The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Mavorpen]

If they don't believe "the notion that only women need protection from sexual victimization," then give me a detailed explanation as to how Mary Koss convinced them. If they do, then prove it.

The proof is in the pudding. They don't contradict the rank sexism of Koss at all. In fact, they use it.

I didn't ask for your opinion. I asked for proof.

[Galloism]

The proof is in the pudding. They don't contradict the rank sexism of Koss at all. In fact, they use it.

I didn't ask for your opinion. I asked for proof.

You now want proof of them using her sexist bullshit now?

I do wish you'd make up your mind.

The CDC reports are a good start - all three of them use Koss's sexist designation.

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/ ... ports.html

Kudos to the CDC for asking the question, but they fell victim to Koss's sexist recommendations.

[Mavorpen]

I didn't ask for your opinion. I asked for proof.

You now want proof of them using her sexist bullshit now?

No, but given that I've accepted you can't read, I'll go along with this for now. Please prove that every person who has published on rape has used her methodology.

[Proctopeo]

You now want proof of them using her sexist bullshit now?

No, but given that I've accepted you can't read, I'll go along with this for now. Please prove that every person who has published on rape has used her methodology.

You know, you're really good at being inconsistent and never answering questions.

And ignoring most of people's posts, can't forget that detail.

This is a critique of your argumentation method, by the way.

[Galloism]

Now, are you going to explain how treating the same act differently based on the sexual identities of the perpetrator and victim is not sexist?

Are you ever going to explain your claim that properly identifying men as rape victims in the data stage will cause men to stop reporting in the interview stage? That was a hell of a claim, and I want to know how it works.

Also, let the record show that the bullshit Mav asserted above remains asserted bullshit with no rational explanation.

And he refuses to explain his opinion - because he knows it's indefensible.

[Galloism]

You now want proof of them using her sexist bullshit now?

No, but given that I've accepted you can't read,

Hilarious projection.

I'll go along with this for now. Please prove that every person who has published on rape has used her methodology.

Well, I started with the CDC. They're a good mainstream source.

[Mavorpen]

Well, I started with the CDC. They're a good mainstream source.

That's great, now continue and prove the actual claim.

[Galloism]

Well, I started with the CDC. They're a good mainstream source.

That's great, now continue and prove the actual claim.

I've proved enough.

I will no longer answer you until you make at least a baseline attempt to prove that classifying rape in a nonsexist fashion at the data stage will cause men not to report at the interview stage.

Proving "all" or "none" is an impossibly highly moved goalpost, and I'm not playing ball anymore while you make bullshit assertions that contradict the text and refuse to defend them.

[Mavorpen]

That's great, now continue and prove the actual claim.

I've proved enough.

You've proved nothing. So far the only thing you've done is just dance around my questions and try to deflect to something slightly related, with me being generous and following along to accommodate said deflections.

[Proctopeo]

I've proved enough.

You've proved nothing. So far the only thing you've done is just dance around my questions and try to deflect to something slightly related, with me being generous and following along to accommodate said deflections.

The lack of self-awareness and level of projection is staggering.

[Galloism]

I've proved enough.

You've proved nothing. So far the only thing you've done is just dance around my questions and try to deflect to something slightly related, with me being generous and following along to accommodate said deflections.

I'll engage again when you address that bullshit assertion I asked you about 20 times or so.

[Mavorpen]

You've proved nothing. So far the only thing you've done is just dance around my questions and try to deflect to something slightly related, with me being generous and following along to accommodate said deflections.

I'll engage again when you address that bullshit assertion I asked you about 20 times or so.

That's nice. Let me know when you want to prove the claims you danced around.

[Chessmistress]

The very fact that women are immensely more afraid to be forcibly penetrated by men than men being afraid to be forcibly penetrated by women is very telling

While this was most likely not your intent, I acknowledge that this is a problem caused by feminist fearmongering. Blaming society is technically correct, as feminism is part of society, but a bit dishonest.

"Prove it's a problem caused by Feminists. Cite me ALL the Feminists fearmongering. I want to see ALL the Feminists cited, here, now"

Don't worry, I'm joking.

Real answer:
You're correct.
It's Feminism who did make women becoming aware of the situation, it's called gender awareness.
But it's not "fearmongering", it's a real threat to women, and ALL numbers shows it is a real threat to women.
It looks like the men haven't the same threat on them.
It may be due the patriarchy is real, and we aren't mad as you like to frame us...

[Galloism]

I'll engage again when you address that bullshit assertion I asked you about 20 times or so.

That's nice. Let me know when you want to prove the claims you danced around.

Ok, if you want to stop ignoring the ones you made, I'll be here.

[Galloism]

While this was most likely not your intent, I acknowledge that this is a problem caused by feminist fearmongering. Blaming society is technically correct, as feminism is part of society, but a bit dishonest.

"Prove it's a problem caused by Feminists. Cite me ALL the Feminists fearmongering. I want to see ALL the Feminists cited, here, now"

Don't worry, I'm joking.

Real answer:
You're correct.
It's Feminism who did make women becoming aware of the situation, it's called gender awareness.
But it's not "fearmongering", it's a real threat to women, and ALL numbers shows it is a real threat to women.
It looks like the men haven't the same threat on them.
It may be due the patriarchy is real, and we aren't mad as you like to frame us...

Actually, latest CDC study shows more men suffer penetrative sex each year than women, although women have somewhat higher lifetime numbers.

[Mavorpen]

That's nice. Let me know when you want to prove the claims you danced around.

Ok, if you want to stop ignoring the ones you made, I'll be here.

I ignored none of my claims. Just because you can't be bothered to provide proof doesn't mean you have to lie.

[Forsher]

Please tell me how penis in vagina sex penetrates the male in any circumstance.

Lrn2Biology

Please telll me where I said anything about "penis in vagina sex" and how forcible penetration via objects doesn't exist.

Just how long did it take for you to master the art of failing to use critical thinking?

Do you know how a discussion works? Do you understand how strawmen work?

Both of these ideas rely entirely on multiple perspectives... the former involves an exchange of ideas and the second the misrepresentation of a position that someone else holds. You can exchange ideas between people with the same beliefs (the much maligned echo chamber) but in this context we'll treat even very similar perspectives as unique.

The corollary of the above points is that the marginal contribution of ideas to a conversation will never actually represent the whole of the conversation.

Consequently, if we assume Mav came to this thread looking for and understanding what discussions are, it means that Mav (here anyway) either doesn't bother reading what Gallo says or quite honestly believes the below to not be talking about "penis in vagina sex" (which would be most odd, but apparently holistic understandings of rape lead to under-report and I just don't see how so I won't preclude the possibility here either):

No, what's sexist is taking penis in vagina sex and classifying it as rape ONLY if the aggressor is male.

This, by the way, is what Mav responded to with this:

No, what's sexist is taking penis in vagina sex and classifying it as rape ONLY if the aggressor is male.

Which isnt what she's done. If a female forcibly penetrated a male that's considered rape. Again, you want some sexist system where being forced to penetrate is the same as being forcibly penetrated solely because of your feelings.

Given you're replying to someone else, by definition of a discussion, Mav, you were, here, talking about "penis in vagina" sex/rape.

Here's the kicker... the original idea to talk about made to penetrate (which aside from anything else clearly includes, if not strongly suggests, penis in vagina) was brought up by Galloism... not Mav.

Which is it Mav? Do you not read what you're superficially engaging with (as opposed to just cutting out, sidestepping and ignoring direct calls... or the abrogation of responsibility for your own claims, i.e. in not finding someone who disagrees... even if that is actually irrelevant to the point, it's your position)? Do you believe that Galloism was not talking about "penis in vagina" sex? Or do we presume falsely and really you're not here to have a conversation at all and thus we can only normatively condemn your behaviour on the grounds you ought to be having a discussion rather than specifically isolating failures to live up to the standards of discussions?

[Chessmistress]

Ok, if you want to stop ignoring the ones you made, I'll be here.

I ignored none of my claims. Just because you can't be bothered to provide proof doesn't mean you have to lie.

