Sadly, I dug all the way to Margaret Thatcher, who is in hell, and this doesn't seem to be satire.

Sadly, I dug all the way to Margaret Thatcher, who is in hell, and this doesn’t seem to be satire.

Friends, I’m a feminist, and have been one for over a decade.

Yes, I’m a dude, we’ve been over this.

And I am constantly confronted by people who don’t know what feminism is, but have strong opinions about it.

I’m sure you know the type. There the ones who think that feminism is an attempt by women to dominate men, that there is no need for feminism because women and men are now treated equally and so on.

One of the things that this ignorant group often says is that feminists, as a group, hold beliefs that are just crazy.

Those of us who read up on feminist issues know that this isn’t true. But the fact is that in every social movement there will always be a certain number of people who are just plain nuts, and feminism is no exception.

In feminism they make up a small percentage, but they’re still there.

So today, in the interests of fairness, I’m going to discuss a post by a self-identified feminist that is just plain, downright, indefensibly, irredeemably, craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazy.

The page is called ‘Radical Wind’ so I shall call her ‘RW’ for simplicity’s sake.

RW is arguing that heterosexual intercourse is always rape.

Even a hyperintelligent futuredog thinks you be cray-cray!

Even a hyperintelligent futuredog thinks you be cray-cray!

Yup, not kidding.

She is arguing that heterosex is always rape, even if both partners consent. If a penis enters a vagina, then that’s rape, end of story.

And the reasons she gives are poorly thought out, self-contradictory, and irrational.

Sometimes all three.

But it is far too easy to jump up and start swearing. So I’m going to go through just a few of the more obvious reasons why this point of view is silly.

1. Male rape?
The first obvious problem with with claiming that Penis In Vagina sex (or “PIV”) is always rape is because it doesn’t deal with cases of women raping men.

It should go without saying, but I’m going to say it anyway in case some MRAs get lost and end up here, that cases of women raping men are so rare that calling attention to them is almost always a waste of time.

It is sadly true that many men are subjected to sexual abuse. But in those cases the perpetrator is almost always another man.

But the few examples of women raping men illustrate a fundamental flaw in RW’s reasoning.

Because by her logic if a woman drugs a man, ties him up, puts a gun to his head, forces him to take viagra and then rides his manpole for her own gratification, then what is “really” happening here is that the man is raping the woman.

What if it's Hitler, huh? Is it still rape then, Godwin? Well is it??

What if it’s Hitler, huh? Is it still rape then, Godwin? Well is it?? #Hitlerwasafeminazi

2. Which power?
This leads straight onto the second problem which is that this point of view only makes sense if you believe that the woman in the above example has no power, but the man does.

Now, it is of course true that in society men have almost all of the power.

But there are lots of different kinds of power and lots of different ways that power manifests itself.

Even though that fictional man lives in a society in which he has lots of power does not mean that he currently has lots of power. Power at the social level does not always mean power at the individual level.

Let’s call these two levels of power ‘chronic’ and ‘acute’.

Even though the man’s chronic power is unaffected by what is happening (when he finally gets out of there he will still get paid more for doing the same work his rapist does, he will still get more respect, and have a greater ability to make himself heard in society, and so on) his acute power went straight out of the window as soon she pulled a gun.

In fact let’s just abandon the rape example and talk about BDSM.

If a dominatrix ties her sub up and rides to victory on his wang, is he raping her? What if he’s a prostitute that she is paying for sex and he has to do whatever she wants him to?

Is that still rape?

RW would say yes.
3. Consensual Nonconsent.

The biggest problem here is a two-parter and it’s all about consent versus non-consent. Rape is, by definition, non-consensual. I think we can all agree on that.

But that leaves RW in a spot where she is claiming that even if a woman consents it’s still rape. So even if a women consents she hasnt’ actually consented.

The first reason why this is silly is because it is, as a matter of brute logic, completely irrational.

You can’t say that something is both consensual and non-consensual.

However, it is possible that I am over-simplifying RW’s argument and that she is actually arguing that because the power in society is so skewed against women that women have no genuine ability to consent at all.

This is worth discussing, but it falls down for the second part of my two-parter: by claiming this RW is oppressing women.

Or maybe just a smidgen of critical thinking.

Or maybe just a smidgen of critical thinking.

Once again, I’m being completely serious.

You see friends what RW is arguing is that a woman could walk up to her and say:
“I love cock. I just loves me some heterosex. Can’t get enough of it, and I openly and willingly choose to have it.”

And then RW would say:
“That’s rape. You shouldn’t be having it.”

By doing so RW isn’t just criticising a cultural practice. She isn’t just making a comment about what one should or shouldn’t do.

She is assuming a position of power over that woman.

She is claiming, from her high horse, safe in her ivory tower, with her nose in the air, that she has the right to decide how other people should express their sexuality.

And at this point the person who has internalised patriarchy, the person who is using their power to restrict other people’s agency, the person who is using sex to oppress women is not men, or society as a whole.

It’s ‘Radical Wind’ herself.

Because she is the only one in this example who is daring to presume that they are allowed to say who is, or is not, allowed to have sex with whom.

She is taking away other women’s right to have consensual sex.

She is oppressing women.

And the only reason why she isn’t oppressing women nearly as much as society does is because she lacks the power to do so.

But like I said, that woman be cray-cray, and I am very glad that amongst the feminists I know her ideas carry no weight whatsoever.

Once again the day is saved, by mainstream feminism.
This time in the form of a fictional metallic bear.

This on the other hand would definitely be rape.

This on the other hand would definitely be rape.

[Standard Disclaimer: this post was entirely my own opinion and was not paid for in any way, directly or otherwise, by anyone or anything that stands to gain in any way from the ideas expressed herein.]

Related Posts: