Thursday, May 21, 2009

Rape As Way To Break Reproductive Monopoly & Injustice Against Men

The resentment in the rejected comment included below from an anonymous man is disturbing, but it is also important for people who don't agree with this man to be aware of this warped and often contradictory way of thinking which justifies rape.

Those who work with this man may have no clue that he holds all these toxic beliefs. If they are aware of some of his resentments toward feminists they may not see how this resentment is directly linked to rape.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Anti-Feminism And Rape":
Wanting to stop rape is not man hating but blaming all men for rape is.

What is rape? Is it just a man forcing himself upon a woman to gain entry to her sex? Or is it the attempt of those with NO reproductive rights to seize reproduction from those with a reproductive monopoly?

There was a time when men could work hard and expect his efforts to attract a wife. But now we must work even harder to compete against women in order to have mate value to attract those same women. And even then our efforts are taken for granted. (And when men compete and make more money it's called sexism and the wage gap is denounced!) And those men who fail to climb the employment hierarchy fall to the bottom and find love and affection from women a scarce commodity at best.

Women claim they want equality but that is a lie. They wanted the vote but simultaneously they wanted to prevent poor men from voting. Remember it was "Universal Sufferage" not just "Women's Sufferage". And also women didn't want to be forced to become military slaves the way men were forced. So much for "Equal rights, nothing more, nothing less." Every young man who is forced to sign up for Selective Service (The Draft) realizes in his heart that his life is not his own and that at a whim the government can take his freedom and expend his life to pursue some political end for the benefit of others--who incidentally will be mostly women.

We live in a society where women have nearly unlimited sexual freedom and expression. They can wear their clothing as scantily as they want and act as scandalously as they please. And they believe they should have the right to do so and be free from rape. That sentiment is the same as saying "I have a right to dangle raw meat before tigers and not have one of them jump up and snatch it from me and my arm with it." And not only that but to presume the tiger is the unjust one for being driven to it by frustration and hunger.

Finally, feminism is patriarchy. It is the desire of women to be privileged by men. Only now women have chosen the federal government as their "uber father" to protect them and provide for them. But as always it is men who pay for everything. We pay with our taxes, with our lives, with broken hearts, and our freedom.
Break out the violins for this self-inflicted pity party.

Rape laws and anti-discrimination laws are not about having an "uber father" any more than murder laws and food safety laws are about having an "uber father."

How horrid we women are for wanting the ability to live our lives without men feeling like they have the right to rape us because we don't behave as they want us to behave. How horrid we women are for presuming rapists are the unjust ones.

The fundamental problem behind this comment is that this man doesn't view women as full human beings. We are wombs to be filled by men, we are objects to be purchased by men, we are usurpers to be taken down by men.

Any woman who interacts with this anonymous man socially is at increased danger of being raped even if she dresses and behaves modestly since he puts the responsibility for rape on the victim not the rapist. Any woman who marries this man is at an increased risk of domestic abuse.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
posted by Marcella Chester @ 7:41 AM   13 comments links to this post

13 Comments:

At May 22, 2009 5:16 AM, Anonymous MariaS said...

So, he scolds feminists for "blaming all men for rape" ("blaming" of course meaning feminists raising awareness of how common rape actually is, therefore too many men ARE rapists, and of widely shared cultural attitudes to women that serve to justify and trivialise rape), then proceeds to a) very clearly justify men raping due to resentment of women and fear of women exercising freedom and autonomy, and b) tell us that all men are in fact potential rapists. (What a muddled argument - I never understand why men see themselves as the supremely logical sex).

He explicitly tells us that men are frustrated hungry beasts who see women's bodies as "raw meat" to be consumed. Any woman foolish enough not to cover up her whole body from view should just expect to be raped. The men can't help it, it is their nature to rape.

Why should women ever feel "love and affection" toward such creatures? We'd be right to fear and avoid them. (Man-hating seems very rational in fact).

I feel sorry for this person. He regards love as a commodity, and feels that his own value as a person is measured only by how much money he can make. Wanting to be loved and fearing terribly not being loved, he copes with and denies this fear by colluding in the common world-view that love is an outcome that is absolutely controllable, completely guaranteed, if you, as a man, could just make enough money - where love/women are reward objects obtainable (to be bought, sold, rented, won, stolen) by a simplistic scale of achievement, money. Instead of love and/or sex being the freely chosen, serendipitous outcome of mutual attraction and friendly affection between people of any sex.

He's pitiable - but yep, dangerous.

 
At May 22, 2009 9:50 AM, Blogger LLH said...

This guy has issues. But there's a lot of them like that out there. In a way, its good to hear this...thoughts that most people wont put into words but that I think more men than this hold.

We need to know what kind of messed up mentality we are dealing with.

 
At May 24, 2009 9:43 PM, Anonymous spike said...

Women's sexual freedom: fyi, results in environmentally sustainable fertility rates, lower rates of infant and maternal mortality and lower rates of sexually transmitted diseases (yes indeed because many men apparently don't care enough on their own to wear condoms and to remain monogamous so when women have an equal voice it benefits the entire community).

Competition for mates (that really seems to be the crux of much bitterness these days):

On a macro level, the best indicators of how hard it will be for an individual to find mates are gender ratios and the overall resource (wealth, education) distribution in the community--the more evenly distributed, the better for everyone. It's just that simple. It really is.

Despite the fact many men seem entitled to whatever it is they are so bitter about there is simply little evidence for claims that men (or women) have to compete harder in 2009---unless you look at sub-populations such as African Americans, where a there is a gender imbalance especially pronounced in young adults, that effectively weakens women's social positioning (as evidenced by high unwed fertility rates, higher than average rates of STIs and even higher infant mortality). Just as predicted in my first paragraph. Shocking, I know.

But if it makes you feel better to blame the scantily clad womenz begging not to be raped, be my irrational guest.

The Draft: ever heard of Conscientious Objector? And why don't we work on reducing the rate of sexual assault and other misogyny endemic in the military before using the military to bolster an anti-equalitarian argument.

Patriarchal privilege is not just about gender but about economics. This is painfully evident looking at the migration of reproductive and non-reproductive labor in terms of either arranged brides or prostitutes from economically depressed regions to rich ones; on that last point, while I hear a lot of men bragging about their entitlement that has created this demand I've yet to hear these privileged braggarts make the historical and social connection of what happens to the men left behind in communities being de-populated of female peers who are either seen as unsuitable mates because of jobs in sex work, or who have left the region altogether...

Privilege is blinding isn't it?

 
At May 26, 2009 12:37 AM, Blogger Feminamist said...

Poor bastard. Not only does he have little respect for women and a lot of dislike for feminists, he doesn't have much regard for men either. It is going to be a pretty lonely pity party.

What kind of a Friend of Men doesn't extend them the ability to control their sexual appetites? Incontinence is not the entire male sex, but so it seems neither is intelligence, as your rapist friend has aptly demonstrated.

 
At February 14, 2010 3:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If a starving person has nothing to eat and is on the verge of death, would it be in the best interest of that person to take the abundant food of another so as to sustain their life essence?

If a childless person has no children and is on the verge of death, would it be in the best interest of that person to take the abundant reproductive capacity of another so as to sustain their life essence?

Would it be right?
Or are the hungry deserving of death.
And the childless deserving of the same?

The lack of human compassion is a trademark of psychopaths. Is it any wonder then that you are given the title of Feminazis.

 
At February 14, 2010 9:23 AM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Anonymous,

Your analogy is bullshit. You equate stealing a loaf of bread with raping a woman with the intent of forcing her to get pregnant.

You are the one who lacks human compassion for anyone except yourself and other men like you which is a trademark of psychopaths. You need to give those who don't agree with your support for sexual and reproductive violence the label "feminazi" in order to position opposition to the violence you support as tyranny.

 
At February 14, 2010 3:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My analogy is not bullshit, you merely say it is but that does not make it so.
You have not addressed it or refuted it and that is clear.

You've missed out a number of factors here, intentionally i believe. Because you clearly don't want to understand.
Its like some one who adds 2 to 2 and wants the end result to be 3 no matter what so they'll say its 3, no matter what.

In this case you want the end result to be rape and not the preservation of a life essence, no matter what.
And because of that it is wrong for individual to preserve their life essence, no matter what.

It is your belief then that the starving should die.
And that the childless should do the same.
Followed by the poor.
The sick.
And the disabled.

Is it any wonder then that they call you Feminazis.

 
At February 14, 2010 4:36 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Anonymous,

Your analogy is bullshit and so is your equating the childless who cannot find someone freely willing to have a child with them with someone who is starving, poor, sick or disabled.

Calling rape the preservation of a life essence doesn't make it not rape. Being opposed to rape committed by those who as you put it "want to preserve their life essence" is not the same as advocating for letting people starve to death.

All you are doing is letting people know how some rapists rationalize their crimes.

 
At February 14, 2010 5:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My equation is not incorrect.

The issues is not weather they can find someone who will FREELY give them children to preserve their life essence, it is that nobody will.

In the same instant that nobody will give FREELY a starving person something to eat to preserve their life essence.

You are twisting and spinning something that was clear 3 posts ago.
That is called obfuscation.
And you persist with this rape issue of yours when it has nothing at all to do with the discussion.

As i made evident in my previous post, you want the issue to be about rape, when it isn't and never has been.
It is weather or not a person has the right or if it is in their best interest to preserve their own life when on the verge of death by taking something that is abundant from another.

 
At February 14, 2010 5:52 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Anonymous,

All you've made evident is that you can rationalize rape and reproductive abuse while refusing to give those actions their correct labels.

 
At February 15, 2010 2:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who is this s***head? If you want a kid that badly, adopt! Don't give some bull**** analogy about the starving taking from the not-starving. You're talking about raping a woman to get a child. Well, thank God the world doesn't work that way.

 
At February 15, 2010 8:32 AM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

I wish the world worked such that men never raped a woman with the intent of getting a girl or woman pregnant. Unfortunately, research shows otherwise. Those who are intent on forcing pregnancy can't be assumed to care anything about their "life essence" because of violence against those who are pregnant and violence against the result of men's "life essence."

These violent men more likely see a child as another way to control a girl or woman.

I blogged about this in my post,
Research on link between pregnancy coercion and relationship abuse.

 
At March 05, 2010 4:06 AM, Anonymous big bez said...

I wish I'd gotten to this conversation sooner...

what these men are saying is so poorly thought out, illogical, irrational and embittered it makes me embarrassed for them and myself. I mean: I scarcely know where to begin here! "Seizing" reproductive rights is such a feeble minded concept. This is human, physical, real sex we're talking about; not the means of production in some abstract dialectic. The complainant is making it sound like this abstraction of rights can be literally 'held' in hand. How many men actually FLEE from the responsibility of fatherhood and family? How many husbands are cheating and begging their wives for swinging rites because they're not happy with what they're getting at home? I don't buy for a MINUTE that in the heat of a sexual moment men are thinking "Oh I've got to grab this opportunity to secure the propagation of my genes..." HAH! What a ludicrous thought. I find it hard to believe that he's thinking of economic disparities and wage gaps either. He's thinking about getting his penis into a warm, soft, wet spot and little else. Hell. I'm speaking from EXPERIENCE. Dig me? To try to make the moment of lustful sex heat about nuclear family structures and capitalism is totally BOGUS. I've never been in a discussion with another guy who was like: "and when I saw her hair fall over her boobs I was like; 'my reproductive rights must be secured' or 'I'll show her a thing or two for daring to compete with me in the workplace'". It's just a stupid premise. The whole jumble about universal suffrage and the draft was incomprehensible so I have no comment there. Women HARDLY have "unlimited freedom" to do this and that. The women who refuse men's sexual advances are "stuck up bitches". The ones who give in are "sluts", "whores" and "hookers". Either way, we punish, harass and make absolutely miserable women who try to do anything. We leave them no way to be, whatsoever. And THEN this "anonymous" (and I can understand why he didn't want to leave a name) with his tortured false analogy would have had me on the floor, laughing at its utter illogicality if it weren't for the fact that he clearly really BELIEVES it; is deeply INVESTED in it, and probably SHARES the belief with many other men. Starving pertains to the issue of EATING, which is irredeemably essential to human life. Having a child, while it may be an incredibly strong DESIRE or IMPULSE, is not. And neither is sex for that matter. I've gone for 10 YEARS without sex and I'm alive, kicking, productive and believe it or not, joyous and optimistic. All this talk about "taking" rights from this or that one reeks of played out 20th century Darwinian, selfish-gene, pre-programmed ruthless competitiveness to procreate which has justified so much havoc, madness and calamity in this world. I'm joining the others and calling BULLSHIT.
Finally, I resent the idea that I, as a man who deals REGULARLY with unrequited sexual feelings, am some bloodthirsty, starving beast raging for "raw meat". Speak for your DAMN self, homie! While there is certainly frustration and even anger, the desire is not to consume flesh but to be LOVED: to be HELD, to be TOUCHED, to be PAID ATTENTION TO, to experience the blissful ecstasy of union. Other men may have a caveman-ish, 4-million-years-of-evolution-never-happened kind of outlook on sex but I sure as hell don't.

BUZZZZZ! *subbing for irrationally vengeful troglodytes, is...* Come on fellas: we gotta look at this stuff critically and realistically. Let's just pack 'em away for a second and think with our freaking BRAINS for one good minute... You feel me?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home