I hope that your primary specialization is "Marxism" and that "Feminism" is just an unimportant hobby for you, if you're instead equally "good" at both then it mean that you have a similar level of arguments at highlighting the benefits of "Marxism" and therefore it's not a surprise that USA don't even have a Marxist party...

[Forsher]

Ok, if you want to stop ignoring the ones you made, I'll be here.

I ignored none of my claims. Just because you can't be bothered to provide proof doesn't mean you have to lie.

You did. Here's an example.

For classification purposes, YES. That's the point. A man forced to engage in penetrative sex should be considered a rape victim, even if he's the one enveloped, not penetrated.

That's the whole fucking point.

So you want men to underreport rape. That's an odd position to take.

is actually saying:

"Considering men who were forced to engage in penetrative sex as rape victims would lead to under-reporting of rape. I think that odd."

Where is the substantiation? Where is the explanation? I mean, if you could show that it leads to under-reporting even though it makes no logical sense for it to do so, that'd be fine... after all, I can easily demonstrate that people believe in trickle down even though the literature is sceptical and the logic non-existent. However, you seem to not be making an empirical point here.

Note:

What does it say, mavorpen. Answer the question.

What does it say, in English, using common definitions?

It says that because men often do not consider their being raped as such, it's inappropriate to consider them rape victims when surveying them because they will under-report incidences of rape.

This isn't actually an answer to the question. What Gallo is suggesting, and I remind you that a conversation is a joint process, is that rather than asking men if they were raped, that there be some sort of question, in line with the others, that describes the experience without mentioning the word rape. Why does that lead (for envelopment/made to penetrate) to under-reporting when doing the same for, as an example, being penetrated by a carrot leads to accurate reporting? This is your claim. Where is your follow-up? No where.

[Costa Fierro]

Koss never alleged that only women need protection from sexual victimization.

And yet she said that forced penetration was not rape. Clearly that's indicative of a lack of concern for the issue of rape as a whole and more for granting women more protection from rape and sexual assault. Of course, it's also about controlling men as well, because if men legitimately fear being accused of rape, then women have power and control over them and can use it to blackmail men into doing things for them.

She just wished a policy highlighting that within a patriarchal society men being forced to sex don't have, on average, the same negative consequences of women being forcibly penetrated, so the two categories must be treated in a different way by the stats.

Except the United States is not a patriarchal society. And funnily enough, yes, men being forced to have sex against their will does have negative consequences as severe as those with women. Men have gone into clinical depression and committed suicide over being raped by women because society still thinks that all men always want sex. That we're in a constant state of sexual consent. It's not two different categories and it's not different if it happens to women. Rape is rape. Koss knows this and so do you. But both of you refuse to acknowledge that rape happens to men and that it is just as traumatic and confusing as it is for women, perhaps even more so if you live in a society where men are expected to be strong and unemotional and resilient.

She never tried to give a free pass to female perpetrators, they're still punished, rightly, even if the categories are differentiated.

Except they're not. Whilst few male rapists are ever prosecuted for their crimes, even fewer female rapists are prosecuted. Because society doesn't believe that men can be raped, even if the law in the United States says they can.

My answer to "it's rape or not?" is that both are sexual crimes. But the law should take in account the differences within society - clearly such differences would be properly treated by defining "sexual assault" a man forced to PIV, and "rape" a woman forced to PIV.

They're both rape. Rape is non-consensual sexual intercourse. If a man has PIV sex with a woman without his consent, it is rape. If a man has PIV sex with a woman without her consent, it is rape. There's no difference at all.

So my answer is PRECISELY: in our actual society, still, and sadly, it depends by the sex of the perpetrator.

Bullshit. Rape is rape. Stop pretending that it depends on the sex of the rapist because women rape and men rape. Rape is rape.

You should thank the patriarchy for that, not blaming Feminists highlighting those differences: Feminists didn't invent the idea that "men cannot be raped", it was the patriarchy.

And "the patriarchy" in some countries changed the law to include made to penetrate as rape. Yet we have feminists who are claiming that men cannot be raped and are actively fighting against and preventing gender neutral rape laws from being implemented.

Feminism is doing more to reinforce "patriarchal" social attitudes towards rape than the "patriarchy" ever did. So don't think you can say "well it's not my fault" because you are sitting right here suggesting that men cannot be raped, which is a "patriarchal" attitude. You are reinforcing the "patriarchy". You're no better than the misogynists that you claim to hate.

Until we, as society, will not recognize the unbalancement of power within our society, those differences aren't going away, and must be properly considered.

There is an imbalance in society and that imbalance favours women. But you don't want to get rid of that imbalance because it would mean that you won't have leverage over men. This brings back our earlier argument about control. You want to control men. Radical feminists want to control and dominate men. Therefore this isn't about protecting women or recognizing any gender imbalances within society, it's about controlling men and dominating them.

I also want to go further: women penetrating an unwilling man should be treated as women forcing a man to have PIV - being classified as something different from men forcibly penetrating a woman, I mean, and I want make it very clear - because the main difference isn't in the act in itself but in the society as whole.

Bullshit. The act is the same. Rape is rape. Stop defending the rape of men.

The very fact that women are immensely more afraid to be forcibly penetrated by men than men being afraid to be forcibly penetrated by women is very telling...

Because people like you tell them that all men rape.

In my opinion the main distinction isn't therefore between "penetration" and "being forced to penetration" but between who do it and who is the victim, and their psition within a patriarchal society, and how the patriarchal society treat them.

Rape is rape. Stop defending rape against men.

[Proctopeo]

While this was most likely not your intent, I acknowledge that this is a problem caused by feminist fearmongering. Blaming society is technically correct, as feminism is part of society, but a bit dishonest.

"Prove it's a problem caused by Feminists. Cite me ALL the Feminists fearmongering. I want to see ALL the Feminists cited, here, now"

Don't worry, I'm joking.

Real answer:
You're correct.
It's Feminism who did make women becoming aware of the situation, it's called gender awareness.
But it's not "fearmongering", it's a real threat to women, and ALL numbers shows it is a real threat to women.
It looks like the men haven't the same threat on them.
It may be due the patriarchy is real, and we aren't mad as you like to frame us...

As Galloism said, men are victims of non-consensual sexual encounters - call them what you wish - more often than women are, at least in recent years, probably due to an adjustment in definitions. So it is fearmongering.
Only numbers that exclude most male victims show it being a real threat to women, Chess.

[Galloism]

Ok, if you want to stop ignoring the ones you made, I'll be here.

I ignored none of my claims. Just because you can't be bothered to provide proof doesn't mean you have to lie.

Whatever lets you sleep at night.

I hope you can manage to switch off and avoid annoying your neighbors with that enormous projection.

The evidence stands for all to see.

[Mavorpen]

I ignored none of my claims. Just because you can't be bothered to provide proof doesn't mean you have to lie.

Whatever lets you sleep at night.

At the very least, I don't have to deal with being kept awake knowing that Mary Koss is out there instituting the Lizard Peoples' plan to eradicate all men.

The evidence stands for all to see.

I agree. The evidence that you continuously asked me about a claim I addressed and a claim I never made while dancing around every question I asked is plentiful.

[Proctopeo]

Whatever lets you sleep at night.

At the very least, I don't have to deal with being kept awake knowing that Mary Koss is out there instituting the Lizard Peoples' plan to eradicate all men.

The evidence stands for all to see.

I agree. The evidence that you continuously asked me about a claim I addressed and a claim I never made while dancing around every question I asked is plentiful.

The fact that you're not aware that you were doing the same is astounding.
Honestly, this whole discussion has been impressive.

[Galloism]

Whatever lets you sleep at night.

At the very least, I don't have to deal with being kept awake knowing that Mary Koss is out there instituting the Lizard Peoples' plan to eradicate all men.

Hey, stick your head in the sand all you want. The evidence of her actions stands for all to see.

The evidence stands for all to see.

I agree. The evidence that you continuously asked me about a claim I addressed and a claim I never made while dancing around every question I asked is plentiful.

I'll just leave those there.