Throw out the idea, the expectation, the DEMAND that men must be the breadwinners and that their worth as a mate is based on the ability to be the provider.

You can also toss out the idea that it is their duty to protect you personally and as a member of the armed forces.

Men also like the idea, in some cases, of staying at home and raising the kids or cooking or whatever but they don't generally have the luxury to do so unless they are a bit lucky.

Thanks for your post.

Let's keep this going.

My grandfather saved me from a child molester. I am not used to men that think of women as kleenex, inferior, submissive vessels of their will, etc. I thank you for a good post. I want all men to be as wonderful as so many I know are.

I would call a "man" a person who will do anything that needs to get done while treating others with respect and dignity.

I like to think that I'm more "manly" than most out there because of my proven ability to stand up in any situation and take care of what needs to get done. My toddler is sick and throwing up in the night. What does a man like me do? Does a "real man" wake up his wife to get her to deal with it or does he get up, hold his daughter while she is crying and throwing up on his shoulder and chest, clean her up, and fall asleep with her in his arms?

A real "man" doesn't have to prove anything to anyone. Driving a big truck and wearing work boots might present a certain image of toughness, but real toughness and fortitude isn't displayed by looks. A real man doesn't have a frail ego that is damaged when he doesn't get his way.

I love that definition and your post.

That would be mine as well. I can see right through the macho stances when weakness of charachter is underneath. A strong man has strength of character and does not put his ego before doing the right thing.

I would have written it if you hadn't beaten me to it. Good job.

my hubby was so there. always. such a blessing, he is.

My wife works full time and is very successful and happy in her profession, and I've been a "stay at home dad" (wish there was a better phrase) for the past 14 months - our delightful daughter is 15 months old but my wife only got 1 month's maternity leave.

I've given up my career to do this, but feel I'm doing the best job in the world.

One quibble, though. I feel blessed, not lucky.

I bring in 90% of our family income while my wife teaches at home about 15 hours/week and earns food money for the family basically.

Since she teaches after school lets out, I make dinner 5 times a week, do the bulk of dishes and lots of other house stuff.

I think it is a nice situation and I have been able to be there for all my kids as they grow up. I too feel blessed, but luck has played a role in it as well.

Specifically, you agree with this paragraph?

As for the paragraph you cite, it is really not terribly clear wrt the causes of rape and so I cannot unreservedly say that I am in complete agreement with it.

I am not sure what notions you "think" are being rejected in the Men's Group, but it might help if you pointed to specific comments and posters you disagree with for clarity. We are not all of like mind over there despite the fact that it may be easier for you to see the individuals there as a monolithic entity in order to fit your own preconceived notions of "us and them" which enable you to see yourself in the way you choose to.

You are the one dancing around that paragraph.

Because I think it is not clear to me what it means.

Ask the question in your own words again.

Women comprised 47 percent of the total U.S. labor force.

Women are projected to account for 51 percent of the increase in total labor force growth between 2008 and 2018.

66 million women were employed in the U.S.--73 percent of employed women worked on full-time jobs, while 27 percent worked on a part-time basis.

http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/Qf-laborforce-10.htm#.ULtzDNeumA4

Also, women are willing to serve in the military on the same level as men:http://news.discovery.com/human/women-military-front-120213.html

It's the Pentagon and politicians who are stopping them.

I am interested to see how this thread progresses.

Thank you.

Well said.

First off, the broad depiction of an entire gender that you present is as misguided as any description of a group of humanity. Unlike, say, artificial organizations such as political parties, country clubs or unions, there is no "official" definition of what it means to be a man beyond the XY twist in the chromosome.
Second, if rape is a reflection of some general malfunction in the culture of masculinity, then there would be more consistency between countries with similar demographics. For example, Canada has a per-capita occurrence of rape at 1.7 per 1000 compared to 27.3 in the USA or 63.5 in Sweden. Add to that the wide variation in estimates of the incidence of rape in the United States from one study to the next. What is the explanation for these widely varied statistics?
To place the blame at the feet of a gender is overly simplistic, perpetrates a false stereotype as incorrect as women and driving or woman and shoes, and is ultimately useless.
Wikipedia
My own opinion is that rape is actually a problem of violent crime in general, with rape simply being a subclassification of that larger group. Address the roots of violent crime (poverty, wealth disparity, living wage and access to quality education) and the incidence of rape will also fall.

To take your points:

My own opinion is that rape is actually a problem of violent crime in general, with rape simply being a subclassification of that larger group. Address the roots of violent crime (poverty, wealth disparity, living wage and access to quality education) and the incidence of rape will also fall.


For example, Canada has a per-capita occurrence of rape at 1.7 per 1000 compared to 27.3 in the USA or 63.5 in Sweden.


Sweden enjoys great economic equality and has one of the highest standards of living in the world

"lies, damned lies, and statistics".

The statistics the poster cites are prefaced with the following qualification (lightly edited for formatting purposes):

That's the very reason I included the number.
The situation is more complex than a simple "men are pigs, therefore men should not be pigs" response.
I should have said "My own opinion is that rape in the United States..."

Police procedures and legal definitions can be extremely different.

In 2005 there was a major reform of sex crime legislation in Sweden. The legal definition was expanded greatly.

In Sweden, they don't laugh at women, they record EVERY case of sexual violence. If a woman reports that her boss sexually harasses her, they record EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE separately. Not one woman, one type of crime, one report for dozens of incidents.

The increases in Sweden are also attributable to the fact that more women bother to report. Guess why.

But the poster was claiming economic equality lessens rape crimes

Just hoping s/he would explain that

Actually, I said, in my opinion, economic inequality is one of the roots of violent crime, and rape is a subclassification of violent crime.
However, after a brief bit of research, the data backing up something that really ought to be commonsense was easy enough to find. And now for the supporting documentation....
Wikiepedia to get you started.
a study for wiki snobs who distrust all things wiki
And a correlation as it relates to rape specifically.
"The findings also indicate that rape is related to the general level of economic inequality and racial income inequality."
Do I get extra credit?
Let's use some common sense out there folks.

A 44% drop since 1995.

This is not exactly an epidemic, So we don't need to do something SOON.

We need to deal with reality:

Porn is good, because it lowers the numbers of sexual violence.
Men are happy to masturbate to porn and then go to sleep.
Make it more available and sexual assault will decrease more.

Two problems solved: 1) Employment for those who want it -there's a kink for everyone, and 2)Lower levels of rape.

Sorry to those whose feelings are hurt. The Constitution guarantees a lot of things. Freedom from hurt feelings is not one of those things. Get used to it.

Here's some information about that oh-so-popular myth.

From Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_effects_of_pornography

"The link between pornography and sexual aggression has been the subject of multiple metaanalyses.[9] Metaanalyses conducted in the 1990s suggested to researchers that there might not be an association of any kind between pornography and rape supportive attitudes in non-experimental studies.[10] However, a metaanalysis by Hald, et al (2010)[11] suggests that there is a link between consumption of violent pornography and rape-supportive attitudes in certain populations of men, particularly when moderating variables are taken into consideration."

In other words, if you have rape-supportive attitudes, you're more likely to be influenced by violent porn.

As to the findings of Kutchinsky, they were both subsequently supported and refuted over the years.

I just have a problem with relying on 1970's studies, which mainly rely on a mindset and information from earlier, many of those were found to be questionable now, such a the Rorschach Test MMPI, religious influences, poor data gathering or no adequate data gathering and rigid mindsets. If you go to a Psychologist and they pull out the Rorschach Test, be very wary of them. The inkblots are now disclosed and open for public viewing so anyone can study up on them.

Now, I am all for research and inquiry, but going to a site that is pushing one specific agenda for facts is akin to an 'Agenda 21' researcher going to a Glenn Beck site to post information.

(I am done with this post as there are just to many things that can be said and one stat will refute another. I've had family that were victims of rape and sexual violence and I am trying to keep things in perspective.)

That's Donald "He Restoreth My Soul" Hilton.

Or is smearing by association your only comment?

That is the rate of incidence per 100,000 people.

http://ucrdatatool.gov/

Is your assertion that the DOJ is lying or otherwise deliberately promoting an agenda?

Isn't that a made up word from the gaping maw of Paul Ryan or one of those filthy creatures?

If you have alternate data that contradicts the USDOJ data, by all means, post it.

Nowhere in the course of the data range I provided, was the definition changed.

So therefore, the trend is valid. The numbers as per the old definition peaked in '92 and have subsequently decreased, to a level at 75% of their 1980 number- again, all under the old definition. The point is, the definition has been consistent throughout the data range.

One could, I suppose, speculate on an opposite trend occurring over those years as per the amended definition, but what would that sort of speculation be based upon?

It's anti-woman, anti-choice, RW extremism, as far as I'm concerned.

I've been appalled by some posts here over the past few days when it comes to attitudes about rape, but I don't see those attitudes as having anything to do with porn, nor do I find anything in that article persuasive at all when it comes to a link between rape and porn.

Take this bit for instance:

'Porn advocates also don’t like to talk much about the results of studies in Sweden, Great Britain, New Zealand, and Australia, where the number of rapes increased when the constraints on the availability of pornography were lifted. Like how “when South Australia liberalized its laws on pornography and Queensland maintained its conservative policy . . . the number of rapes in Queensland remained at the same low level while South Australia’s showed a six fold increase” over a 13 year period (25).'

I've got no idea over what 13 year period that was, but there's no attempt to show how that increase in South Australia and the low level in Queensland was linked to porn and how other influences couldn't have been responsible. For example, Queensland was for many years home to the most conservative neanderthal RW state government in Australia. It was literally like stepping back into the 1950's, and that would explain a consistantly low rate of reported rapes, because there was an environment where women were discouraged from reporting rape. South Australia had a very liberal government for much of the same time. What else was happening in South Australia over that time to explain the rise? Was it reflected in other states? Porn's always been legal here in the Australian Capital Territory, so if the numbers are low here, doesn't that just throw everything out with that study? Also, once the internet came on the scene with all that free porn, shouldn't the numbers of rapes in places where porn was still illegal gone right through the roof?

I'm off to buy a farm now. I don't know why, but every time I play Farmville2, I get that really strong urge!

Sexual violence in rape is an assertion of power over women. So your premise is screwed up right at the get go...

I suppose you could make the argument that intenet porn is directly accountable for the decline in rape...I'm not sure I buy it, but would be interested to see studies on it...

I think one thing to keep in mind is that rape is NOT only about sex - some will argue that it is not about sex at all, but I can potentially see where date rape, rape of married woman (or man) etc. could START out as being about sex...maybe...still not sure.... We do know that rape is about control, dominance, and violence. Internet porn will never replace those "needs" in some men.

not report them, back file them, that we have seen as a HUGE issue.

i can think of ten more reasons for this supposed miracle in drop of numbers

Interesting any of these gimme posts from guys think they are helping.

Worse in the past 30 years.

Not to say it never happens- but, again, for that to gel with the USDOJ's own numbers on rape rates, it would have to be a situation that has gotten worse across the board. Deliberately.

In short, that is a very serious, broad-based accusation to make against law enforcement. Do you have a source for it?

as men will ask for it. then they immediately dismiss without reading. i no longer take the time to provide the info. google is your friend. i have learned to do this, if i feel that i need to know more about the subject.

and yes.... i can think of a good ten other reasons.

Can you at least give a Link to where you've provided it?

Then admit you're so selfish that it;s unlikely that anyone of the many girls you've met will never tell you, because you say publicly you think it;s not a big deal.

Causation would rest being able to show that rape is a crime of sexual frustration, rather than a crime driven by issues of power relations and the way we process emotion.

And I'm not sure it's appropriate to bring the question of porn into this thread.

Wow.

I take it you don't know what the treatment is for sex offenders is. I'll give you a guess. It's not more porn.

The original assertion, back in the day, was "porn causes rape, and increased availability of porn is going to translate into sexual assault." This can be traced back to the late 70s and early 80s, promoted by.. Well, I'm sure you are familiar with the names and alliances.

This has been fairly definitively disproven by the fact- and this is coming from the USDOJ- that rape rates have declined. So either the USDOJ is lying, or somehow porn isnt more available than it was 30 years ago (unlikely) or the assertion that porn is somehow implicated in rape is simply not true.

It is disingenuous, however, to turn that around and suggest that any refutation of the porn=rape assertion, somehow tranlates to an argument that "people need porn or they'll rape". Someone may have said that, but its a completely different argument.

What the facts bear out, actually, is that porn and rape dont have anything to do with each other. Either way.

Eunuchs were created with the objective of providing trustworthy individuals to perform official government functions, serve as assistants to highly-placed women, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch

Last edited Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:39 PM - Edit history (1)

But you are correct to do so. If the same type of OP was started about women the witch hunts would be in full force.

The poster is factually wrong about why men rape. I am certainly not engaged in a witch hunt in pointing that out.

I fixed it. Sorry about the confusion. And I agree with your comment.

It called for men to change masculinity.

Nothing I suggested in the OP would lead to men being persecuted at all...on the contrary, radically changing masculinity
would be liberating for the vast majority of men.

Sorry to hear that you seem to find that idea threatening.

men of civil rights for promoting education.
It's kind of shocking these posters feel entitled to any kind of respectful reply.

hurts or embarrasses you. It SHOULD hurt and embarrass you- those are 25% of your female family and friends victimized by this.
Why are they not open to telling you? It starts with this man vs woman thing in your head. We women didn't make it this way.

Or what you think is in my "head." Those thoughts, assumptions, and feelings are in your head. It's up to you to sort through it all. Now, if you actually want to know something about me, feel free to ask.

which is related to the "they blame all us men" straw man....
People do all sorts of shit stirring here, and that is where it started.

Talking about 98% is done by men of is highly dismissive of people that have been abused by females. One possibly explanation is underreporting, which is more likely to occur if the victim feels that they're an outlier. I've seen studies showing reports of children abused by women to be far above the conviction rates. Since sexual abuse thrives where it's hidden, we should not, at all, be dismissive of any kind of abuse. It's not like doing so is somehow helpful to women - female offenders prey on females just as male offenders prey on males (and male on male prison rape is probably one of the most normalized types of sexual assault there is).

I suppose some people see this as a kind of competition between men and women, but I'm not terribly interested in a rape competition. I'm interested in doing what we can to rid the world of sexual violence.

That's NOT what we are talking about. That's the problem with YOUR post- it's off topic and designed to derail the discussion.
That's a violation of the rules here. (I do LOVE education)

Stop trying to derail THIS conversation- because that does nothing to help your cause and only creates that "false competition" you claim to abhor.
Seriously- if it's not your issue- violence against women- that's okay. If you're doing all this great advocacy or research about violence against men feel free to start a thread. Send us links to all the great work you're doing- we'd love to support you.
And we'd love you to support us. You can try and show support here, but we'd rather you drop the effort to make this about your pet issue. Obviously it is not.

the original post says rape. And it's talking about the "rape threads." Not "violence against women." Not "violence against women threads." To act like rape is only by men against women, or that is the only "legitimate rape," is offensive. If you want to start a thread about violence against women, I'm not going to complain that you aren't talking about men (though I would hope that you wouldn't be dismissive of women who have been victims of other women). But to say that rape against men, or against women by women, is somehow off-topic or trying to derail the topic in in a discussion about rape is terrible.

With the poster was about patriarchy, and that societies default position was to only educate women on the issue, and not cast a wider net by educating all youth about the issue.

Retread the OPs. They aren't about your issue. So yes- you and dozens of people tried to make it about something else and stubbornly try and disrupt the conversation.

You can start another topic anytime, if you are sincere in your efforts to create awareness. Choosing to disrupt this topic instead and referencing some man Vs woman war doesn't make you look like a serious advocate for men who have been raped. It makes you look like you can't comprehend the OP.

And here I was thinking that rape was a universal issue.

First, my comment was a response to yours, not the OP. I didn't reply to the OP and say "let's not talk about that, let's talk about other things." I replied to your comment, "we really cannot escape the fact that rape is 98% done by men," and pointed out the problems made by that statement.

Your attitude that your comment is fine to make, but anyone that takes issue with that comment is trying to derail the conversation, smacks more of trying to silence dissent than following the rules.

Second, this sentence:

"Seriously- if it's not your issue- violence against women- that's okay. If you're doing all this great advocacy or research about violence against men feel free to start a thread."

is just wrong, even if you think staying on topic means to not deviate from the OP at all.

Third, I think that the cultural idea of masculinity is a big reason why people tend to be dismissive of rape against men, and it's not insignificant in the issue of female on female rape either.

And I should point out, once again, that though you think this is "my issue," I had no interest in bringing this up with the OP. My comment was a responsive to what seemed to be a dismissive comment in your post, which I felt was important to point out.

Are talking about violence against women.
By your own measure, we're also very unfair to baby seals. Just because we refuse to switch focus to suit you.

Start your own topic about women who abuse, because this very clearly is not OT.
It's not about you! Stop disrupting please.

That doesn't make it "my issue." And no, the OP did not specify violence against women. In fact, he says:

"In addition to trying to change the way men treat women(and each other), what I'm talking about is trying to liberate men from the constraints we impose on ourselves in the name of "masculinity" and "macho"."

The way men treat women, the way they treat each other, and the constraints imposed by masculinity. Even if you want to pretend that I wasn't responding to a comment that you made and was responding to the OP instead, not only does the OP not specify that this is about violence against women, he makes it explicitly clear in that quote he's not just talking about violence against women.

As you say, "we refuse to switch focus to suit you." I really don't know why it bothers you so much that this isn't an issue exclusively about violence against women by men. But it's not. If you want to start a topic about that, go ahead, but that's not what this is.

So are a million other things (mostly) guys bring up to disrupt or attempt to delegitimize the conversation.

Sorry, but it is incredibly off topic and I'm not going to entertain your "concerns".
If it really mattered to you, you'd start a conversation instead of disrupting this thread.

This is easy. I'm not saying we should talk instead about women abusing men. I'm saying the problem with the statement you made is that it's dismissive of some forms of rape. The fact that you've continued to be dismissive of other forms of rape in your followups underscores this. I'm not even saying that we should be talking about other forms of rape here (though I do think several would be on topic), I'm saying we shouldn't make dismissive comments about certain kinds of rape in a topic about rape. And I don't think that comment should require a new topic. I'm not going to start a new topic just to say that I have a problem with a comment you made.

If you think that's disruptive, delegitimizes the conversation, or is incredibly off topic - well, we'll just have to disagree.

Are you really sure you want to invoke that image to make whatever point you're trying to make?

Also, nothing I talked about equated to waging war against men-In addition to trying to change the way men treat women(and each other), what I'm talking about is trying to liberate men from the constraints we impose on ourselves in the name of "masculinity" and "macho".

How do you get a call for gender persecution out of THAT?

People are stubborn unto Death. I agree we can and should work toward a more intelligent and caring society but it won't happen overnight.

African Americans were de jure property until after the civil war, and many existed in a de facto condition of serfdom until the Great Depression, WWII, the mechanization of agriculture, and the civil rights movement ended the Jim Crow era in the south.

Revolutionary, sweeping change is indeed possible.

Women still require the support and protection of men in a large part of the world. See news stories about the Lake Region in Africa, for instance.

I was referring specifically to the united states and to the assertion, basically, that nothing can change, despite the historical fact that there have been periods of sweeping social change in this country, including for example right now with respect to LGBTQ rights.

Over time, yes, change occurs. Women and other minorities are still not where they want to be.

If we can speed up the process of change, so much the better. It just won't happen quickly enough. I think it's important to acknowledge that.

That would be approximately the sweeping changes of the civil rights era and the 20th century woman's rights movement, both of which ran their course until the Reagan counter-revolution. A period of broad sweeping social change.

We are in another period of sweeping social change, the 'culture war' initiated by the Reagan counter revolution has run its course, and the LGBTQ rights movement is leading a renewal of progressive social change, sweeping progressive social change, that is again transforming our society.

But I would argue that civil rights was simply an extension of the abolition of slavery so I think it's fair to say it's been more than a hundred years for the vestiges of that to disappear, and we're not quite there yet.

As for women, they had voting rights since the 1920s. They should have had equal rights in all other areas at the same time.

Our society's awareness of the ill treatment of women and minorities goes back much further.

Most of the world's revolutions were decades, even centuries in coming.

the economic system of exploitation and plunder partially determines the status of gender relations.

Our current economic system preaches and is built around the idea that is is perfectly acceptable, neigh even 'moral,' for one person to profit off the labor of another and, in that type of system, all sorts of horrors will express themselves in the cultural superstructure that arises.

This doctrinaire Marxist-Leninst says, "Change the substructure and the superstructure must follow."

You can create the conditions for changing the economic system by changing the people trapped within it...by each of us, in short, making our own lives a "liberated zone" and, in so doing, giving each other the strength to make that change to.

It's a way of both "being the change" and spreading the change.

exists in creative tension with substructure and is not simply over-determined by it).

Marx (and Lenin) would no doubt approve

make change by a large leap.

You are right on KB, but revolutionary seems to me to be on the same path of revolting, not changing. Semantics to be sure, but I think that maybe it's important distinction.

Thanks for knowing the need.

You have to learn to control yourself before you presume to try to tell other people what to do. Relationships must be negotiated by mutual consent. Nobody gets an automatic right to give orders or be catered to.

win for man. win for woman. win for society.

discussion here. I can't help to conclude there's a subconscious empathy with men's anger in a lot of these posters.
I've seen a lot of the anger first hand, simply for not validating the poor me bullshit they peddle.

The father in the home is a protective factor for all forms of violence for kids, improves educational outcomes and is particularly effective at instilling a moral code in boys. Unfortunately, one third of kids live in a home with an alienated father.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/chaptertwo.cfm
http://www.fatherhood.org/media/consequences-of-father-absence-statistics

The problem isn't masculinity, the problem is in the form idealized in popular entertainment. My dad was a real man, he could regularly carry a #100 pound sack of cement on each shoulder. My neighbor was a real man, he could diagnose and fix anything. My HS english teacher was a real man, he could inspire people through word and deed and although shorter than many of his students, wouldn't put up with kids bullying one another at all. My son's gay best friend is a real man, he's about 6" taller than me and weight about 270#. He's gentle to a fault and works 70 hours a week driving truck to support him and his partner.

The definition of masculinity is flexible enough to encompass all four. I don't see any compelling need to make them conform to your masculine archetype. At any rate, rape isn't a masculine attribute.

If your intent was to make an lecture OP directed exclusively at men, it might have been useful to post it in the men's group. If your intent was to troll for recommends, then you made the better choice.

Interesting.

What parameters are you setting for your proposal there?

There may be times when a father is simply not the model of manhood a young boy needs.

I wasn't trolling for recommends.

And I think I'll go ahead now and actually cross-post the OP in the Men's Group.

"As truth is gathered, I rearrange...inside out, outside in, perpetual change"
(From the song Perpetual Change, by Yes)

We women have much work to do on our collective perspective and identities as well.

I think we should be careful in analyzing the alleged data. For example - my son was (falsely) accused of rape. I'm sure that if asked the young woman would answer that "she has been raped". Yet if anyone was rapped that night it was my son not her yet it cost me several thousand dollars to establish his innocence. She was then told by the police that if she continued to pursue charges they would charge her. I should have sued her but my son wouldn't let me. Sure she's suffering from a psychological disconnect but that isn't the fault of "men".

This is personal to me and I don't accept knee jerk answers. Rape is obviously a horrible thing. So is a false accusation of the same.

I would accept a reassessment of "manhood" if women would agree that they should do the same for womanhood. For such thoughts I'm labeled a misygonist.

should have a thread of its own.

Sorry for your personal bad experience with this, but I'm not sure how it ties into the theme of the thread.

The raw fact (if you bother to investigate) is that "false accusations" are not all that "rare". Thus I tend to give a very skeptical eye to studies that say X% of women were raped in such and such circumstance. I question the bias of the researchers asking the question. That is all.

As a matter of fact, my wife was "raped" way back in the first few months when I first knew her. She absolutely was by all of the definitions anyone would consider yet she got over it and I doubt that she would even remember it if you asked her in a survey if she had ever been "raped". Some women obsess about this issue. I know that from lots of personal experience. Take my information and dismiss it or consider it part of the narrative, your choice.

Are you fucking serious. I feel sorry for your wife, but not why you'd guess.

Putting the word rape in quotation marks is the height of nastiness. Shame on you,my sympathies to your wife, although not for the reasons you mentioned.

Poor wife, indeed.

Unbelievable.

And also tell women who have been raped to get over it, and also think a girl who accused your son of raping her was a liar?

Is allowed here- especially if the poster wraps it in a "personal anecdote"

This site has become a sewer for rape apologists. There's no other way to read that post.

