Rape is worse when it happens to men, reports the New York Times

by HUB Newsfeed

Recently, the New York Times reported that rape is worse when it happens to men than when it happens to women.

“There is no arena in which rape takes place between men and women that it does not take place between men and men[.]”

Like women, men who are raped feel violated and ashamed and may become severely depressed or suicidal. They are at increased risk for substance abuse, problems with interpersonal relationships, physical impairments, chronic pain, insomnia and other health problems.

But men also face a challenge to their sense of masculinity. Many feel they should have done more to fight off their attackers. Since they may believe that men are never raped, they may feel isolated and reluctant to confide in anyone. Male rape victims may become confused about their sexual orientation or, if gay and raped by a man, blame their sexual orientation for the rape.

See what they did there?  Rape is “X” when it happens to women; rape is “X+1” when it happens to men.  Of course, the Times would probably deny that’s what they said if they were ever asked about it, but look, folks: the math doesn’t lie.

The way the Times handles this subject is very revealing, and it’s not just that they dedicated two entire pages to the subject of male victims of rape.  While we are just supposed to accept its math at face value, and agree with them that male victims suffer the exact same things women suffer, +1, we also are not supposed to notice what they are necessarily implying about femininity, and women’s “sense” of ourselves: that femininity is not challenged at all, and our sense of ourselves is not challenged at all, when we are raped by men.  And let’s just assume for the time being that this implication is entirely true.  Now why might that be?

Femininity is not challenged at all when men rape women because femininity, and women’s sense of ourselves as patriarchally-constructed “woman”, are literally built on women being raped by men.  That’s what femininity is.  If that’s not just the complete and unabridged truth of the matter, then ask yourself how in the world could anyone ever think, or believe, or say, or say in public without being seriously challenged on it, that men’s gender role is challenged when men are raped by other men, but women’s isn’t.  Women’s gender role is actually supported by rape, while conversely, men’s is challenged.  This is what the Times is saying here, and they are absolutely right.

Women are born to be raped, the misogynistic story goes, it’s in our natures to be raped, and men are not born to be raped, and it’s not in their natures to be raped.  When women are raped, it might hurt, indeed we may even die from it, but it doesn’t challenge anything about our natures, or about the nature of the relationship between women and men.  The natural order of things is supported when women are raped, while conversely, it’s challenged when men are raped.  This is what they are saying with this language, and setting up men’s and women’s experience this way.

And women’s sexuality isn’t brought into question when women are raped by men, because women are born to be men’s PIV-receptacles, and that’s what women’s sexuality is.  That’s the extent of it: even in a context of violence or extreme violence, that’s the beginning and end of women’s sexuality.  Being penetrated by men’s dicks.  Women’s sexuality is actually supported when they are raped by men; where conversely, men’s sexuality is challenged when men are raped.

And it was really nice of the Times to sweep the reproductive harm suffered by women and only women through men raping us, including pregnancy and fear of pregnancy, into the dismissive “and other health problems” dustbin of things that can happen to men who are raped by other men too.

An extra added bonus: they had a woman write it.  Because, as women, handmaidens of the patriarchy are immune from criticism, while simultaneously being attractive targets and scapegoats for criticism.  Either way, men are safe.  But the patriarchy is not, and the ways that men’s interlocking systems of oppression work to support men and male privilege at women’s expense are not beyond our criticism.

For anyone interested, the NYT can be contacted here.

–HUB Newsfeed

87 Responses to “Rape is worse when it happens to men, reports the New York Times”

  1. and PS. fuck you, new york times. see what i did there?

  2. Jesus. world, I hate you more each passing day. radfems, you keep me from topping myself.

  3. The consequences of rape are actually worse when it’s done to women: this is a complete reversal of facts. Men have the benefit of credibility when they say they’re raped (as whenever they say anything), women don’t. Male rapes represent perhaps 20% of child rapes and 1% of adult rapes, yet you can find way more articles saying how serious rape on men is, how traumatic it is, etc. they’re much more likely to be believed, and nobody minimises or denies the seriousness of the harm or implies that deep down they’re sluts who asked for it. Whenever the media talks about child rape or child payed rape, they usually centre on boys, not girls, despite girls being the majority of the victims. Male victims are more respected, the truth is that it’s easier for them to talk than for female victims, contrary to this bullshit that it’s against their masculinity. Men are not the sex class, by definition they don’t consent to rape or sexual torture, or murder. Yeah, fuck you, New york times.

  4. The most damaging long term effects of rape are disease and pregnancy, men can be effected by the former but not the latter, women can be effected by both. Women also suffer because they may blame themselves, because we know women are constantly told rape is their fault, they wore the wrong thing, went to the wrong place, failed to fight back or fought back too hard. The fact that most rape happens at home by people the woman knows and trusts and that this is a devastating betrayal of her friendships and family relationships, according to the New York Times, does not effect her sense of self worth. In addition if she tries to bring charges she is often disbelieved, if she gets as far as court she often fails to get a conviction.
    I once had a male friend who was raped by two other men and he was upset, but said that rape was not nearly as bad for men because he knew he could not get pregnant. He obviously had not been informed that he should suffer a devastating loss of his sense of masculinity, so he didn’t.

  5. It amazes me how men go on about victimization being a sign of “weakness” and discussing it is some kind of “melodramic party” and “crying wolf”. *But* when it comes to *them* you would think they were auditioning for Hamlet. Fuck, you want to talk about melodramic pity parties and histrionics, listen to a male describe his victimization (and it doesn’t have to be a sex-crime) and how it’s way worse than anything a woman or girl could ever experience. Men get to be blameless, pure victims and showered with accolades of “oh, you’re so brave for coming forward you poor thing”, whilst women and girls are viciously shunned and derided as accomplices rather than victims/survivors in men’s crimes committed against us. Again it doesn’t even have to be a sex-crime because nothing “bad” should ever happen to the bros…that’s for chicks. Fuck NYT!

  6. Proves yet again for the umpteenth time ‘rape is only rape’ when men are the ones who are raped by other males. Men continue to define ‘rape’ from their male perspective and that is why ‘rape is never rape’ when a male(s) rapes a female(s) because according to male supremacist lies women are men’s disposable sexual service stations.

    Fact is number of adult males raped by other males pales in comparison to men’s continuing global war on women, girls and female babies. Males routinely subject females of any age/ethnicity/class/race to male sexual violence because it is never ‘rape’ according to male supremacist mantra.

    Females cannot ‘lose their female identity’ because we have none – we only have the label ‘men’s disposable sexual service stations.’ Males however when they are raped by a male(s) supposedly lose their masculinity because they have become the ‘feminised other’ and no male wants to become that despised (sic) creature – the female human.

    New York Times conveniently ignores fact female survivors of mens’ sexual violence suffer post traumatic stress but of course PTSD only applies to men does it not because only men are the ones who define truth and reality and their myopic vision is always permanently focused on other males – never females and our experiences. That is why ‘real rape is only real rape when a male rapes another male.’

  7. My letter:

    To whom it may concern,

    I was disappointed to learn about your article dismissing the harms of rape for women. It implied that getting pregnant, and consequently being forced to undergo and abortion, or worse, being forced to carry your rapist’s baby to term (in which case you can die: please check the maternal death rate statistics) is less important than “men’s masculinity”. Your article states that men suffer a blow to their masculinity and sexuality as though this was an additional trauma that men must undergo when raped. You are assuming, of course, that all women are heterosexual, and you are also stating that women’s sexuality is based upon rape. Femininity is the box women are pushed into in order for men to feel masculine. Rape can *render* a woman feminine, sure, if feminine means “docile” “timid” “passive” and “submissive”. But you are confusing cause and effect.

    Please read this article for more information on your blunder.




  8. This may have been a bit too much for me to read today. I feel torrents unleashed within me. I’ll try to focus and not rage all over the place.

    First, this post is deeply excellent. If it wouldn’t bring hordes of funfems down upon this site I’d link it everywhere I could.

    Now as for the rage, it’s because it’s just right there, so baldly stated: “Like women, men who are raped feel….But men also face”. But men ALSO face. BUT MEN ALSO FACE. I swear I blanked out for a minute when I read that as it just repeated in my head. You put it so well, for men rape is “X + 1” and of course if there is a plus then that means more. Rape of men is MORE. More awful, more damaging, more wrong, more to be condemned.

    And of course that brings to mind the prison rape controversy. I admit I’d be afraid to say this anywhere but here and the last thing I would ever do is try to minimize the pain men who are raped in prison feel. But I’ve got to say this: I honestly think 9 times out of 10 prison rape is only brought up to minimize the constant threat and reality of rape all women experience every day around the world. They do not actually care. And the worst part of it is that of course women are constantly raped in prison as well, and more likely to be by their (male) guards. But whenever they say “prison rape”, it always means the rape of men. Because of course what happens to female prisoners is, well, what naturally happens to women. Women are supposed to be raped in prison and everywhere else.

    Finally, the Penn State scandal and Jerry Sandusky. You know what I kept thinking about throughout the whole thing? If it were a bunch of teenage girls who’d bravely stepped forward to press charges there would be no gnashing of teeth on their behalf. The school wouldn’t have fired their venerated old dirtbag coach. There would be no resignations, no investigation of child charities, no FBI involvement, no statements by the governor. Sure as hell ESPN and all the other sports outlets would never ever rend their garments in lamentation for the suffering of those girls. No, they’d be called sluts, probably out for revenge or something. “Remember Duke Lacrosse” they’d all say.

    Because girls can’t be raped. Even the ones that are.

  9. I’d say rape on girls and women compared to men is x + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = waaaaaaaay worse than anything a man can experience.

    1st 1 = pregnancy
    2d 1 = abortion
    3rd 1 = termed pregnancy and forced to raise children from rape
    4th 1 = possible death or severe complicaitons from pregnancy or abortion
    5th 1 = diseases, STDs, AIDS,
    6th 1 = Undiagnosed and untreated PTSD (often resulting in increased vulnerability to more rape, intimate male
    terrorism, prostitution, marginalisation, exclusion, poverty, depression, longterm incapacity to work, etc.)
    7th 1 = impossibility to ask for help or even be heard (reduction to silence, systematic accusation and shaming of the
    female victims, systematic denial and disbelief of the violence and protection of the male perpetrators, complete
    invisibilisation of victims, etc etc).

    Sooooo, adult men don’t even scratch the surface of this. Now, men = x+1? really?

  10. If it wouldn’t bring hordes of funfems down upon this site I’d link it everywhere I could.

    HUB is a public blog, and we are not afraid of anyone, including fun fems. please, link away! 🙂

  11. This is the second time already that I have been handmaidensplained (not manspained) this misogynistic fantasy. The first time was in a pseudo-feminist book about rapes on Bosnia-Hercegovina ALTHOUGH we all know that those women were forced to birth and held in rape camps – that did not happen to men, obviously. I’m still ENRAGED to the core. NO, no woman’s identity and self is to be a plaything for men!!!!!! NONE!!! NEVER!!! Woman does not equal rape receptable!!!!! When funfems claim to be against rape and rape culture, they obviously just don’t understand what they are talking about. They are handmaidens of the patriarchy (because every women is a “feminist”…).

  12. Be disgusted by this but dont be surprised by it. It just once again confirms that we are living in a oppresive and sexist male dominated society. Its time to start cleaning up society.

  13. Let us remember this is the same paper that wrote about the gang rape of a little girl by making prominent note of the types of clothes she wore, as if she enticed all those men. So fuck the NYT.

  14. Also this is the transsexuals’ and transgenders’ idea that the worst thing that can be done to anyone is to act against their gender. Thus it is allegedly worse to rape men than women. The misogyny is breathtaking. If it is not rape culture to assert that women are destined to be raped and that it’s not such a big deal when women are raped, then what exactly does rape culture even mean?

  15. From the article:

    “And young men raised by poor single mothers are especially vulnerable to male predators, said Dr. Zane Gates, an internist who cares for low-income patients on Medicaid at a community health center in Altoona, Pa.

    “You’re looking for a male figure in your life desperately, and you’ll give anything for that,” he said.”

    So of course their mums couldn’t possibly be a good parental carer, especially if they’re poor. The only thing these poor emasculated men need is a father figure. Utter shite.

    Men do get raped (note it didn’t include those in prison), and can suffer psychological and physical injuries, but they don’t have the added risk of pregnancy and don’t have their integrity called into question cause they are all believed.

    The article is unbelieveably misogynistic.

  16. there are just so many things wrong with this, its hard to get to them all. but this:

    Since they may believe that men are never raped, they may feel isolated and reluctant to confide in anyone. Male rape victims may become confused about their sexual orientation or, if gay and raped by a man, blame their sexual orientation for the rape.

    why does that make sense, and this doesnt (and they are saying it doesnt by setting mens and womens experience up as converse): “women know that women are always raped, so they feel isolated and reluctant to confide in anyone.”

    or, why does that make sense, while this doesnt: “female rape victims may become confused about their sexuality, because they dont believe women are to be used like objects and thrown away, but thats what womens sexuality is.” or this: “female rape victims may become confused about their sexuality, because they hate men or dont want to have sex with men, but they feel sexually and emotionally bonded to their attacker after the rape.” or this: “female rape victims may become confused about their sexuality, because they like men and are attracted to men, but start to realize that men hate women and that men rape women.”

  17. Consent really is the default state for women, so when a woman is raped she actually has to prove that she didn’t want it to happen. Not so with men, it is assumed that rape is an awful thing that no man would want to go through. We really don’t question what male victims were wearing or whether or not they were asking for it or why they were walking alone at night.

    When it comes to women, our culture can barely distinguish between rape and consensual sex. It’s practically the same thing. The burden of trying to prove that there is a difference falls on the woman who was raped. She has to provide several pieces of evidence to prove that she wasn’t existing in her default state of consent. Not only that, she has to prove that she clearly communicated this fact…to her rapist! He apparently has no idea that women don’t equal sex and that it’s not okay to force one to have sex with you, because most of the time, it really is perceived as okay in this culture to do just that. That is why women exist, right?

    Things are so convoluted, we actually had to make rape like a property crime, so people would understand. Yes, there’s a woman existing in a constant state of consent but she belongs to somebody else so it’s not okay to take what isn’t yours. Not that women are full human beings who should have some say over what happens to them, but that they are somebody else’s sexual receptacle.

    Men don’t experience any of this.

  18. LOL @ “handmaidensplained” thats a good one. so true. is that what slutwalk was? handmaidens of the P ‘splaining whats wrong with the P and ‘splaining whats wrong with rape? its helpful to think of it that way, bc it makes it obvious that there really was no other outcome available besides it being the convoluted mess it was. they had to support it, at the exact same time they were allegedly criticizing it. cause thats what handmaidensplaining is.

  19. I hate handmaidens so much. I want to vomit after reading this.

  20. thats what it takes, if a woman wants to work at the NYT. clearly. i dont begrudge her that, i really dont. its not her fault. i bet she earned high praises for this article, and that shes currently being salivated on by everyone who matters. i hope she saves her money, and doesnt have to do it for very long.

  21. What witchwind and Hecuba said!!! And yttik!

    Of course it’s worse when it happens to men, because they are human! We’re supposed to relax and enjoy it, because deep down we’re just sluts who really wanted it.

    If the Penn State coach and Catholic priests had only raped and molested girls, would anyone even give a shit?

    Child rapists who land in jail are in danger if their victims were boys, not if the victims were just girls.

    So we’ve made this huge progressive leap by defining rape to include male victims. Yay, isn’t society grand! Now, maybe we’ll start taking it seriously, even if only for male victims.

  22. Being a female-sycophant for the patriarchy does have its perks. Look at all the (in)famous anti-feminist female authors who earn a living off of being pro-misogynists, regardless if it kills them inside–mentally and spiritually– or they revel in all the praise they receive from the androcrats because that means they’re one of the “good ones”. And they honestly believe that it will protect them from misogynistic attacks and male violence, and it might…for awhile. These women would be more than happy to give the bros a pound of female flesh so they don’t turn against them. It’s a sadomasochistic form of internalized misogyny and self-preservation. Court jesters and delusional, happy house slaves…

  23. yes, and shes probably *not* saving her money either, and is likely being paid too little to begin with. if shes spending her pittance on fuckability mandates, or even “professionality” mandates (same thing) shes not saving it, and the likelihood that this is her situation exactly is extremely high, bc thats the situation for so many women, and so many professional women. its sickening.

  24. asd;fkljas;dlfj asdfkjasd;fja;lfj a!!!! ADFASDFASDFHASFUCKYOUNYT!!!111

    That was my reaction to this. But as with most misogynistic bullshit, if you dig through this crap, you find some truth.

    Thanks so much, radfemhub, for pulling a Daly with the reversals in this article. I’m submitting a letter to the NYT, too. Anybody with the time should do so, because this is misogyny writ large. If the woman who wrote this article isn’t already conscious of the truth implicit in the things she wrote, maybe some letters-to-the-editor will open her eyes to a woman-identified view of the issues.

  25. Strike ‘this article is unbelieveably misogynistic’

    to “this article is misogynistic”. Nothing unbelieveable about it. Same old, same old.

    Great post and a lively comments section. Brilliant.

  26. i tried to share this post and some of my friends protested “don’t create a dichotomy that doesn’t need to be there, rape is bad for everyone and it doesn’t depend on gender.” I don’t understand how you can look at rape as anything but a gendered crime that stems from hatred of women. Even when men rape each other, they are seen as making the victim their “bitch.” The physical act of rape is brutal for both men and women, but the aftermath is much worse for women because not only does she have to worry about pregnancy, but her rape confirms all the negative messages society sends at women every day. Men are just caught in the crossfire of misogyny and their pain comes from “this shouldn’t happen to me” and the outrage that their status has been threatened. It is relatively easy to build that status back up again after the rape, whereas the woman only has her status as the sex class confirmed and can’t easily build herself back up again after the rape because of all the messages in society constantly telling women they are sex objects.

  27. “If the Penn State coach and Catholic priests had only raped and molested girls, would anyone even give a shit?”

    NOPE. And, they would’ve accused them of lying or “asking for it”. GAAAGH!!! It hurt to even type that.

    I am SO, SO ENRAGED by this NYT “article”. THANK YOU for putting this rage into words, cuz all I can do right now is scream.

  28. Of course, the Handmaiden of the Patriarchy who wrote the article doesn’t bother to define “sense of masculinity.” She probably thinks everyone will get her point right away, but I have some questions. Does she mean that men who have been raped suddenly feel they can no longer splash their cheeks with a subtle yet rugged aftershave? Do they lose interest in tying the perfect half-Windsor so as to make a good impression on their date? Do they perhaps stop doing crunches, because they no longer care about having six-pack abs?

    No. By “sense of masculinity,” she means these men’s sense of being in charge of their own bodies, of being autonomous, of not being sexual prey, of being able to defend themselves and ensure their own safety. It’s their sense of being human that’s been challenged. But by conflating that with masculinity, she tacitly admits that women aren’t supposed to see themselves the same way men do — as fully enfranchised, adult human beings.

    In case Ms. HOTP wanders over here, I’ve written the female version: “But women who have been raped also face a challenge to their sense of personal autonomy and authority over their own bodies. Often, this occurs after they have already endured years of less extreme, but still serious challenges to the same in the form of sexual harassment at work, in school, and on the street, and in the form of having their right to say ‘no’ ignored by unwanted but persistent suitors, some of whom turn into stalkers. Additionally, they must deal with idiots who are unwilling to acknowledge that bodily autonomy matters as much to women as it does to men, and in the same way.”

  29. Does she mean that men who have been raped suddenly feel they can no longer splash their cheeks with a subtle yet rugged aftershave?

    this made me LOL. YES! you are so right, thats NOT what she means, and she means the other thing, instead. excellent lou-lou. thanks

  30. Oh my, loup-loup, you made me lol, right before my nightly attempt to run. Windsor knot, guffaw! Thanks. 🙂

  31. The NY Times said: “But men also face a challenge to their sense of masculinity.”

    In other words, their sense of humanity. Because according to patriarchal logic, masculinity=humanity. But since women aren’t fully human to begin with, we don’t have that to struggle with. For women there’s nothing to lose, because we’re already women. That’s the way they see it.

    It says a lot about gender roles when the NY Times openly admits that raping a woman raises no challenge to her gender role.

  32. Oh, now that I’ve read the comments, I see that Loup Loup already pointed that out. Yes, exactly! They think that a sense of humanity is something that only belongs to men.

  33. This article isn’t even the worst of it. Men make themselves out to be the victims when they’re the perpetrators, and these sycophants still literally put a man’s self-perception over a woman’s life. Just before the new year on another blog I lurk, one of the regular commenters admitted to being an abuser who terrorized his now-separated wife for five years. The response was absolutely repulsive. They all applauded him for “manning up” to his behavior without any proof he actually intended to change it and said he was a good husband and father. (Yes, he has kids.) On top of that, they blamed the wife saying it must be her personality that “sets him off” cause he’s such a nice guy, don’t you know? “There are multiple sides to every story,” was a common theme. Even a woman who had her son’s (of course it was her son’s) name in her username supported the MRA who had the audacity to say this guy still had a “right” to see the kids and that if we “wanted what’s best for the children” we’d support the husband in “getting his family back together” so they could have their oh-so-critical father figure. I cant express how disgusted I am after seeing this stuff ad nauseam. When will women care about themselves?

  34. * through tears *

    mezzopiana spoke the words that live in my heart :

    Jesus. world, I hate you more each passing day. radfems, you keep me from topping myself.

    Thank you ((( all ))).

  35. wait. whats “topping” mean in this context?

  36. “topping” is Australian (maybe also Brit) for committing suicide. Getting oneself off this planet.

  37. “It says a lot about gender roles when the NY Times openly admits that raping a woman raises no challenge to her gender role.”

    Exactly. Thank you, Boady. Ironically, that’s almost like radical feminist critique of femininity (fuckability is part of it).
    Also, what does this say about “sex” (read: PIV)? Apparently, it must be similar to rape after all. The similar part is penetration. But even regular egalitarians say that rape is equally bad for everyone and that “sex” (read: PIV) is TOTALLY different from rape despite penetration. Thus it can’t be less harmful for women than for men. Ergo, this misogynist article it not even egalitarian. A part of fun fems is not even egalitarian, too (ok, we all knew that already).

