The Gender Equality Checkpoint

[DanaC]

Both great finds, Bruce

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by DanaC

But - each individual incident is often fairly minor. That chap got hit with the anger that comes from the cumulative effect of this stuff.

Speaking of not knowing the whole story, and of cumulative effects, did she get him fired all by herself, or was her complaint the final straw?

[it]

Not sure if this is a good place to put this but...

A 2010 checkpoint: "To be made to penetrate" - Female on male forced sexual intercourse - was counted in the US for the first time as a catagory of rape... Within the confines of a study, not legislation, in which it is still not quite considered rape yet. But it's progress.

[it]

OK, that didn't quite spark the debate I thought it would...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Although male rape is an under reported problem, I leave my door unlocked every night in hopes of gathering evidence, so is false claims of rape. But the intention of Dana's thread, as I understand it, is more the institutional rather than physical.

[DanaC]

Bruce is right about the institutional focus. But culturally, the issue of male rape by a female perpetrator and how we as a society define and respond to that, is part of that bigger picture.

It presupposes agency for the male victim, in a way that implies a corresponding lack of agency for their female counterparts. It suggests that rape is a male act - because it assumes that sex is a male act - something men do to women. At the same time, rape is a way to physically impose, it is an act of power - something we do not, as a culture associate with women.

Rape of a woman is a heinous act - and society condemns it (though with a high degree of victim blaming thrown in for good measure) - but rape of a man subverts the entire gender system in which we currently live. It threatens our understanding of what it is to be a man or a woman at a fundamental level. Our culture therefore finds it very difficult to accept and understand the reality of those victims' experiences.

[it]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Although male rape is an under reported problem, I leave my door unlocked every night in hopes of gathering evidence, so is false claims of rape. But the intention of Dana's thread, as I understand it, is more the institutional rather than physical.

The problem is that it is not that "female on male rape" it is an under reported crime, it's that it's not a crime to report. At least in the US, If you say "I was raped by a woman" , since rape legally requires the actual penetration of a penis, there's no such thing unless she at some point in her life had a penis. The closest report you can make is for sexual assault.

The issue in question isn't merely a cultural one of an unreported crime, it's an institutional one of what doesn't legally count as a crime.

Originally Posted by DanaC

Bruce is right about the institutional focus. But culturally, the issue of male rape by a female perpetrator and how we as a society define and respond to that, is part of that bigger picture.

Bingo - what I was going for

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Although male rape is an under reported problem, I leave my door unlocked every night in hopes of gathering evidence, so is false claims of rape. But the intention of Dana's thread, as I understand it, is more the institutional rather than physical.

nevermind

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by traceur

The problem is that it is not that "female on male rape" it is an under reported crime, it's that it's not a crime to report. At least in the US, If you say "I was raped by a woman" , since rape legally requires the actual penetration of a penis, there's no such thing unless she at some point in her life had a penis. The closest report you can make is for sexual assault.

In fairness, it is also impossible to impregnate a man, so the acts--while both depraved and horrific--are fundamentally different in my opinion.

If a man anally rapes another man, is that legally considered "rape" or "sexual assault?" I'm okay with the idea of the word "rape" only applying to women, as long as a woman forcing herself on a man is called the same thing as a man forcing himself on a man.

[it]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

If a man anally rapes another man, is that legally considered "rape" or "sexual assault?"

It is now considered rape, though even that was a rather recent update, until a couple of decades ago the definition was exclusive to when the victim was a woman.

While we are on case distinctions: While legally women can't commit rape - since the lack of consent isn't enough to define it as such under current laws, they can commit statutory rape - which is defined as rape because of the inability to give viable consent

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

In fairness, it is also impossible to impregnate a man, so the acts--while both depraved and horrific--are fundamentally different in my opinion.

Are you saying rape should be redefined as "attempt to impregnate"? Would it then not count as rape if the rapists used protection, if the woman was too old to conceive or not count as statutory rape if she was too young?

That also brings up an interesting side note, since there are quite a few cases where men are paying child support for children born out of sex they didn't consent to have in the first place.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I'm okay with the idea of the word "rape" only applying to women, as long as a woman forcing herself on a man is called the same thing as a man forcing himself on a man.

Interesting. Why? Why would a transgression (Non consensual sex) need a special sub category with it's own unique loaded word for female victims?

Non sexual forms of physical violence can also have different consequences to members of either gender simply by virtue of impacting a different set of organs - if we redefine rape for women because they might get pregnant should we redefine physical assault on women because they might already be pregnant and abort the baby in the process? And why not anything else? Is murder for men fundamentally different because it can result in stopping the blood flow to a penis?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by traceur

Interesting. Why? Why would a transgression (Non consensual sex) need a special sub category with it's own unique loaded word for female victims?

I'm not saying it needs it. You're saying it has it, and I'm saying I don't necessarily object to that as long as it's consistent.

Originally Posted by traceur

if we redefine rape for women because they might get pregnant should we redefine physical assault on women because they might already be pregnant and abort the baby in the process?

We already do--if you punch a pregnant woman in the stomach, it's physical assault on her but it is also legally the murder of the baby.

Originally Posted by traceur

Would it then not count as rape if the rapists used protection, if the woman was too old to conceive or not count as statutory rape if she was too young?

It's not that it would "not count," it's that it has the potential to be called something else. I'm certainly not suggesting that raping is fine as long as there is a condom involved, I'm just saying nuance is better than lack of nuance, when trying to define involuntary punishments that are to be handed down by the state.

There could just as easily be a new term for women forcing themselves on men for the express purpose of impregnating themselves--seed theft, for example, which might earn a punishment equivalent to those currently given for rape, or not, but the point is that calling everything by one term almost never improves things.

[it]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I don't necessarily object to that as long as it's consistent.

If it's simple semantic consistent you are seeking then it already is, even without having the same term for women raping men as that of men raping men, simply by virtue of having a specified weapon instead (Penis).

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I'm just saying nuance is better than lack of nuance, when trying to define involuntary punishments that are to be handed down by the state.

There could just as easily be a new term for women forcing themselves on men for the express purpose of impregnating themselves--seed theft, for example, which might earn a punishment equivalent to those currently given for rape, or not, but the point is that calling everything by one term almost never improves things.

Narrower and more selective categorization often result in more ignorance then more understanding:

When it comes to social & legal policy it's more often then not used as a means to excuse unequal treatments, such as a corporate alliance lobbying for a nuanced exceptions in the tax code, making a nuanced distinction between how you punish drugs popular in black culture and how you punish drugs popular in white culture, or let's say... Gender treatment [insert pretty much an topic that would be relevant to this thread].

When it comes to day to day ethical decisions it usually involves explaining why the time I pickpocket someones jeans is totally different from the time someone pickpockets my khakis.

Are any of those better because they are treated as more distinct categories?

[Clodfobble]

Is manslaughter better defined as murder? Is the consensual, but nonetheless statutory rape of a 17-year-old by her 18-year-old boyfriend indistinguishable from a violent rape in an alleyway at gunpoint?

There is room for loopholes in a nuanced system, it's true. But if the sentencing laws for different drugs are resulting in unfair results, the answer is not to say "all drugs deserve X punishment, end of nuance." The answer is to change the punishments in the places where they are currently inappropriate. Should the punishment for cocaine be harsher? Perhaps. But that will not be achieved by pretending cocaine is crack when it is not. That will be achieved by making the punishment for cocaine harsher.

[it]

I would say the pretense is on the other foot: When making an artifical distinction for arbitrary reasons that aren't consequentially meaningful, we are pretending that the same behavior and actions consequences or objects can be treated as distinct and often incomparable because we name them differently.

The words we choose don't particularly have that power, and we do choose them - there isn't a matter of defining something as something it is simply not - it is a matter of defining it in a way that maximizes the understanding of the meaning it carries (Unless you worship the magical sky dictionary, in which case I am sorry and meant no disrespect towards your beliefs).

Digging into why we define things differently provides a more accurate understanding, as more often then not doing so to account for variables that aren't meaningful to the subject matter demonstrate how those variables are meaningful to us elsewhere (Such as defining a loaded term of sexual violence in a distinct way that might illustrate the assumptions that sexual agency is inherit to males or our outlook of gender roles and victimhood).

[Sundae]

Just as an aside, I happened to mention to a male friend about recently being offered money to perform a sex act. He was really quite shocked. I had to make a mental adjustment to remember that for a man, this is not the sort of thing they hear on a regular basis.

I have never accepted a straightforward financial transaction in return for sexual favours, although I admit the lines became blurred between me and the Evil Ex, who would summon me over when it suited him, but I would always leave with more than it would cost me to get home.

But I have had the opportunity to be paid for full intercourse, oral sex (that seems to be a favourite, with the lowest offered being £50) and even anal (£200). None of these men were complete strangers either, I hadn't wandered into a red light district and been mistaken for a prostitute. They were men I knew socially, worked with, drank with or bought food from. And in every case my refusal was shrugged off with an attitude of, "Ah well, it was worth a try."

I know I'm not alone in my experience; look what happened with the poor teenage girls groomed by gangs of men. I was just older and had a more secure self-image and home life, so that I didn't get started on that particular slippery slope. But I think men who don't try to get a bit of female flesh for hire don't realise that this goes on. Perhaps even the really fun guy that they crack open a few beers with has tried it on occasion. And then they wonder why women can sometimes be genuinely offended by a pat on the bottom or a catcall in the street.

Anyway, as you were.