New Study Punctures Feminist Domestic Violence Myths about '

This is Dave Young's Forum.
Can you really bridge the gap between reality and training? Between traditional karate and real world encounters? Absolutely, we will address in this forum why this transition is necessary and critical for survival, and provide suggestions on how to do this correctly. So come in and feel welcomed, but leave your egos at the door!

Moderator: Dave Young

The New Mythology of Rape: One in Four?

Postby Akil Todd Harvey » Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:35 pm

Feminist inspired Rape myths do injustice, too. ... 270647.asp

The one-in-four statistic, she found, was derived from a survey of 3,000 college women in 1982. Researchers used three questions to determine if respondents had been raped: Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs? Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force... to make you? And, have you had sexual acts...when you didn't want to because a man threatened to use some degree of physical force... to make you?

Yet other data from that same survey undercut its conclusion. [b]While alcohol surely plays a part in many rape cases, the survey's wording invites the label of rape victim to be applied to anyone who has ever drank too much, had a sexual encounter, and then regretted it later
. In addition, only 25 percent of the women whom researchers counted as being raped described the incident as rape themselves. The survey found that four in ten of the survey's rape victims, and one in three victims of attempted rape, chose to have intercourse with their so-called attacker again. The survey researchers scratched their heads as to why these women would return to their attackers, but Sommers asks the obvious question: "Since most women the survey counted as victims didn't think they had been raped, and since so many went back to their partners, isn't it reasonable to conclude that many had not been raped to begin with?"

Correcting for the biases in the original survey yields a radically different picture of the prevalence of rape in America. Subtract the women identified by the alcohol and drug question and those who didn't think they had been raped, and total victims fall to between 3 and 5 percent of the women surveyed. This remains an alarmingly high number, but significantly less alarming than the one-in-four figure.

The study that led to the one in four women raped had large numbers of women who did not even know they had been raped.

If the woman who had been raped did not even know she had been raped, how is it we expect the men knew they raped the woman?

It is unimaginable that the most heinous crime in the world is one in which the assailant and the victim are often unaware the crime had occurred and continued to have the most intimate relations possible in the future.

the research is done to exclude male victims and then we find there are few male victims (sound familiar?)

in domestic violence research, the same research bias exists. the assumption that males are the perps and women the victims still pervades the approaches not just of victims and perps, but also of law enforcement, the criminal justice system, etc.
Last edited by Akil Todd Harvey on Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:59 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

One in Four?

Postby Akil Todd Harvey » Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:46 pm ... /0626.html

quote: A disturbing change has taken place in feminism's approach to rape. Rape has ceased to be an act of violence which criminals commit against individual women. It has been placed at the service of a larger political agenda, which [b]accuses all men of raping all women.

It is disturbing in at least two aspects: 1. Rape has been redefined; and 2. Rape has become a gender crime. Rape used to be considered as an experience 'different' than normal life: a crime, a violation of normal life.

In the '60s, feminists shredded the myth that only bad girls who walked alone at night were raped. Research showed that every woman was vulnerable to attack, even in her own home and from someone she knew. Feminists exploded the myth that rapists were seedy men who lurked in alleys. Research revealed that rapists could be apple-cheeked boys next door. Feminism replaced mythology with facts and with practical aid for women in pain. The first U.S. rape crisis line was established in 1971.

But in the 70's, a theoretical groundwork was laid that placed rape at the very heart of our culture. Rape became an expression of how the average man viewed the average woman. By the 1980's, rape had become thoroughly politicized: it was now viewed as a major weapon[b] (perhaps the major weapon) [b]by which patriarchy kept women in their place.

The opening paragraph of the New York Radical Feminists Manifesto reads:

"It is no accident that the New York Radical Feminists, through the technique of consciousness-raising, discovered that rape is not a personal misfortune but an experience shared by all women in one form or another. When more than two people have suffered the same oppression the problem is no longer personal but political -- and rape is a political matter."

The manifesto continues:

" is always uneasy and threatened by the possibility that woman will one day claim her full right to human existence, so he has found ways to enslave her. He has married her, and through the family, binds her to him as wife and mother to his children. He has kept her helpless and dependent, forcing her to work when he needed her labor, isolating her (physically and psychologically), and as a final proof of his power and her debasement as a possession, a thing, a chunk of meat, he has raped her. The act of rape is the logical expression of the essential relationship now existing between men and women." (as quoted in Rape: The First Sourcebook for Feminists. Report from the Workshop on Self-Defense by Mary Ann Manhart.p. 215)

Rape was no longer a crime committed by individuals against individuals; it had become part of class analysis. Rape had found its niche within a political ideology with a revolutionary agenda.

In the conclusion to the book Rape: the First Sourcebook for Feminists, Mary Ann Manhart remarked on this shift from supporting individual rape victims to politicizing them:

"Earlier in the book we stated that the initial step in the feminist process is consciousness-raising and the final step is political action...Consciousness-raising is a political act, and in turn, political action becomes consciousness-raising...In a sense, rape is not a reformist but a revolutionary issue because our ultimate goal is to eliminate rape and that goal cannot be achieved without a revolutionary transformation of our society. It means a transformation of the family, the economic system and the psychology of men and women so that sexual exploitation along with economic exploitation becomes impossible and even unimaginable." p.249-250

Susan Griffin expresses the ideological underpinning of this shift in rape theory in her book, Rape: The Power of Consciousness. Here, she argues that the true rapist is not the individual man, but the political system of patriarchy.

"From Marxism I had learned a habit of looking for social causes and observing how human nature is shaped by external condition...But the Left had an ideology, which, beyond and in addition to its prejudice against women did not agree with the changes we experienced...We rejected the theory that capitalism had raped us. If they said patriarchy was just a form of capitalism, we said that capitalism was a form of patriarchy." p.26 Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1979

A key philosopher of radical feminism, Adrienne Rich offered insight into the nature of this rapist -- patriarchy:

"Patriarchy is the power of the fathers: a familial -- social, ideological, political system in which men -- by force, direct pressure or through ritual, tradition, law, and language, customs, etiquette, education, and the division of labor, determine what part women should or shall not play, and in which the female is everywhere subsumed under the male." p.21 Of Woman Born, London, Virago, 1977.

Rape became a political accident waiting to happen.

In her near-legendary essay, Rape: The All-American Crime radical feminist Susan Griffin makes what no longer sounds like such a radical claim:

"Indeed, the existence of rape in any form is beneficial to the ruling class of white males . For rape is a kind of terrorism which severely limits the freedom of women and makes women dependent on men...This oppressive attitude towards women finds its institutionalization in the traditional family." p.3 Rape Victimology, ed. by Leroy G. Schultz, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Ill., 1975

There was a pivotal point in feminism's shift on the issue of rape. In 1975, the book Against Our Will by Susan Brownmiller appeared. In its pages, Brownmiller charts the history of rape from Neanderthal times through to modern man, placing great emphasis on periods of war and crisis. Against Our Will is a watershed book, which was said to 'give rape its history.' It also presented new theory. Brownmiller maintains that rape is the primary mechanism through which men, in general, perpetuate their dominance over women in general. She claims that all men benefit from the fact that some men rape.

I understand how compelling this view of rape can be. At times, I've wanted to blame all men for the violence I experienced . Certainly, I was angry at all men. But there are at least two problems with radical feminism's theory of rape. It is wrong. And it is damaging to women. In the process of politicizing and collectivizing the pain of women, radical feminism is reversing the gains of the 60's -- when the myths about rape and the barriers between men and women had a chance of being dissolved. Today, new myths and new barriers are being erected.

Any examination of this new mythology should begin with Against Our Will. There, Brownmiller makes three basic and interconnected claims:

1. rape is a part of patriarchy;

2. men have created a 'mass psychology' of rape; and,

3. rape is a part of 'normal' life.

I dispute every one of these claims.

The first new myth that Brownmiller advances is that rape is a part of patriarchy. This is perhaps the most basic radical feminist myth about rape: namely, that the crime has one cause, and a political one at that: the general oppression of women by men . Herein lies the extreme interpretation of the slogan 'the personal is political'.

Against Our Will arrives at this conclusion more as a result of ideological bias than empirical research . Although Brownmiller's book is sometimes taken for a chronicle of historical fact, a strong political slant underlies the presentation of those facts. Consider Brownmiller's attitude toward private property:

"Concepts of hierarchy, slavery and private property flowed from, and could only be predicated upon, the initial subjugation of woman" (pg. Cool


"Slavery, private property and the subjugation of women were facts of life, and the earliest written law that has come down to us reflects this stratified life." (pg.Cool

To individualist feminists, slavery is not a companion concept for private property. It is the abrogation of the most basic form of private property: self-ownership. That is, the natural and inalienable claim that all people have to their own bodies. In other words, slavery is the most extreme example of the breakdown of private property. And the recognition of private property is women's best defense against rape.

In her book Sexual Personae, the individualist Camille Paglia offers a different perspective. Instead of viewing our culture as the cause of rape, Paglia argues that it is the main protection women have against attack. Thus, women can walk down a street unmolested not in spite of society, but because of it. Paglia writes:

"Generation after generation, men must be educated, refined, and ethically persuaded away from their tendency toward anarchy and brutishness. Society is not the enemy, as feminism ignorantly claims. Society is woman's protection against rape." p.51 Vintage Books, N.Y., 1992

Brownmiller's second myth is that men, in general, have created a mass psychology of rape. Brownmiller claims that all men are rapists at heart and all women their natural prey:

"Man's discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate fear must rank as one of the most important discoveries of prehistoric times, along with the use of fire and the first crude stone axe. From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a critical is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear ." p. 14. [Emphasis in the original]

Although one might question how Brownmiller comes by her amazing information about rape and male attitudes in prehistoric times, her message is clear. Men are inherently rapists.

To back up this statement, Brownmiller plays fast and loose with anecdotal accounts and passages of fiction. The selection of excerpts shows great bias. At one point, Brownmiller notes:

"People often ask what the classic Greek myths reveal about rape. Actually, they reveal very little..." pg.313

Yet these myths are widely held to be archetypes of human psychology. If Brownmiller wishes to maintain that there is a continuum of male oppression -- that extends from man's first recognition of his genitalia as weapon through to this moment -- she must, in honesty, credit Greek myths. She cannot pick and chose only the statistics and anecdotal accounts that support her position. Yet even dipping into history and fiction when and where she chooses, Brownmiller's evidence does not support her conclusion: namely, that all men are rapists.

To back this contention, radical feminists have produced truly horrifying statistics. In the preface to their book Acquaintance Rape: the Hidden Crime, editors Andrea Parrot & Laurie Bechhofer offer a common statistic:

"Approximately one in four women in the United States will be the victims of rape or attempted rape by the time they are in their mid-twenties , and over three quarters of those assaults will occur between people who know each other." p.ix John Wiley & Sons, N.Y. 1991

This is a stunning figure and one ostensibly supported by FBI records. In looking at such terrifying statistics, women have a natural tendency to overlook a vital aspect of what is being said: three out of four women will not be raped. Even assuming that there is a one-to-one correlation between victims and rapists -- a generous assumption since many rapists commit serial crimes -- this means that 75% of all men will never commit this brutal crime. Indeed, many men would come immediately to the defense of woman being attacked.