    The equation penetration = violation is implied in this reasoning. Well, it’s what the supposedly bad, insane Andrea Dworkin said, too. It’s just not okay to say it with women’s liberation in mind, that’s all. It’s just bad to say it when you critizise it. But it is ok to say it when you want to give men more privilege than to women (be taken more seriously and get more compassion) and when you want to imply that it’s women’s nature to be victims.
    The hypocrisy! It BURNS!!

  38. I don’t want to single the author out as particularly women hating. In fact, men say and write it all the time. “Fuck” means to harm, to violate, to kill etc. As in “Fuck (insert a person)”, “Fuck (insert a country)”, “Fuck you!” etc. I haven’t read about a language for which this is not true. And women are supposed to be masochists to variing degree thus it is ok for women to be fucked.

    NO, THANKS!!!! Claim rejected.

  39. Btw, I did not contradict the claim that sexual violence against women includes an additional dimention that men don’t experience (thus regular egalitarians are wrong too). That is prengnancy. Regular egalitarians pretend as if pregnancy was not there thus their conclusion that rape is equally bad for everyone.
    This graphic applies quite well: http://undercoverpunk.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/if-you-were-alone-in-the-woods-objective-human-to-human-harms-by-cause-and-effect-chart/
    What men and their handmaidens claim is that men suffer a bigger EMOTIONAL (psychological) distress from rape than women do. That I have talked about. I did not say anything about other forms of harm.

  40. “Male rape victims may become confused about their sexual orientation or, if gay and raped by a man, blame their sexual orientation for the rape.”

    If you change that around: Female rape victims may become confused about their sexual orientation or, if lesbian and raped by a man, blame their sexual orientation for the rape.

    So lesbians who are raped by a man become confused and think they’re not lesbian after all? No? Didn’t think so. The second part of that sentence, however, can be true, as in “corrective rape.”

  41. yes, if anyone were to admit that there is such a thing as reproductive harm to women via the penis, meaning unwanted or ambivalent pregnancy and fear of unwanted pregnancy, they would have no choice but to admit that PIV is also harmful to women *in that exact way*, and that the PIV-as-sex paradigm is rooted in misogyny and supports male power at womens expense. so they must deny is in every context, even in the context of rape, although with rape its harder to do with a straight face. the FACT that theres been some discussion (recently) about providing emergency contraception to women who present to hospitals for the treatment of rape-related injuries simultaneously makes this point clear, and seems to have largely flown under the radar, or has failed to spark the most obvious discussion, but that is evidence of willful ignorance, nothing more. the connection is there to be made, and it really couldnt be more obvious. PIV and rape cause some of the same kinds of harm for women.

    whether someone got punched in the face or suffered facial injuries in a car accident, noone would ever deny that that person was harmed in both contexts. and they wouldnt say that one was a facial trauma but the other wasnt, just bc one was caused during a “consensual” basketball game, and the other during a robbery. but they deny, deny, deny it when it comes to the female-specific harms of the penis. god forbid anyone have to give up their precious sexxxay! no, no matter what the benefits to women, if it comes at the cost of PIV, the cost is just too high.

  42. twisty of IBTP posted a link to this article on her FB page. unsurprisingly, the VERY FIRST comment on the link was someone chastising her for reading here due to our alleged transphobia. will women ever, ever ever come first? no? i didnt think so.

    at any rate, thanks for the linkage twisty. im glad you were able to hold your nose long enough to post it. that means something.

  43. women *arent even allowed to read here* bc trans-criticism happens here. *other women* will attempt to humiliate, shame, and rehabilitate women who read here, no matter how good our work is, no matter HOW MUCH IT HELPS WOMEN, and no matter how valid our tran-criticism is too. because TRANSPHOBIA. that is fucking infuriating, is what that is. its really fucking is.

  44. The whole “it’s worse for men” hyperbole is based on homophobia, which is based on Bible admonitions against homosexuality. Bible admonitions against homosexuality (which are only aimed at men) is based on misogyny.

    Per the culture of the time, men were not supposed to penetrate other men because they were lowering the penetrated male to the class of being female. Being female was so depised the men rose every morning and praised God for not making them female.

    Their entire sexual culture was based on enslaving women for the purpose of raping them for a lifetime. Major passages in the Old Testament are devoted to “God” telling them to go to neighboring villages and murderering everyone except the virgin girls (read preteen since girls were married off at menarche). The virgin girls were their spoils of war who they brought home and serially raped for the rest of their lives, which was called “marriage.” Even dear old Moses, the savior of the Jews, was quoted giving these instructions. In fact, he was angry at his soldiers for bringing home adult women to rape and ordered them all slain immediately — but added they could keep the little girls to rape.

    Is it any wonder why the religious are still into raping women and children? Or that is it still a worse “sin” for two consenting men to engage in sex with each other than for a man to rape a woman? As long as religions exist that endorse the misogyny of the Torah, aka the Old Testament, misogyny will be the law and culture of our land.

    It’s appalling to see the NYT so openly endorsing this culture of sexual slavery for women. It’s great to see the Rad Fem Hub taking on the NYT for endorsing violent sexual misogyny. Isn’t it astounding that the NYT can so blithely assume their articles are not sexist and indeed are sympathetically non-sexist because they are so generously discussing how men are harmed by being lowered into women’s reality?

  45. It’s sad, really. But this is one the ways patriarchy prevents women from accessing radfeminism. What’s not easier than putting a taboo on reading it and shaming women who do?

    Make women believe men can be women, then make these women believe that being a radfem is discriminating against these men who dress as their misogynistic fantasy of women. And chastise any women who doesn’t comply to these men’s demands. There’s your taboo to radfeminism, tadaaa! So women aren’t allowed to read any radfem blog or article anymore. Perfectly rounded MANipulation!!

  46. yes, transphobia and sex-negativity pretty much shore that up dont they? and who benefits from trans-inclusion and PIV-positivism, while simultaneously having nothing to gain from from feminism, or radical feminism. cause its the same people. ie. MEN. this should not keep women from reading radical feminists, but it does, and this is deliberate.

  47. Rape is worse for men because to feel like a woman is an unutterable humiliation. That’s a good part of it, anyway.

  48. as an update, twistys link appears to be “no longer available”…

  49. Radfems, y’all are awesome! But it bothers me that a relatively small issue like transphobia/ transphil could drive a wedge between this site and Twisty’s. I read both, and am dismayed that anyone could be chastised for reading one or the other. I’m afraid that this is the reason the Revolution will never happen – because we are too easily divided and conquered. We need to put aside small differences, and join arms because we are all against misogyny. I don’t know whether men benefit from trans-inclusion. I only know that the misogynists and the patriarchy benefit when we radfems get angry at each other and fail to see the big picture. Some time ago, commenters at Twisty’s said we should give women the benefit of the doubt, because usually people don’t. I agree, and think we should especially give other radfems the benefit of the doubt, and cut each other plenty of slack.

  50. cathy, i agree that women need to find some kind of solidarity with one another as we attack the proper target: the patriarchy, including men, male privilege, and misogyny.

    however, not everyone who calls themselves radical feminists, really are. and trans ideology and its foundations, implications and manifestations are NOT a small issue, for women and feminists. not by a long shot.