I wasn't the first to alert as I got this back:

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

Minimizing rape by putting it in quotation marks and telling victims to get over it.Sickening.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:46 AM, and voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Thank you.

Last edited Mon Dec 3, 2012, 04:10 PM - Edit history (1)

we should only listen to MRA to tell you how horrible these women are, that abuse you. hey, fbi and the counter in england say 2-3%. but, they have an agenda, right? MRA though, they would be the honest info. no agenda there.

and the little woman. well hell, with you telling women how they are suppose process their rape, damn well bet she would NEVER discuss it with you.

good job, showing us exactly where you are coming from.

Should I "get over it"?

Where the hell are the admins?

language being used here.

unless it was so traumatic that you blocked all memory of it as a self-protective mechanism.

Just from your few posts in this thread, I suspect that it will be a cold day in hell before she mentions its real impact on her life to you because according to you she was only "raped," not raped - and she knows how you feel about all those lyin' women, and those women who don't just get over it and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

I'm one of the lucky ones - I was not physically injured, aside from the forced sex acts, I never blamed myself, and it has very little impact on my day to day life, and hasn't since the first couple of years after the rape. I have minor PTSD - mostly in connection with phone calls and where I sit in a restaurant. No one interacting with me in real life would ever know I had been raped - and many people in my life don't know that is part of my history. But even as completely and quickly as I thought I recovered, there were pieces of my recovery my psyche was not ready to deal with until about the 20th anniversary of the date I was raped - and I had to go through recovery all over again (albeit at an accelerated pace). I talk about it here because other survivors need to know they are not alone - and women like your wife whose significant others' think they don't even remember it - need to know that there are people who understand and care.

I find your commentary about false reporting offensive - discussions of other crimes are virtually never accompanied by commentary about false reporting in an attempt to discredit the reality of those crimes, despite the false reports being (on average) is roughly the same.

But it is your use of your wife, and your denial of the reality of her experience, that I find beyond the pale. I hope you will self delete at least that portion of your commentary. You almost certainly have it wrong and, bottom line, it is her story to tell, not yours.

my wife was "raped" way back in the first few months when I first knew her. She absolutely was by all of the definitions anyone would consider yet she got over it and I doubt that she would even remember it if you asked her in a survey if she had ever been "raped". Some women obsess about this issue.



But if most rapes are only alleged in your world, and most people forget that they were raped because it is not such a big deal after all, and therefore respond with "no" on such surveys, that kind of cancels each other out, right? Then the statistics are true after all ... I know.. I just totally blew your mind.

Come on, you sound like a tough guy and that you have a strong opinion on the subject. Surely, you aren't cowardly enough to avoid discussing this further and responding to all the replies?

With an attitude like yours I have to reason to believe the woman your son raped is lying. The apple does fall far from the tree.

Nobody thinks your wife "should" have PTSD.

But it's highly offensive to suggest that those who DO have PTSD as a result of being raped are drama queens who are "obsessing" over it, or that somehow those victims aren't "doing it right."

This is as offensive as suggesting that soldiers returning from war who have PTSD should just get over it.

That is not the only thing offensive about your post, but it is one of them.

You have a wife who was raped, and the first thing you do--is talk about all of the false accusations that women make about rape--which is a tactic that people with an agenda--use to demonize and discredit rape, sexual assault and child-molestation victims.

Why are you married to a rape victim and simultaneously carrying water for the rape-discreditation brigade?

And to suggest that your wife wouldn't answer in the affirmative, if someone taking a survey, asked her if she was raped--leads me to believe that you are full of shit.

Your story is so full of revolting malarkey and contradictions--that I don't even believe it's true. I think you posted to demonize rapists and that you also made up the story about your wife being raped. Oh excuse me, "raped."

You're nonsense--and so is the bizarre notion that false accusations are rare. Ninety percent of women who are raped or sexually abused as children--never tell. Sexual abuse is an epidemic in this country.

So before you post your bullshit, just know that many of us see through the bullshit and are no longer putting up with it.
This isn't the 1970's honey.

Please convince me.

Not a big surprise. I've seen it on here before.

Obviously there is a spectrum of "rapes". Human behavior is not a binary operation. Sorry, I know I'm way out numbered and have no hope of discussing this calmly with anyone here because no one here is capable of listening to what I have to say.

I don't even know how to characterize that post.

Your wife was "raped" - which you put in scare quotes even though you state that it "absolutely was by all the definitions" rape, and yet you state that she "got over it" and you actually think that she would not even remember it????!!!

Really. Really?

Anytime that's done to a word, it implies that there's some reason the person reading the word should question its truthfulness.

and turns out a jury already rules that it was OK. What is going on with DU?

I ask that you self delete it.

Shame on you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

caveman and rape apologist.

And a fucking misogynist.

I should not comment here, but I will.

I have been married to the same wonderful man since 1967 . That means we stayed married while I discovered the women 's movement and explored what it meant for me to be a woman. The movement had its fits and starts, (for example, women who worked outside the home being pitted against those who worked at home) but few would dispute that American women have changed dramatically since 1967. And yes, we've learned that true freedom means being able to make your own choices, not have choices dictated to you have sociatal "norms".

As women have changed, so have many men. But many men have been left clinging to the world they once knew. My husband is not the same man I married: he is a much better person. We raised our son to be more flexible about gender roles. At 36 , he is employed as an engineer, is married to a lovely woman who works part time, and who takes care of their two babies. But he also does most of the cooking and is very involved in caring for the children.

During my time with the women's movement, we had discussions about how men would also need to change. The wiser ones realized we could not change men: men would have to change themselves. It seems that that is what underlies the thoughtful OP. Some men, like my husband, have navigated the changing roles fairly well. But there are many others who perhaps need help with the introspection needed to define themselves as men in a very different world.

to actually listen and support women in their lives who have serious fears or concerns about men in their social group. It's incredibly familiar to me, but I think for a lot of men, it will be an eye opener how very difficult getting any support can be.

The comments at the bottom are heartbreaking, scary, funny and priceless.


"Step 1: A creepy dude does creepy, entitled shit and makes women feel unsafe.

Step 2: The women speak up about it to their partners.

Step 3: It gets written off as “not a big deal” or “he probably didn’t mean it” or “he’s not a bad guy, really.” Any discussion of the bad behavior must immediately be followed by a complete audit of his better qualities or the sad things he’s suffered in the name of “fairness.” Once the camera has moved in and seen him in closeup as a real, human, suffering person, how can you (the object, always an object, as in “objectified,” as in a disembodied set of tits or orifices, or a Trapper Keeper, or a favorite coffee mug or a pet cat) be so cruel as to want to hold him accountable for his actions? Bitches, man.

Step 4: Everyone is worried about hurting creepy dude’s feelings or making it weird for creepy dude. Better yet, everyone is worried about how the other dudes in the friend group will feel if they are called out for enabling creepy dude. Women are worried that if they push the issue, that the entire friend group will side with creepy dude or that they’ll be blamed for causing “drama.” Look at how LW #323 put it: ”how can I approach this subject with my boyfriend, and make him understand a) how serious this is, and b) that he is not responsible for Ben’s reactions, without making him feel defensive?”

Wouldn’t want someone who covers up for and defends a proto-rapist to have to have SADFEELS, right? (LW, it’s not your fault you’re asking the question this way, it’s just that our culture sucks about this and your boyfriend and his friends have been giving you constant messages that Ben is to be coddled while you are to be shushed in the hopes that it will all blow over)."

http://captainawkward.com/2012/08/07/322-323-my-friend-group-has-a-case-of-the-creepy-dude-how-do-we-clear-that-up/#comment-20894

Maybe it's time for an androgynous model of personhood that transcends gender idendity politics.

We can attack the Ayn Randian idea that single-minded selfishness and a disregard for the well-being of others is a moral imperative. This nonsense has become the core of the Republican Party and a significant portion of Christian political movements,

We can call out weakness and fear claiming to be strength, calling itself patriotism, or extraordinary rendition, or war.

We can insist that diminishing women's reproductive rights is not something that just "women voters" will not tolerate.

We can take the position that men value women, for their own sake, in a specific way of our own that does not consist of sexual attraction.

We can do all of this, and that stupid fucking poster that kicked off all this crap, again, will still be a dishonest meme conflating crime prevention with victim blaming and "men" with "rapists."