This observation may seem obvious or facile. But in the face of astounding and unsupported claims like 'all men are rapists', it becomes necessary to state the obvious. If another group of radicals claimed that 'all whites/Protestants/bisexuals are sadists', yet the statistics they provided indicated that 75% of the accused group were nonsadists, no honest observer would accept their argument. But because the radicals are sexually correct feminists, their incredible statements are swallowed whole.

And lest a single man slip through the net of accusations by pleading that he had never raped or even contemplated doing so, Brownmiller explains how good intentions and good behavior do not excuse a man from the charge of rape:

"Once we accept as basic truth that rape is not a crime of irrational, impulsive, uncontrollable lust, but is a deliberate, hostile, violent act of degradation and possession on the part of a would-be conqueror, designed to intimidate and inspire fear, we must look toward those elements in our culture that promote and propagandize these attitudes, which offer men...the ideology and psychological encouragement to commit their acts of aggression without awareness , for the most part, that they have committed a punishable crime, let alone a moral wrong." [Italics in original] page 391.

Such a theory allows for no contradictory evidence. There is no possibility -- through action, thought or word -- for a man to escape the charge of rape. It becomes axiomatically true.

The third myth that Brownmiller propounds is that rape is part of normal life . To reach this conclusion, Brownmiller makes great leaps of logic. For example:

Against Our Will examines rape, primarily during times of war and political crisis. Although this is valuable, Brownmiller pushes her point one step farther. She concludes that -- because men rape in times of war and social turbulence -- all men are normally rapists. In essence, rape is the norm.

But the very circumstances Brownmiller highlights -- war, riots, pogroms and revolutions -- are not so much expressions of society as they are evidence of its breakdown . Yet, in chapter after chapter, Brownmiller uses horrifying accounts of rape during societal breakdown in order to argue that this is how the man-on-the-street reacts. Arguing from the extreme, Brownmiller draws conclusions about the normal.

There is no doubt: in times of war and social upheaval, the frequency of all violence increases. But this says nothing about the state of regular life. Nor does it indicate whether the violence is caused by society or by the forces destroying society. In essence, Brownmiller's book commits the logical fallacy of generalizing from extreme cases to the norm. But unless you are willing to make statements such as -- 'men kill in war, therefore the accountant feeding his parking meter is, by definition, a killer' [//b]-- you cannot make similar broad statements about rape.

Even when Against Our Will moves away from the agonies of war and revolt, it focuses only on situations of polarization and conflict. After the two chapters entitled 'War' and 'Riots, Pogroms and Revolutions' comes 'Two Studies in American History'. These studies involve the history of rape as applied to American Indians and slaves. Again, Brownmiller's insights are valuable.

Again, a leap of logic occurs.

Over and over, Brownmiller uses horror stories about, for example, the KKK's persecution of blacks to parallel man's treatment of woman. However emotionally compelling these images might be, they are not arguments and they do not justify the conclusions she presents.

[b]One of the casualties of the new dogma of rape has been research. It is no longer 'sexually correct' to conduct studies on the causes of rape, because -- as any right thinking person knows -- there is only one cause: patriarchy . Decades ago, during the heyday of liberal feminism and sexual curiosity, the approach to research was more sophisticated.

In his book from the '70s, Men who Rape: The Psychology of the Offender, A. Nicholas Groth offers a theory that sounds almost jarring to today's ears:

"One of the most basic observations one can make regarding men who rape is that not all such offenders are alike." p.12 Plenum Press, N.Y., 1979

In their book, The Crime and Consequences of Rape, Charles W. Dean, Mary de Bruyn-Kops, Charles C. Thomas, report:

"The Kinsey study, begun in the 1950s and completed after Kinsey's death by Gebhard and associates, classified seven types of rapists: assaultive, amoral, drunken, explosive, double-standard, mental defective and psychotic..." p.41 Springfield, Ill. 1982

Such studies are no longer in fashion. It is no longer proper to suggest that there can be as many motives for rape as there are for murder and other violent crimes. People murder for money, for love, out of jealousy or patriotism ...the rationalizations go on and on. Rape is every bit as complex. Men rape because of sexual hunger, from a need to prove themselves, from hatred of women, or a desire for revenge, as a political statement, or from peer pressure (as in gang rapes). Men rape from a constellation of complicated motives, which become further blurred when you introduce drunkenness or drug use.

Perhaps the most truly political form of rape was that committed by the black activist Eldridge Cleaver, who defined his rape activity as:

" insurrectionary act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man's law upon his system of values and that I was defiling his women...I felt I was getting revenge." p.28 Soul on Ice.

Contrast this rape with one described in The Crime and Consequences of Rape:

"In acquaintance rapes, the brutality and violence ...are usually absent. Since sex is the primary motivation in these cases, any classification of the motivation for rape would have to include sex in addition to power, anger, and sadism as motivating factors." p.44 Springfield, Ill. 1982

Feminism needs a theory that reconciles Cleaver's form of rape with that of a drunken frat brother. We need a theory that explores the complexity of the issue, rather than one that oversimplifies it to fit into a political agenda.

Instead, radical feminists offer book after book of anecdotal studies that merge ideology with empirical questions. These studies make blanket and unproven assertions that have acquired the status of truth through sheer repetition.

For example, in their essay, The Psychology of the Rapist and His Victim Lilia Melani and Linda Fodaski virtually equate heterosexual sex with rape:

"Once we accept the relationship of aggression and submission; once we recognize force or struggle as an integral component of the sexual courtship (as in the battle of the sexes) it follows that the sex act itself is only a less emphatic expression of all those elements that make up criminal rape." Page 88. Rape: the First Sourcebook for Feminists.

Armed with such ideological arrogance, radical feminists jettison all scientific method from their research . As the pioneering Brownmiller explains:

"... does one need scientific methodology in order to conclude that the anti-female propaganda that permeates our nation's cultural output promotes a climate in which acts of sexual hostility directed against women are not only tolerated but ideologically encouraged?" Against Our Will p.395:

The answer is a clear and simple 'yes'. One needs scientific methodology to verify any empirical claim. Without such methodology, all discussions devolve into opinion. Or worse. They become a barrier to real research conducted by those who are willing to reach conclusions based on data, not on opinion. Brownmiller's attitude -- and that of most radical feminists -- encourages bad research and false conclusions. Indeed, feminist theories of rape include such large doses of emotionally-wrenching personal testimony that the validity of any statements is obscured. The statistics provided are drenched in ideology. And inconvenient facts -- like the one about 75% of men never raping -- are ignored.

Inconvenient issues -- like rape committed against men -- are also ignored, or sidestepped. Often, the victim is considered, for all political purposes, to be a woman . This is rather like a TV interview I once watched in which Stokley Carmichael divided the world into the white oppressor and the black oppressed. When asked about the huge global population of Orien- tals, he replied, 'Consider them black.' Or like another interview program, years ago, in which a Russian sociologist claimed there was no rape in Soviet Russia. When pressed on the point, the woman explained: 'no word for rape exists in the Russian language, therefore there is no rape'. I have no idea if her linguistic claim is true, but the methodology is familiar. By not naming a problem or by reclassifying it, the problem goes away.

A similar sleight of hand seems to be at work on the issue of rape. Through a semantic shell game, the crime is being so redefined that it is becoming unrecognizable. The issue of date rape is a prime example of this.

No one can condone rape in the guise of dating. But 'date rape' -- as a concept -- is much more than a stand against drunken frat brothers assaulting female students. Date rape has an underlying ideology. In their essay, The Case of the Legitimate Victim, Kurt Weis and Sandra S. Borges present a sense of this underpinning:

"The dating system is a mutually exploitative arrangement of sex-role expectations which limit and direct behavior of both parties and determine the character of the relationship. Built into the concept of dating is the notion that the woman is an object which may be purchased ." p.112 Rape Victimology ed. by Leroy G. Schultz, Charles C. Thomas Springfield, Ill., 1975 In other words, dating -- in and of itself -- is a form of exploitation and rape. In their book The Female Fear, Margaret T. Gordon and Stephanie Riger virtually eliminate the possibility of consent within dating:

"The American dating system, which constitutes a primary source of heterosexual contacts, legitimizes the consensual 'purchase' of women as sexual objects and obliterates the crucial distinction between consent and nonconsent. " p.60 The Free Press, N.Y., 1989

By expanding the definition of rape with such wild abandon, radical feminists have blurred all clear lines on this issue. Rape used to be forced sex -- a form of assault. Today, the focus has shifted from assault to 'abuse' . A recent survey by two Carleton University sociologists -- financed by a $236,000 government grant -- revealed that 81% of female students at Canadian universities and colleges had suffered sexual abuse. Their survey descended into a maelstrom of controversy when it became known that the researchers included taunts and insults during quarrels within their definition of abuse.

The definition of sexual violence has been expanded to include what used to be called bad manners.

In his book, Men Who Rape: The Psychology of the Offender, A. Nicholas Groth provides the essential distinction between rape and sex that occurs under pressure or persuasion:

"The defining characteristic of forced assault is the risk of bodily harm to the woman should she refuse to participate in sexual activity. All nonconsenting sex is assault. In the pressured assault, the victim is sexually harassed or exploited. In forced assaults, she is a victim of rape." p.3 Plenum Press, N.Y., 1979

By eliminating the distinction between force and persuasion (whether economic or emotional), important sexual lines are erased, such as the line between rape and seduction.

The pivotal difference between individualist feminists and radical feminists lies in the concepts of coercion and consent. For individualist feminists, these concepts rest on the principle of self-ownership: that is, every woman's inalienable right to her own body. If a woman says 'yes' -- or if her behavior clearly implies 'yes' -- then consent is present. If a woman says 'no' -- or clearly implies it -- then coercion is present.

It is difficult to tell what constitutes consent or coercion for radical feminists. Consider a recent definition of sexual violence Liz Kelly offers in her book Surviving Sexual Violence:

"Sexual violence includes any physical, visual, verbal or sexual act that is experienced by the woman or girl, at the time or later, as a threat, invasion or assault, that has the effect of hurting her or degrading her and/or takes away her ability to control intimate contact." p.41 University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1988

In one form or another, this is becoming a common guideline for identifying sexual violence.

The first problem with this guideline is that it is totally subjective . For example, the woman need not have felt threatened during the sex act itself . As Kelly observed 'Sexual violence includes any...sexual act that is experienced by the woman or girl, at the time or later' as violent. In retrospect and in light of other experiences, the woman might decide that she had been coerced. But who hasn't regretted something in retrospect? There are many mistakes in which every one of us has been a consenting participant. Regret is not a benchmark of consent.