  51. seriously. and its a shameless false equivalency you make between women shaming other women for even reading here, and radfems criticizing twisty for her own inconsistencies and intellectual dishonesty around trans discourse in particular.

    its total bullshit in fact.

  52. This whole issue of rape “lowering” men and hurting them “worse” than women sort of mirrors the argument of the rich- “It’ll hurt us more if we have to give up our money ecause, well, you dont have money and we do, so we have more to lose!! yeah, that’s it!!”

  53. Cathy, I’m sorry but there is no slack to be cut. These feminist are not radfem on this issue. Theirs is a 100% libfem political philosophy – and I usually cut more slack for honest sincere libfems than I do for the pretenders. I don’t see their problem to be honest – there is no shame in being libfem, as just like most political groups feminism also has a range of “factions”. On some things libfems and radfems are strongly allied… on other issues, we are in political opposition. Trans ideology is one of them.

    Nothing personal, just politics.

    Indeed Cathy, you have stated the standard libfem philosophy yourself:
    “relatively small issue”
    also known as “Transgenderism isn’t hurting anyone.”
    also known as ” only matters to lesbians..”

    Personally, I don’t find the religious right much threat to *me* personally – because of where I live on this mudball, more than anything else. Politically however, as a global planet-wide misogynist ideology and set of widely-held belief systems, I find religion politically threatening to all women-as-a-class, and one of many (many) tools of patriarchy to control and oppress women-as-a-class. Politically, I see religion as violent to women both individually and collectively, socially and politically. Its a total mind-fuck for women caught up in it. Similarly with transgenderism.

    I also see transgenderism supported by powerful (and patriarchal) medical, educational, secular governments, and multi-national corporate institutions. I see children encouraged (and increasingly, and alarmingly, supported by law courts, schools and medical establishments) to undertake dangerous risky ‘treatments’ for a condition that has never had a scientific basis. Its up there with bloodletting, lobotomies and religious ceremonial exorcism and speaking-in-tongues. I see beautiful lesbians hurt deeply by transitioning, physically as well as culturally in destroying wider lesbian communities. I’ve seen women hurt deeply by their experiences of male partner’s transitioning. I see laws changing to take women’s hard-won “rights” away because of transgenderism’s beliefs being adopted by main(male)stream governments ( eg UK’s Gender Recognition Act 2004). I’ve seen trans-regretters and trans-resistors go through hell, physically, emotionally, socially and politically because they are violently silenced by the happy conforming compliant trans-positives. Like rape victims, they are told it was a “one-off”, a rare unfortunate ‘mistake’ – all their own *personal* fault or just plain *bad luck*. Trans-positives are similar to the happy BDSMer, the funfem sex-pozzies, the Happy Hooker etc etc – anyone who has the audacity to criticise their ‘choice’ – even on the most abstract, conceptual, non-personal level, is treated violently.

    Then there is the harm done to the individuals caught up in it as victims of the industry, even when they don’t see themselves as victims of patriarchy. Plenty of prostituted women (and men) see themselves as ‘liberated’. Women-as-a-class are world-famous for self-destructive, self-harming behaviours, including ritualised FGM and foot-tortures. Such statistics are often used by patriarchy to “prove” that women are just “naturally” masochistic. Women cutting themselves, starving themselves, undergoing risky cosmetic surgeries on perfectly healthy bodies etc (list is endless). Radfeminism doesn’t support self-hating, self-harming, self-destructive, BDSM behaviours for anybody, let alone encourage it.

    I have seen high-profile medical researchers critical of the pro-trans data, have their own research defunded, their papers and books withdrawn from publication, blacklisted from speaking at professional conferences (even when not speaking about trans, but on completely unrelated topics) and their careers ruined by trans-activists. Seems the transgender industry – like the porn/pros industry – will not tolerate dissent.

    I’ve seen highly politicised trans-activists use their male privilege to destroy public women’s gatherings (social or political), pressuring organisers of international feminist conferences, (more recently extended to include student organisations and labour/union activism), use their male privilege to have women’s DV refuges, sexual assault services and health centres defunded and/or shut down for trivial reasons, and having films banned and censored.
    Damn powerful lobby-groups.

    And It goes way, (way), way beyond women-only spaces!!!

    The argument may have started in lesbian and women-only spaces, (like the phenomenon of the ‘canary-in-the-coalmine’), but it certainly hasn’t stopped there!

    As for women-only spaces… *sheesh* there were never that many to begin with!!! Some of these are for socialising, such as Michfest, others are for female-specific health services, others are for political organising. But these are very, very few, as most brands of feminism, services and events, do include M2t’s and even men and/or open to the public.

    It would seem, that even one such space, is always one too many to ask for?
    (since we have no ‘humanity’, we have no ‘human rights’)

    If a group, for example people who identify with a particular cultural identity on grounds of religion, race or even common hobby like photography, wanted to hold a meeting, and politely, respectfully asked non-‘whatever-it-is’ people, to not attend – most reasonable people would not be offended by that request.

    And even if they were offended at being excluded, I suspect they wouldn’t then call the national media, their lawyers, and hold public protests over claims of discrimination and human rights violations.

    Classic male-supremacist political strategy.

    This is not a “minor issue..”

    Transgenderism, operates not only like a patriarchal religion with its foundation based on magical fantasy myths and lies about what men and women are, and are not – but also operates like the patriarchal sex industry and the related beauty industry. Transgenderism may be a more recent invention of patriarchal industry, but just like the sex and beauty industries, is profoundly misogynistic, patriarchal, anti-woman and anti-feminist.

    Another clue, is in researching politicised trans folks views on other issues of interest to feminism, and to radical feminism in particular. Why are so many pro- pros/porn? Why are so many supportive of the sex trades?

    Why are they so intent on attacking radfems? Why aren’t they attacking patriarchy?

    Nothing personal, just politics Cathy.

    I will not support liberal feminism enabling patriarchy in any of its forms, from religion to fun-feminism to transgenderism, just because a handful of women on the internet keep saying they are radfem, when they are clearly not.

  54. FCM, the link no longer appears because an MRA reported Twisty’s sight for using a false name and even though the account was a year old facebook took it down. She has since removed her other sights because further investment in such a platform would seem futile.

    Though I agree with much of Rains take on transgender, I think Cathy is correct in her view that feminists must unite around areas of agreement rather than fragment because of areas of disagreement. Twisty is a wonderful writer, and radical on most feminist issues.

  55. zeph, thanks for the background info. good to be reminded that all feminists are attacked by men all the time, whether we capitulate or not, and no matter how radical we are or how far we go.

    i will also reiterate my point that there is a vast difference between shaming women for even reading here, and being critical of twisty’s intellectual dishonesty and obvious inconsistencies and disconnects over trans discourse in particular. if anyone stopped reading twisty after that, it was bc she revealed herself not to be a radical feminist. if anyone doesnt read here because of our alleged transphobia, is not bc we have revealed to our readers that our arguments are invalid and unsupportable by the facts, and that we consider that to be not a big deal (as was the case with twisty, and those who stopped reading her); its bc we have revealed to our readers that we are “mean” which is not even objectively definable. its just a bullshit excuse to dismiss radicalism NOT on its merits. its not the same thing, and there is no equivalence there, and we should stop pretending otherwise.

  56. No human has ever existed who does not display intellectual inconsistencies and disconnects, there are no perfect people! The quest for the perfect radfem is like the quest for perfect feminine beauty, bogus, tortuous, self defeating, and ultimately subject to individual opinion. Facts are often just opinion based on the available evidence and because people conclude different things from that evidence, subject to change. Scientific fact is always changing and modifying as new evidence becomes available, the process itself is important.

    No movement is successful that ignores the emotional component in human interactions, “objectively definable” will only get you so far with the people you are attempting to enlighten, and will send a lot of them to sleep. Feminism ultimately has to be about the liberation of women and we can only achieve that liberation through consensus. Because as individuals we have very little power, we have to work across our differences.

  57. well, not being overly critical of women (when so many of mens shortcomings are never called out, for example) is a good reason not to shame women for reading other women. but that is NOT a good reason IMO to let things slide when they clearly dont make any sense. isnt that what rain means when she says nothing personal, just politics? as far as consensus goes, there could just as easily be a “consensus” that we dont let personal feelings masquerade as solid arguments, as the other way around (where you seem to be suggesting that we could or *should* all just agree to do the opposite, or to not care, or to not discuss it when others go off the rails). and getting together in real life as an activist group, where you have to tolerate each other for a finite period of time while you work to achieve a concrete goal, might be different than what we are doing here online, which is exposing people to radical thought, and moving discussions forward. its just a thought. there has to be a time and a place for intellectual honesty, and being contemplative, doesnt there? you seem to be suggesting that theres not.

  58. and WRT the trans issue specifically, we are taking about straight-up male privilege, and institutionalized misogyny. saying or implying that vaginas (and by extension, women) are just fuckholes for men to penetrate for example, is straight up fucking misogyny. and then 5 minutes later they have evolved their “argument” (really just a misogynist assertion) to include “a woman is anyone who feels like one.” meaning that “woman” is equivalent to “a feeling that men can have.” we are reduced to less than a vapor. we are a thought in mens minds. that is straight up fucking misogyny.

    and it bears repeating, doesnt it, that we are NOT the ones shaming women for reading other women. this entire conversation was initiated by my commenting on one of twistys readers attempting to shame twisty for reading radfem HUB. i am glad that twisty didnt fall for it, although she chose to distance herself from “the radfem bus” in response to the attempted shaming. as far as i know, noone has ever tried to shame anyone else for reading twisty.

  59. we can only achieve that liberation through consensus.

    zeph, could you expound on this?

  60. Consensus doesn’t happen, and won’t happen. Accretions of female energy and female humans will happen. Those who wish to hang back with the males will do so. The net result will be the removal of a significant measure of female energy from the male. This will contribute to the survival of some life forms and habitats on this planet.

  61. A stray commenter tried to imply that others should not read here, no one else. Usually, linking to a post is interpreted as encouraging people to read.

  62. @Zeph: “Facts are often just opinion based on the available evidence and because people conclude different things from that evidence”

    Well, no. Facts are verifiable, material, and evident. Opinions may be based on facts or feelings or preferences or experiences or any of dozens of other things or on nothing at all. People may conclude different things from evidence, but if they want to convince anyone else of their conclusions, people must show how the conclusions and the evidence cohere with each other in knowable and consistent ways. To come up with that, one conducts analysis and ideally can show the entire process and outcome of that analysis so that others can see where the reasoning was flowing from and to.

    That would be the only way of coming up with meaningful consensus: Everyone being able to see that there is a clear trail from a theory or idea, on through looking at evidence (in the form of facts) that the theory could be true (or not), determination of factors that make it true (or not), developing a refined concept of the theory, and iterate until a decision is made. That’s how radical feminism has been able to create consensus opinion about prostitution, pornography, and gender. It’s not raw opinion based on feelings and personal experiences.

  63. That would be the only way of coming up with meaningful consensus: Everyone being able to see that there is a clear trail from a theory or idea, on through looking at evidence (in the form of facts) that the theory could be true (or not), determination of factors that make it true (or not), developing a refined concept of the theory, and iterate until a decision is made. That’s how radical feminism has been able to create consensus opinion about prostitution, pornography, and gender. It’s not raw opinion based on feelings and personal experiences.

    YES! thank you for that. this is the ONLY way i can fathom consensus ever happening, bc no 2 people are ever going to FEEL in that special snowflake way, the same. its just not going to happen, or it could be a temporary alliance that then changes on a dime. like falling in love, i guess. but if we think that consensus is so important, we need our conclusions to follow our premises in a logical way, and we need to show that our premises are true too, bc thats the only way we are going to all arrive in the same place. through reason. trans criticism is exactly like PIV criticism, and its exactly like anti-porn and anti-prostitution in that way. radical feminists are in consensus on these issues, and there are actual reasons for that.

    “consensus” thats based on anything else is essentially just nepotism isnt it? is that where we want to be? i think there might be a time and place for that, but we should call nepotism what it is, if thats what we are talking about.

  64. honestly, saying that womens liberation will not happen without “consensus” scares the living shit out of me, unless we mean it the way noan means it: a reasoned result that is shared bc its demonstrably true. consensus other than that type is extremely difficult to come by. we almost may as well give up now, because things just do not get done by consensus decisionmaking. anyone who has attempted a group project knows how hard it is to work this way, and many projects have failed (or were never even begun) bc it was found to be impossible to move past the negotiating and planning stages by consensus. some have probably been successful at it, but sheesh. saying that womens liberation is impossible without emotion-based consensus just sounds pretty hopeless to me.

  65. “.we can only achieve that liberation through consensus”.

    I don’t agree zeph. I don’t think consensus is achievable with women, or if it was – it would always land on compromise and conciliation with a ‘majority rules’ approach.

    Solidarity works both ways, where is the solidarity being shown by feminists who attack us, and/or shame other women into not reading trans-critical feminist sites? Where is the solidarity being shown by insisting it is a minor issue with the implication that it is *us* who are the ones at fault, for causing ‘divisiveness’ in feminism over ‘trivialities’?
    Who is causing divisiveness over critcising other feminists ‘tone’ and ‘language’? (To me, that is a much bigger “tiviality”) If we put trans-criticism aside, and let public woman-shaming go, and refuse to call it out — all for the sake of ‘solidarity’, how much else do we compromise of our politics before radical feminism becomes yet another liberal feminism?

  66. A few years ago it was a fact, based on DNA and other evidence, that all humans were modern with no admixes; except that there was always a scientific contingent who did not accept this fact. Now there are more sophisticated techniques for testing DNA and they have found that many of us have a small percentage of Neanderthal and Denisovan in our genome. There are numerous examples of these readjustments in science.
    Facts can and do sometimes change, but the process of accumulating and assessing evidence is the best one we have for forming and objective understanding of our world. However it is not an either or situation and the idea that emotion is raw instead of being a hugely complex set of responses to our environment, is flawed. Emotion carries our history and informs our requirements, intellect adjusts our expectations and responses to the realities of here and now, the two systems work in conjunction with one another.

    Radical feminism is diverse there has never been an exact agreement on all issues and there never will be. While good theory is essential, you have to agree to differ in some areas and get on with the tasks at hand, because we require numbers to be powerful. The suffragette motto was “Deeds Not Words”.

  67. zeph thats very interesting, but i dont know what you are responding to. noone ever said that emotions arent valuable, or that they arent complex, or in any way suggested that things arent as you say they are WRT emotion. you seem to be telling a bunch of women that theres no such thing as intuition, when we all know better. those of us who have blogs can almost always tell which of our commenters are women and which are men (and which are men trying to pretend to be women) without seeing or hearing them, and its not bc we are psychic. its bc of feeling you get when you read their words. but i dont know why we are talking about that in this context. maybe you can explain how that is relevant to this discussion of consensus and womens liberation? and what you meant when you said that consensus is required, and what that is supposed to look like?

  68. “solidarity works both ways, where is the solidarity being shown by feminists who attack us, and/or shame other women into not reading trans-critical feminist sites? Where is the solidarity being shown by insisting it is a minor issue with the implication that it is *us* who are the ones at fault, for causing ‘divisiveness’ in feminism over ‘trivialities’?”

    No one said trivialities, I think what was meant was that it was one important issue among many. Also, as I said above, it was a stray commenter who tried to imply that others should not read us, no one else.

    I agree all your points I think they are vital, but is it trans people themselves that we really have a problem with? Or is it the damaging activism that some of their number undertake, such as advocating medical interventions on children?

    Anyway, I am going to get some sleep now.

  69. * sorry, i meant to say that you seem to think that *i* am saying theres no such thing as intuition, but thats not what i am saying at all. i know there is. and i know that emotions are valuable. i am saying, i guess, that emotions are no basis for consensus, bc they are special snowflakey (and just plain flakey). consensus requires more, unless you are also willing to say that a mass delusion is a form of consensus? well, if it is, what good is it? its another matter entirely if you can back up your “feelings” with an actual argument. many women, regardless of their political beliefs, get skeeved out at the thought of adult men around children for example, or of men in the womens locker room or bathroom. this is NOT merely “raw” emotion, it prefectly reasoned and reasonable, and we all know the reasons behind it. the emotion *can be* a short cut to the right conclusion, but it isnt always, and in any event, its not a reasoned analysis. many times you can get there both ways, but not always.

  70. in fact, i think the definition of “prejudice” is basically an emotional response that you cant back up with objective evidence. in the case of women “feeling” truly, madly and deeply that men who say they are women really are women, or that women who “feel like men” are really men, i would say thats a case of prejudice, specifically, of internalized misogyny.

  71. Zeph wrote: No human has ever existed who does not display intellectual inconsistencies and disconnects, there are no perfect people! The quest for the perfect radfem is like the quest for perfect feminine beauty, bogus, tortuous, self defeating, and ultimately subject to individual opinion.

    I don’t think FCM was doing anything of the kind (in this instance).

    FCM wrote: “well, not being overly critical of women …. is a good reason not to shame women for reading other women – but that is NOT a good reason IMO to let things slide when they clearly dont make any sense. isnt that what rain means when she says nothing personal, just politics? “

    Yes, it is close enough to what I mean. There is a limit to supporting other feminists just for the sake of maintaining peace and solidarity with other women. (Especially when that solidarity is so rarely returned-in-kind). Yes, maintaining solidarity is a good thing, yes, it is very important –and I think the Hub has maintained it under difficult circumstances at times.

    The implication that I’m reading from some comments here, is that firstly – we haven’t been doing anything at all to maintain solidarity with other feminists – and secondly, not only is it our fault for causing such divisiveness among feminists over the trans issue, it is also our responsibility to compromise on our political position on the issue, for the sake of maintaining feminist solidarity.

    Radical feminism is diverse there has never been an exact agreement on all issues and there never will be. While good theory is essential, you have to agree to differ in some areas and get on with the tasks at hand, because we require numbers to be powerful.

    Absolutely 100% agree with you 🙂 It is diverse and I hope it continues that way. Agreeing to differ in some things and get on with the tasks at hand – no problem with that at all.

    To a degree. Choose your battles. There is certainly plenty to go around, plenty of ‘diversity’ in choosing which feminist battles to put your gynergy into. And – to maintain solidarity, ‘Don’t attack other feminists for choosing different battles to yourself’, would be an excellent motto to follow too.

    And zeph yes, someone did talk about trivialities. Its what made me respond to this thread in the first place. I saw this:

    “But it bothers me that a relatively small issue like transphobia/ transphil could drive a wedge between this site and Twisty’s……. We need to put aside small differences , and join arms because we are all against misogyny.”

    Just *which* feminists are being asked to “put aside small differences” ? Which feminists are attacking which other feminists over the issue? Who is driving “the wedge”? And who is being asked to “put it aside” for the sake of peace between feminists? I fully understand the concerns about Divide-and-Conquer. But it is not us radfems doing the Dividing.

    Unfortunately, as much as I might wish otherwise, it is NOT a “small issue”. It is a major serious feminist POLITICAL issue, and accordingly, it has also become a POLITICAL disagreement between feminist political factions. Thats what I meant by “Nothing Personal, Just Politics”.

    It is NOT a handful of radfems having a *personal* gripe with trans-folks, and using nasty language making all radfems “look bad”. Its a major radfem political issue, and has been for over 40 years. Some of us cannot “put it aside” simply for the sake of harmony with other feminists (which is a favour rarely returned anyway), no matter how worthy and desireable a goal that solidarity and harmony is.

    “…but is it trans people themselves that we really have a problem with? Or is it the damaging activism that some of their number undertake, such as advocating medical interventions on children?…”

    This reminds me of the ‘not-my-[trans]-Nigelling’ —- that I have been seeing a lot of lately. Making exceptions. Its much the same anti-feminist argument used about men-in-general. “Not all men are like that!” *roll-eyes* then we hear all about the ‘Nice Guys’ (TM) who aren’t like those other *bad apples* . Now its happening with trans –most of them are “not like that”, most are no real threat, most of them are nice, shy, quiet, and non-threatening, just wanting to live their lives under the radar. Just a few “bad apples” /end snark.

    Now where I have heard that before?

  72. Why don’t trans women put aside their small issue of being obsessed with pretending they’re women so that we feminists can finally all get along?
    Trans women get on my nerves the way they divide feminists like this. I wish they’d leave us alone.

  73. Now that I’ve put my foot in my mouth by commenting before I understand something:

    I am sorry I referred to the trans thing as a “small issue.” I believe I have been schooled – thank you rainsinger and cherryblossomlife. I was really unaware of the extent because I don’t personally know anyone who is trans. I just know Chastity Bono was a misogynist asshole who really needed to become a man so the self-loathing could stop. Before trans surgery, I imagine more people committed suicide. Does anyone know how many trans people exist? I had thought it to be “progressive” to be supportive of the GLBT community.

    I also felt a need to defend Twisty because I really admire her. The trans-inclusiveness seems to be an extension of compassion for people who usually get shit on (and I had no idea transwomen had some agenda before you filled me in – perhaps it is indeed the transwomen who are driving the wedge between us). And I really don’t get the charge of her “intellectual dishonesty.” I don’t see it. I have no problem with funfem bashing, since they are truly making the problems much worse, and are the opposite of feminists. But Twisty bashing?

    To answer your question, rainsinger, ‘Which feminists are attacking which other feminists over the issue? Who is driving “the wedge”? ‘ I had the impression that Twisty was not doing the attacking – one of her commenters attacked her for reading this site. I agree that it was idiotic to scold her for reading another radfem site. Commenters there have complained when IPTP didn’t seem to fully be “a safe place” for transes. But readers here seem to interpret that as Twisty herself attacking this site, and I don’t think she did. I think it’s fine to argue and discuss differences in opinion (especially since I’ve learned so much this way), but to get angry at each other is counterproductive. I hadn’t meant to open such a big can of worms with my comment. I just thought that the topic of this post, the NYT being a misogynist rag about rape, was so huge that all reasonable feminists (which I sarcastically refer to as “feminazis”) could get behind it. I can’t even discuss my disgust for the NYT with my so-called progressive friends.

  74. and yes, i think part of the problem *is* that people arent willing to give radfems the benefit of the doubt (thats reserved for men always) *and* people are commenting on things and forming opinions on things that they arent even close to understanding. because they havent done the work required to understand it, which means researching and reading what radfems have been saying about trans ideology for decades, and thinking through these issues to their logical ends. the problem *is* arrogance of young people (in general, but not exclusively young people) thinking they know everything when they dont, and plain laziness, and anti-radical-feminist bias, and anti-woman bias and pro-man bias. im so sick of all of it, i really am.

    and rain, i appreciate what you are saying about solidarity being a two-way street. it absolutely is, and there is absolutely no goodwill from ANY WOMEN (and no men either) shown toward radical feminists. none. the quality and liberatory nature of our work notwithstanding. we absolutely blame and are unapologetic about it, and that is absolutely not worthy of goodwill from anyone. gee, i wonder why?

  75. As a radfem, it makes no sense at all to make an alliance with someone who defends the opposite of what you’re fighting against, that is, male privilege. And doing so will never, ever be consensual, cause I’m going to have to be the one capitulating for the benefit of men’s privilege. Men win, I lose, women lose. Capitulation is the opposite of consensus, it’s conquering the weaker ones, where I’m forced by the dominant group to shut up ‘to keep peace” – whose peace is kept here? Not mine, certainly not, nor women’s in general. Only men’s peace is kept. Real consensus is an alliance based on shared observations and conclusions – otherwise there’s no way you can move forward. I’ve tried one million times to organise stuff with libfems, but there’s no way we could get anywhere because they refused to stop defending men’s interests on certain issues. We couldn’t agree on how we should act because we didn’t have the same observations and conclusions of how things worked.

    There’s absolutely nothing individual here. It’s not about having a personal grudge against some women, or that we should all be friends and hold hands. It’s that there are political choices to be made on the basis of who benefits from what, objectively speaking. I disagree that radical feminism is diverse, this is always what libfems or men say to justify defending men’s interests at the expense of women. I here this all the time. There’s no diversity in defending male interests, there are simply more women being raped, killed, exploited, prostituted, and more men being excused for it. While radical feminists may be individually diverse, have different takes on different subjects, specialise on different topics, the theory in itself is pretty clear-cut and straightforward. There are basic objective facts and conclusions that can’t be altered.

    Funnily enough, it’s mostly “libfem” issues that radfems are asked to close their eyes on “for the sake of peace”, not fascist, right-wing or conservative issues. Would we even think twice if we were asked to team up with right-wing “anti-abortion “feminists” (scare quotes everywhere)? I don’t think so. It propably wouldn’t even be suggested on this board. Why? I see it as the “liberal dude androcentric syndrome”. It so happens that the only thing liberal men are able to recognise as “evil” to women is what conservative men do to women. And it so happens that the only thing libfems are able to agree on attacking are the issues liberal men see as “threat”: ie (some) conservative issues. And they happen to find liberating all the things we’re criticising here: prostitution, porn, BDSM, transism, etc. Anyway, what I mean by all this blabla is that asking us to team up with “pro trans feminists” is like asking us to team with “proprostitution feminists” or “antiabortion feminists” or pro “houseslave feminists”. Letting these ideas come under a radfem umbrella will not do women any service at all.

  76. good point about being forced to “come together” in solidarity with liberal feminists in exactly the way thats needed to support liberal mens interests, and their super-special brand of defining and exploiting women. absolutely. of course, radical feminists can find common ground will all women, thats the entire point of what we do, because all women are exploited under patriarchy as women, and we have shared experiences and a shared reality over that. but the fun-fems refuse to recognize class:female, which precludes their (NOT OUR) coming together with all women as a sexual class, around the world, regardless of associations with mens political parties and male-centric politicking. liberal women are loyal to liberal men above all. the FACT that they regard radical feminists as the enemy on par with conservative MEN is the proof of that.

    and for anyone who needs even more background on these issues, there is more on this page, which has been available on the front page of the HUB since the day we opened:


  77. @Cathy I don’t think anybody here was giving Twisty a hard time, over the ‘random commenter’ on her link, and FCM even thanked her for the linkage – but mentioned her intellectual dishonesty on this particular issue as it has been a long-running theme on her blog. Besides which, Twisty didn’t take issue with commenters “shaming other women”, but confirmed that is where she gets off the “radfem bus”. But for further background information, several feminist sites (including some who purport to be radfem) have black-banned linking to this site on ANY issue at all, banned individual radfems who hold a trans-critical view, write posts about us being ‘mean’ and bigoted (as if its the crime-of-the-century, giving radfems a “bad name”, so they label us as something ‘other’ than radfem), and publicly discourage their readers from this site. When it comes to ‘cutting slack’, we are the ones who are not being cut any slack from other feminists.

    For me? Usually, I’m so over it – but seeing the ‘small issue’ argument on *here* made me respond.

    Why don’t trans women put aside their small issue of being obsessed with pretending they’re women so that we feminists can finally all get along?
    Trans women get on my nerves the way they divide feminists like this. I wish they’d leave us alone.

    (and I had no idea transwomen had some agenda before you filled me in – perhaps it is indeed the transwomen who are driving the wedge between us

    Yay! *smooch* Cathy *huggles* – NOW, you’re *getting it* !!!

  78. Just linked to this post @ Feministing… if they even post my comment, that is. :/

    After reading through a few pages, I remember why I don’t read it anymore. Some SEERIOUS cluelessness going on over there.

  79. Why this person even felt the need to make a pissing contest out of it is beyond me.

    Why not just accept that rape is a fucking horrible crime and leave it at that?

    But no…someone actually felt the need to turn it into a ‘men have it worse than women’ fest. VOMIT.

  80. Well, the fact is that women DO have it worse than men, in EVERY way. That’s a fact, and there is no “pissing contest” (what a very MALE concept that is- ew) involved. Women don’t DO pissing contests. Men do. They ALWAYS have to be the center of attention- or, MANtrums and VIOLENCE will ensue.

  81. Yes YQ – men always win pissing contests! So they like to trot out statistics about men being victims of violence more than women, while conveniently failing to note who is committing that violence. And in the rare case of a woman committing violence against a man, they amplify it out of proportion to exaggerate the horrendousness of the crime cuz that’s WEIRD!! Men being violent against women, well that’s normal, of course she asked for it.

  82. Men dont’ always win pissing contests- not all penises are big, some havs tons of foreskin that need to be pulled way back like a woman’s labia, many women are able to pee better standng up than some men. Get the myths out of ya head!

  83. Oh, I know… lol. I pee outside a lot (I always have) and I can do it standing up. In the winter, I take a ‘device’ around with me, so I don’t have to drop my pants. 🙂

    It’s the CONTEST part I was really emphasizing. ALWAYS one-upping, and ALWAYS trying to be the most-important, center-of-attention d00d.

    I have just linked the HELL out of this and the Anorexia is Worse For Men post from RadFem World News on an MSNBC article. Hopefully lots of people will read it and freak out. And maybe open their eyes. One can hope.

  84. No, you don’t need a device even with clothes on. You can do it through the fly, trust me. Any woman can, many men can’t! You think a small penis has it any easier than you in that department? Not all men can do it without taking down their pants.

  85. Really? Hmmm, maybe I’ll have to practice without… there is nothing like a rapidly freezing-solid line of pee down ones’ jeans during a Wisconsin winter to make one hesitant. There should be a workshop about this! I’d go. 😀


%d bloggers like this: