual.

Obviously, there's no easy fix - perhaps what's required is an entirely new way of thinking about it - one that uses the strengths of groups and Armed Forces culture to actively discourage something that so threatens to weaken the "team."

 Reply

God, I'm wiped out, so I can't reply at length, but suffice to say, that the feminists---of which I am one, proudly so, shocking----have covered this issue, in detail that makes many men uncomfortable. Men who rape men indeed do not shy from raping women, due to their horrifying view of sexual acts. One does the sexing, the other is sexed, so to speak, and sex is an act close to excreting feces. One person is active, the other passive. (This explains why the anti-gay marriage people are so desperate. Marriage amongst equals? Horror!) One person is the doer, the other the do-ee. However, the passive recipient is also permanently marked and stained by the deed. Rape is an act of marking, claiming, conquest. It is spoilage. It is, therefore, an act of dominance, as you inferred. Many rapists, for example, do not get erections. Many do not ejaculate. The satisfaction is in the dominance, in the power, as you said. Sexual gratification is of course not the point. This is especially true of gang rapists.



Rapists in male prisons do not consider themselves homosexual; they consider their victims to be gay. This is why they find gay men so threatening; surely one person is on top, in all ways, correct? There can be no equals to them. Women and gays are always linked in their minds.

If a man stays out of prison, he has a very good chance of never being raped. A woman, however, is in danger of being raped in her own home, by men she trusts, knows, is related or married to. Or descended from. Etc., etc., The fear of rape is like oxygen for women. Still some women brave the frontier's borders, to blaze a trail for other women. This is why women join the military, do 'risky' things tha are not risky for men. Someone has to push the borders.

I actually agree that men are screwed. However, the usual solution proposed by men I most frequently argue with is more of the same: more macho, more black and white gender roles, more sexism, more separation of the genders, etc., etc., etc., This is exactly the opposite of what we need. I'm a radical feminist, a bona fide hairy legged feminazi man hater, and I keep defending men against other men for being human, for being sane, non-hormonal, etc., Why? Because other men want to use so many biological excuses for male misdeeds and crimes. With biology comes lower standards. Make it a choice, and you have moral issues, honor issues.

I had an NCO once who I loved in the sort of non-sexual way I didn't really discover till I joined hte military. In the military it's a trade off sometimes; you can be equal, but you have to be neuter. You can be a sexual being, but you can't be equal.

Well, he let me know that he appreciated my looks and my job performance. I basked, quite frankly. It was perfectly innocent, and it was lovely. He was lovely. There was no sexual element at all; instead, there were all elements. One day he gave me a ride home and hooted out the window at an attractive woman. Someone--another woman---talked to him about this. He approached me, apologized for perhaps making me uncomfortable, and you know what? He changed his behavior. For me, for other female soldiers. For the right thing.

I love him still, for doing this. Yet almost every man I have told this story to dismisses his intentions as craven, sordid, or common. He had no compassion for others, much less women, they say. He only did it to cover his ass. He bore me up during injuries and deployments, encouraged me during disappointments, and thought of me and other women. Why did other men want to make him into some characture?

Because if a man could look at himself plainly and not make excuses, then they had no excuse. I would follow him to this day, despite his flaws, and think myself lucky, because I have so many flaws myself. I know many more men like him to this day. Unfortunately more men want to use biological excuses. They dismiss him, his reasons, his altruism, his leadership, his ability to change. There is your problem. He was a genuine leader. I think people need to experience non-sexual love. That's what you get in the military, once the gender roles are tossed aside.

Ironically, there was a female clerk at the time who was friends with another female soldier who hated me. She wanted to fuck me up in the worst way. So... I hope that explains things.

Oh, and this. I've been online for ten years. Every discussion of rape and sexual harassment gets interrupted by a guy who complains that men get hurt, too. My earlier comment says it all. It's called PHMT. It's a known phenom on feminist blogs, just FYI.

 Reply

I mistakenly thought that having been sexually assaulted meant that I could have an opinion on sexual assault. It seems I can't, due to my gender.

A failure to read closely in my first post, an invocation of a glib acronym (PHMT) and comment such as "Why can't women talk about womens' issues without being reminded that men have it bad, too?" - are hypocritical dismissals of men having any role in feminism whatsoever. I'm not calling myself a feminist, but would say that I support feminism. Why? I'd rather discuss the ideas than the worthiness of ideological names.

Since the moment I had a big, hairy dude choke me, tell me he'd kill me, and stick his cock in my face at age 10, I decided I was not going to be silenced by anyone, for any reason, ever again. Under threat of death, I will resist. So whether or not you can comprehend my logical proposition, I'm not about to be quiet about sexual assault and we can either work together or argue about who's allowed to join the club.

I understand other men's frustrations in attempting to join a dialogue in this regard, leaving the feeling: "I'll go back to keeping my mouth shut and looking the other way, since you ladies have got this all under control."

What progress can you expect then?

I mean really, the PHMT characterization is judgmental and obstructive. Someone here actually said this to me on Jezebel once, and my reply:

--

the patriarchy running smoothly isn't going to fuck up your life.

This is the most ignorant fucking premise I've read here yet.

I'm sorry I've offended your sensibilities with my logical constraint that the freedoms afforded one should be afforded all in a democratic society - like my mother, my friend, neighbor, my partner, my daughter, or my sister - people that I live with, work with, and love.

But I guess they wouldn't be affected by the Patriarchy running smoothly, now would they? These people in my life?

--

Funny that it all might come back to a common thread of love, isn't it?

 Reply

*Slow clap*

 Reply

Thanks for your eloquent (and calm) arguments, I didn't think about it before but your comments about gender having nothing to do with sexual assault has me looking at it from a whole new angle.

Although, I AM on vacation, why are you making me think on my day off? Sheesh...

And yes, fuck the "club," if they have a sign up that says "No boys allowed," they're just a bunch of children.

 Reply

@Ginmar Rienne: I'm sorry that you're so frustrated by someone expressing (him)self.

I'm not blaming women for anything. I'm not advocating "men's rights," I'm addressing your criticism. I'm not trying to elevate myself to advance my own agenda. I'm simply trying to discuss a strategy of reducing sexual assault through policy based on numbers, rather than presumptions, relying more on the collective will of peer pressure and mutual reliance for enforcement, than gender-based dictates.

I am however, expressing disappointment at the judgmental, dismissive, hypocritical behavior of some self-proclaimed "radical feminists." To that end: Good luck changing men's deplorable behaviors without involving men in the discussion.

I'm frankly amazed that this is the same person whose informed alacrity so thoughtfully engaged other commenters here. Thanks for the Feminism 101. Thanks for calling me names. Thanks for categorizing me in complete opposition to what I've described. If you spent more time evaluating words instead of simply repeating them and listened for tone, rather than applying that of a stereotype, you'd be more effective at discerning the concepts with which you actually disagree.

 Reply

And I wonder if a lot of men with behavioral problems don't want to see women doing what they're doing. If you join the military to prove to yourself that you can, to feel strong, and you look over and see a women next to you doing what you're doing, does it take the wind out of your sails??

 Reply

And thank you for your service.

 Reply

There are many "lifers" in the military who are good people. Unfortunately there are just as many bad people. I don't know why exactly that is, probably just as NefariousNewt said, there is a broad spectrum of people represented in the military. I wasn't trying to disparage them at all. I have MUCH respect for people who make a career of the military honorably. Like I said in my previous comment, to me, there are no classes in the military, we are one entity. Truly, I was just trying to represent the types of character (and the reason they joined) that I observed during my service. I hope this make sense, I have a hard time with typing my thoughts.

 Reply

@Ginmar Rienne: So do you think that a facility and/or task force that works to serve veteran women could only really work if it was operated by veteran women?

 Reply

Beats me. They can be just as shitty as civilian women. I've had nothing but civvie women treating me and frankly they suck, big time. I've had one doctor sneer at the things the guys in the therapy group with, "There's jerks everywhere." I fired her on the spot.

What we need is feminist therapy. These people have no fucking clue. The only shit that's helped me is reading feminist stuff and oddly, dealing with the Korean War and Viet Nam vets. The younger guys have the most amazing problems with women. The older guys just slap you on the back and tend to smack around the younger guys for being sexist. So I think it's connected to going through the fire and being the sort that can ask for help, somehow. The ones that aren't in combat really hate you for being, so to speak, more of a man than they are.

 Reply