A second problem with the radical feminist view of rape is that it is disastrously subjective. It says that anything 'experienced by the woman or girl' as violent is de facto 'violence'. The coercion need not involve any physical contact: it can be simply verbal or visual. The crucial link between coercion and the use (or threat) of force has been broken. Tangible evidence of violence -- such as bruises, witnesses, explicit threats, etc -- is no longer necessary for a man to be considered guilty of sexual violence. All that is necessary is for a woman to have felt threatened, invaded or assaulted by him.

Any subjectivity in the definition of sexual violence has always acted against the interests of women. The issue of rape has been legally skewed in favor of the accused for so long that women have reacted by swinging the balance too far in the other direction.

Radical feminists are attempting to create a virtual utopia of safety for women . Camille Paglia comments:

"The point is, these white, upper-middle-class feminists believe that a pain-free world is achievable. I'm saying that a pain-free world will be achievable only under totalitarianism. " p.64 Sex, Art, and American Culture, Vintage Books, N.Y., 1992

Camille Paglia offers a sense of reality to the obfuscations that are being woven around the crucial issue of rape:

". ..feminism, which has waged a crusade for rape to be taken more seriously, has put young women in danger by hiding the truth about sex from them.

"In dramatizing the pervasiveness of rape, radical feminists have told young women that before they have sex with a man, they must give consent as explicit as a legal contract's . In this way, young women have been convinced that they have been the victims of rape." p.49 Sex, Art, and American Culture, Vintage Books, N.Y., 1992

It is commonplace to note that the crime of rape is on the rise. Part of the perceived increase may be that more women are reporting the crime. Part of it is certainly that the definition of rape has been expanded[b] to include, for example, date rape. Yet, even accounting for these factors, violence against women does seem to be increasing dramatically. Ironically, several researchers suggest that women's demand for autonomy and equality may have spurred on sexual violence because men are attempting to reassert their dominance. This reaction is called 'backlash'.

In her book The Politics of Rape, sociologist Diana E.H. Russell suggests:

"There is some male backlash caused by women's growing desire to be more independent of men. This painful period of transition is a time of tremendous misunderstanding and hostility between the sexes. [b]Rape is the way some men express their hostility to women. More threatened male egos may mean more rapes. In the short run, the more women who break out of traditional female roles and assert themselves in new ways, the more threatened male egos are." as quoted in Forcible Rape: The Crime, the Victim and the Offender ed. Duncan Chappell, Robley Geis, and Gilbert Geis, Columbia University Press, N.Y., 1977

Some responsibility must be shouldered by those who tell women that they can have it all. This may be true in the-best-of-all-possible worlds, but it is not true in the inner city, on the university campus or even in the crime-heavy suburbs. In her book, The Trouble with Rape, Carolyn J. Hursch notes:

"While on the one hand, through current literature women are imbued with independence, equality, and power, on the other hand, no credence is ever given to the very real fact that women are, and always will be, physically unequal to men and therefore physically vulnerable...the fact is that even after being granted all the rights which she so richly deserves, a woman still has a woman's anatomy." p.131-132 Nelson-Hall, Chicago, 1977

The fact that women are vulnerable to attack means we cannot have it all. We cannot walk at night across an unlit campus or down a back alley, without incurring real danger. These are things every woman should be able to do, but 'shoulds' belong in a utopian world . They belong in a world where you drop your wallet in a crowd and have it returned, complete with credit cards and cash. A world in which unlocked Porsches are parked in the inner city. And children can be left unattended in the park. This is not the reality that confronts and confines us.

Camille Paglia introduces a bit more reality into the discussion of rape. In her book, Sex, Art, and American Culture, she exclaims:

"Feminism keeps saying the sexes are the same. It keeps telling women they can do anything, go anywhere, say anything, wear anything. No, they can't. Women will always be in sexual danger... feminism, with its pie-in-the-sky fantasies about the perfect world, keeps young women from seeing life as it is ." pg.50 Vintage Books, N.Y., 1992

Radical feminism paints a schizophrenic picture of women. They are free and complete sexual beings, who live in a state of siege. They are empowered persons, who are terrified to open their doors at night.

Their picture of men is no less confusing: even the most loving and gentle husband, father, and son is a beneficiary of the rape of women they love. No ideology that makes such vicious accusations against men as a class can heal any wounds. It can only provoke hostility in return.

For radical feminists, this antagonism may serve a purpose...after all, radical feminism is a cry for revolution, not for reform, and revolutions are not built on conciliation . Radical feminists allow for no solution to sexual violence short of accepting their social, economic and political agenda. They allow for no other bridge of understanding or trust to be built between men and women.

Nor does radical feminism seek to heal women on an individual basis. Even the supposedly definitive work on rape, Against Our Will, gives only a cursory nod to the idea of individual women healing or learning to defend themselves. Instead, individual women who have been raped are told that they will never recover from the experience ...that rape is the worst thing that can happen to a woman. Paglia observes:

" The whole system now is designed to make you feel that you are maimed and mutilated forever if something like that happens . It's absolutely American -- it is not European -- and the whole system is filled with these cliches about sex ." p.63 Sex, Art, and American Culture, Vintage Books, N.Y., 1992

As a woman who has been raped, I will never downplay the trauma it brings. But being raped was not the worst thing that ever happened to me and I have recovered from it. Feminists who say otherwise are paying me a disrespect.

The issue of rape has been diverted into a political tangle of class theory and ideology. It is time to return to the basics: consent and coercion.

Regarding consent the crucial question is, of course, 'has a woman agreed to have sex?' It is not: has she been talked into it, bribed, manipulated, filled with regret, drunk too much or ingested drugs. And, in an act that rarely has an explicit 'yes' attached to it, the touchstone of consent in sex has to be the presence or absence of physical force.

On the question of force, I think feminists desperately need to change their focus from the man to the woman. They should crying out for every woman to learn how to say 'no' as effectively as possible...and with deadly force if necessary. The true way to empower a woman and make her the equal of any man who would attack is to teach her how to use a gun and other methods of defending herself.

There is no argument: women should be able to walk down streets alone at night and be safe. Just as they should be able leave their apartments and car doors unlocked. Yet women who bolt their doors every night often refuse to learn self-defense because they don't believe they should have to. Because they should be able to feel safe, they refuse to take steps that would so dramatically acknowledge how unsafe they truly are.

Women have the absolute right to live without being attacked. But no right can be enjoyed for long if it is not defended, and vigorously. Ladies Home Journal recently ran an ad from a gun manufacturer, which read: 'Self-protection is more than your right -- it is your responsibility.' (July, 1992)

There is no safety for women on the streets, on the campus, or in their own homes. Violence has become so epidemic that the world seems to be going slowly crazy and no one can rely on other people for protection. Feminism needs more women like Paxton Quigley -- author of Armed and Female. After a friend of hers was brutally raped, Quigley changed her perspective: she went from agitating for gun control to teaching women how to use a handgun.

Quigley uses an effective technique to break through the women's tendency to shy away from guns. Her beginner's course includes a tape of a 911 emergency call that was made by a Kansas rape victim as her attacker was breaking into her home. As he appears at her bedroom door, she screams:

"Who are you? Why are you here? Why are you here? WHY?"

After hearing the tape, women are more willing to learn such techniques as how to shoot lying down and to aim for the head. One of the women who took Quigley's course commented:

"Girls grow up believing that they're going to taken care of, but it just ain't so." (Wall Street Journal, Feb.4, 1993)

Self defense is the last frontier of feminism. And it is the solution -- if one truly exists -- to rape and other forms of violence against women. Politicizing women's pain has been a costly diversion from the hard work that is necessary to make women safe.

The fact is:

Rape is a crime committed against individual women, and the remedy must be an individualist one as well. Women who are raped deserve one-on-one compassion and respect for the unique suffering they experience. Too much emphasis has been placed on the commonality of reactions among raped women: it is equally important to treat these women as distinct human beings and respect their differences.

Equally, women who are in fear deserve one-on-one training in how to defend themselves against attack. Theories of how Neanderthal man was sexist do not offer women safety in their own homes. Rhetoric regarding patriarchy cannot protect one single woman who is dragged into the bushes. Women deserve to be empowered -- not by having their pain and fear attached to a political agenda, but by learning how to use force to their advantage.

rape has been defined such that only women can be victims. I guess men never get raped, by definition.

similarly, by definition, domestic violence never happens to are never smaller than their mates, men never know less about self d than the women they are with, women never use weapons or surprise or use poisons....and we all know women are so nice that if they killed a man, they would admit it and the police froensics folks are so perfect in doing their job, no man would ever be killed by his wife and they would presume it to be accidental or natural causes....
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Postby IJ » Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:10 am


Yes, there are fringe loons who think all sex is rape, the world is ending, yadda, yadda. There are also fringe loons on the other side who think women in marriage can't be raped because men deserve it whenever they want it (I'm told this was the case until the 70's in TX? If so, shall we forgive some of the contrasting hyperbole?)

Yes, men can be taken advantage of sexually... But the idea that men are the aggressors in rape did not get created by an antimale legion of psychopaths. Traditionally, men have pursued women, have had the power to force sex, have held the dominant role in marriage and culture, and so on; further, a terrified or unconscious woman can be raped by an aggressive male, but it is a bit harder to imagine your scenario where an unconscious man completes an act of sexual intercourse with a woman... you know why, right? I mean, if she had a sex toy she used on him, other than shame barriers, you can bet that would be viewed as quite the heinous crime; otherwise, he is participating. Fact is most of those creepy frat encounters involve men hoping the booze loosens up the ladies, not the other way around, right? Men ARE viewed more positively if they have conquests than women, and they have fewer consequences: the STD risk is less, and they can't get pregnant. That said, yeah, they could regret the experience (I would think less often) and it is silly to imply that an intoxicated woman is always raped but not so with men. We know there are things to work on, but let's not pretend that rape has always been an even playing field and only because of a conspiracy does it look like women are more often victimized.

Over and over, you start with a reasonable kernel of an idea, and then you blow it way out of proportion and look to really shaky arguments. You really think that women are as criminal as men and male prejudice keeps all the men locked up? Oh? Who is locking these men up, but largely other men, in the past, exclusively other men; were they brainwashed by women through the ages? Really, what is more likely?

And who is blaming men for having more completed suicides? No one I have EVER heard of, but please, cite a reference. All I've read is about reaching out to suicidal patients. Calm down.

And who is saying equal pay, equal work when comparing coal mining and secretarial positions? the mantra actually has been equal pay for equal work, that is, men and women doing the same job should get the same pay. Should dangerous work get paid more? I guess, sure, but this is largely driven by economics: supply and demand. CEO's (male) will be paid more than soldiers (male) not because of risk but because of myriad other factors. Again, calm down.

And no one is blaming men for living less time; I read the journals ATH and wager you do not; people are seeking to fix that. It is also quite true that male choices determine some of the gap and biology may determine the rest, with sexism having nothing to say about it. You want to cite evidence that men's health is ignored? Produce something.

No one is blaming men for dropping out of high school, or being homeless, either, but it's pretty facile to assume that sheer prejudice drives those phenomena.

You're just always so focused on being a victim, ATH, and making hysterical claims about the awful antimale conspiracy. You are the mirror image of the feminists you despise. The real world is out there somewhere, and you could see it (and contribute to our comprehension of it!) if you would simply take off your rage colored glassed for a second. Peace!
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston

Postby Panther » Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:18 pm

Just a quick interruption:

You might not know it, but I do look over things here... Just a friendly reminder from the big black cat to keep things civil...

back to your discussion.
User avatar
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Postby Akil Todd Harvey » Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:57 pm

You might not know it, but I do look over things here... Just a friendly reminder from the big black cat to keep things civil...

Glad to know you are here....hope all is well with you

You're just always so focused on being a victim, ATH, and making hysterical claims about the awful antimale conspiracy. You are the mirror image of the feminists you despise. The real world is out there somewhere, and you could see it (and contribute to our comprehension of it!) if you would simply take off your rage colored glassed for a second. Peace!

Actually, there is truth in your statement (not the same as saying that your statement is entirely true. truth often hurts more than any untruth can. I admit that there is truth in your words, among the exaggerations).........I have worried about this for some time.........but perhaps my point is exactly get people to think....

not to think that men are always victims, but to think that women are not the sole owners of victimhood

not to think of men always as oppressors, but sometimes as victims, too

and not only is it a good idea to not think of the world as some anti-male conspiracy, it may be good for some (like yourself), to stop thinking of the world as some anti-female conspiracy.

Thank you again, for making my point better than I could myself.

May the Peace of the deity of your choice Be Upon you and your family and friends......
Last edited by Akil Todd Harvey on Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Why Women’s Shelters Are Hotbeds of Misandry

Postby Akil Todd Harvey » Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:10 pm ... andry.html

Why Women’s Shelters Are Hotbeds of Misandry

(not that misandry deserves addressing like misogyny does).........Why should we address a problem that affects men today when we could still be addressing a problem that affects women 30 years ago?

Can we use the historical mistreatment of women to continue to ignore the mistreatment of men today?

Ian? are you okay with ignoring the needs of men today cuz the needs of women were ignored thirty years ago?

According to Gerhard Amendt, Professor of Gender and Generation Research at the University of Bremen, representatives of the supposedly weaker sex are every bit as violent as their partners. The researcher concludes that women's shelters foster a devaluation of masculinity and should therefore be replaced by familiy counseling centers.

I found an interesting tidbit of info recently about shelters for abused women......that they are NOT reporting their efficacy to the feds......Nearly every agency or organization that gets federal funding must report back the the government the results of how they spent their dollars as a means to improve overall service and make sure money is not wasted (this is one of those patriarchal plots to keep women down or to make sure tax money is not wasted?).

In the present economic downturn, governments are trying to make sure their money is well spent, but domestic violence shelters are still not reporting their results (they might have to admit their anti-male outlook and services performed exclusive of men whom they assume to be the only abusers.

The Feminist Ideology: A Hotbed of Misandry

Granted, there may be shelters that have jettisoned their ideological ballast, but even the term “women’s shelter” itself always implies the disastrous ideology of radical feminism, whereby relationships between men and women are characterized by their respective status as victim and perpetrator. According to that, women can do nothing and men are completely in charge. Thus, women's shelters perpetuate the destruction of communication within partnerships as a political project within the gender discussion.

The conclusions are obvious. The concept of ideologically based women’s shelters is no longer needed. What families with violence problems urgently need is a network of counseling centers that can provide unbiased and nondiscriminatory assistance to all of the parties involved
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Postby Jason Rees » Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:19 pm

How about the lack of Mens' shelters because feminist groups squash any effort to set them up? It happens even in Omaha.
Life begins & ends cold, naked & covered in crap.
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Fifty Domestic Violence Myths

Postby Akil Todd Harvey » Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:33 pm

Hello jason,

And Jason, how about the dearth of research on dv that is gender certainly is not welcome by the matriarchy (if the idea of a patriarchy is so credible, then the idea of a matriarchy is equally credible).

willing to besmirch your name in order to stand up for men? takes some real agots my man......


This image was plastered on the city buses in Dallas, Texas......And some men and some women had the audacity to speak out against this ...... I was one of them

I bet Ian doesn't find this message degrading to men or any need to speak out against such slander

of course it is likely labeled as whining for me to find this ad to be offensive to men.
Last edited by Akil Todd Harvey on Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Postby Akil Todd Harvey » Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:43 pm


A public awareness campaign from The Family Place of Dallas, TX, targeted area bus panels and interiors. In the organization’s language, the campaign features “children and thought-provoking headlines to help the community realize that children who live in violent homes grow up to be victims and abusers.”

The campaign has captured national attention recently, in large part due to criticism from Glenn Sacks, who blogs for the Massachusetts-based Fathers & Families nonprofit advocacy group.

The Dallas News writes that Sacks finds the ads misleading, that they “stereotype men as batterers and women as just victims of domestic violence.”
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Fifty Domestic Violence Myths

Postby Akil Todd Harvey » Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:51 pm ... -Myths.pdf

Fifty Domestic Violence Myths

And these aren't worthy of you time since most of these myths have been designed to make men look bad and women look like perpetual victims........

The myths also impede the ability of programs to respond to the needs of victims and offenders. As researcher Miriam Ehrensaft explains, findings from recent studies remain “largely overlooked or discounted.” In particular, these myths have served to divert our attention away from female-instigated and mutual violence.
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Postby AAAhmed46 » Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:33 am

I don't think there is a matriarchy per say, though i do think mens issues tend to take a backseat.
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Postby Akil Todd Harvey » Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:18 pm


(Hope all is well with you).....

What do think of those nice adverts created for the Dallas buses?

And I neither believe in an overall patriarchy or matriarchy either. I believe that there are parts of society that men or women have greater or lesser power within.

For every "male dominated profession", I have encountered a "female dominated profession". If construction is a "male dominated profession" then early childhood education is certainly a "female dominated profession"

And the Domestic Violence (DV) industry or IPV (Interpersonal Violence) industry is as well "female dominated" (if a professional football player can be killed by his wife, I dont see how a martial artist or the rest of us can assume safety).

When it comes to IPV or DV, all of a sudden, the bigger contender always wins? Weapons are never used by women to even the playing field? Women never utilize surprise or poison? Women never hire anyone to do the deed for them?

How can we on the one hand say women are equal to men and capable of doing anything a man can do (including and especially be police officers, firefighters and military members and yet they are weak and fragile and unable to ever protect themselves, much less be the aggressor in their own home?)?

I suggest the notion of the matriarchy as a counterpoint, devils advocate, facetious argument against those who hint or outright suggest that we live in a patriarchy? Women have always had spheres of power within societies (all of them) and men have always had spheres of power in all societies (and always will). With that in mind, though, matriarchal power is not yielded in most cases in the same manner that patriarchal power is yielded.

Patriarchal power is yielded like a hard martial art, out front, and full of power. Matriarchal power is yielded like a soft martial art, hiding its power, using distraction and using the force of the opponent to defeat the opponent.

IMO, both patriarchy and matriarchy as as natural as the setting sun and as necessary. And like most everything in nature, they are capable of both constructive and destructive action.

I am not against matriarchy anymore than I am against rain or sun burns, nor do I suggest, though, that women are powerless or less powerful just because so many women tend to use their power in elusive or less visible means. We all know the mama bear guarding her cubs is far more dangerous than the poppa bear any day of the week, but when it comes to women, we have created a mythology of weakness that is not beneficial to women or men in the long run.

A world without powerful women would be quite boring and a world without powerful men would be more dangerous for all of us.

Power can be misused by men or women. Men have no monopoly on misanthropy and anyone who suggests otherwise needs to put down the kool-aid.
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Postby Panther » Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:02 am

Akil Todd Harvey wrote:The campaign has captured national attention recently, in large part due to criticism from Glenn Sacks, who blogs for the Massachusetts-based Fathers & Families nonprofit advocacy group.

The Dallas News writes that Sacks finds the ads misleading, that they “stereotype men as batterers and women as just victims of domestic violence.”

What Sacks says about these ads may be true, but I've personally witnessed the "the Massachusetts-based Fathers & Families nonprofit advocacy group" take the side of a proven batterer (proven by Doctor's records and testimony) and sway a Judge to take the side of the batterer... refusing a completely scared woman a restraining-order. While the organizations basic mission statement seems admirable, their practice has included quite a lot of "advocacy" for men who are completely proven batterers. And they seem to win these cases in certain courts with certain judges.

User avatar
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Postby Akil Todd Harvey » Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:45 pm


i would say it is a concern if father's rights groups or if women's rights groups support batterers. It is bad when either side supports a batterer!

This is a serious concern. And I am sure it happens on BOTH sides, not just the father's rights advocates make mistakes.

We aren't assuming father's and men's rights groups as the only ones capable of making mistakes are we Panther? Are we to assume automatically that women's groups are infallible since they support women?

I do NOT assume that men are NEVER batterers of women (or children or other men), nor am I so blind as to think that women are never abusers of men or their children (or of other women).

I also think it would be very sexist to make any assumptions (especially the legal interpretations that follow from the initial sexist assumption) that women cannot be abusers.

Our assumptions about abuse need to be more inclusive of the notion of mutual abuse, especially that abusive personalities tend to find each other.

We tend to view one as the aggressor and one as victim when it is so often the case that both are victims and both are perpetrators of physical abuse.

I was just thinking last night, what about the battered gay man?

And how does Ian feel that battered gay men have nowhere to go in most cases?

And of course that includes the kids of battered gay men who are are denied services for DV since men have mostly been excluded from dv shelters cuz it is assumed that men can only be batterers and not victims of DV.

Battered lesbians seem to be okay, they are not denied services based upon their gender, thus nothing to worry about.
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
User avatar
Akil Todd Harvey
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

hitting is bad except in self-defense

Postby Panther » Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:47 pm

Title says it all...

I made no comment about men only. Nor did I, in any way, imply that it was a men (or men's group) only problem. I simply pointed out something about one group that, while I can offer no evidence (mainly because I won't compromise the identity of someone who it may harm), I stated what I said about that organizations support for a known and proven batterer (against the evidence and testimony of a medical doctor) based on personal, first-hand knowledge of the case.

I'm against anyone hurting anyone else without just cause... PERIOD.

I have never hit someone else (with the exception of accidents and sparing) when it wasn't self-defense. I would hope that decent people can make the same claim. Do you think there is any situation where hitting, harming or abusing someone when it isn't self-defense is justified?

And whether the perp is a man or woman makes no difference to me... and just to go another step further, committing that harm against a child is lower than whale sh!t... AND while on that line of thought, committing sexual assault on someone else (no matter the gender of the perp or victim) is disgusting and should be dealt with in the harshest ways... AND, just to be complete with the train of thought, committing a sexual assault against a child should be met with swift punishment carried out with extreme prejudice to insure that the perp can never commit that type of harm again... to anyone... EVER!!! That's my position.... Any disagreements?
User avatar
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts


Return to Realist Training

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests