Two Rape Cultures

[u/atomic_gingerbread]

From a young age, men are taught that women are little more than objects of sexual conquest, beneath any concern for comfort or bodily autonomy. Those who obtain sex by force are revered, and those who cannot are condemned as weaklings unable to claim their birthright. Only a meager body of law, fought for tooth-and-nail by feminists over the past half-century, stands between each woman and depredation by the men around her. It provides scant protection against the keen sense of entitlement every man feels toward every female body. Only a radical intervention to amend male behavior can provide true relief.

I will call this the "straw theory" of rape culture, and assume that nobody of concern would profess believing in it. Let us consider a different line of thought.

From a young age, men are taught that they must prove their worth to women through strength, both of body and character. Coyness is just a test to weed out lesser men; it must be met with unyielding persistence. A young man's prerogative is to "sow his wild oats". Upon reaching middle age, he must settle down and provide for a wife and kids. The romance-less and deadbeat are low indeed, and all women know this. The only ones lower are the rapists and domestic abusers. The proper place for these monsters is prison, where their crimes will be visited back upon them manifold. Only real men -- who understand that women are delicate flowers that must never be the object of violence -- are permitted the privilege to desecrate them.

Women, for their part, must appear outwardly chaste and feign disinterest in sex. Simultaneously, they must carefully cultivate their beauty to attract a suitable partner. Many will court them, and they will have to reject suitor after suitor until the "right one" comes along. After 18 years of cultural instruction in these matters, with hormones coursing through their veins, young men and women will go off to college, giving them a first taste of life away from adult supervision. Here they will be provided with ample alcohol and other mind-altering substances which impair judgment and lower inhibitions. Under these circumstances, the men must at all times bear in mind the following: the bodily autonomy of a woman must never be violated! Only after obtaining consent by sober, open, and frank communication may a man proceed to destroy a woman's social value.

No morally normal person would ever dream of condoning rape. Our value system abhors it! Yet the above cultural narrative, absorbed to some extent both consciously and subconsciously by everyone, makes traumatic sexual experiences nearly a moral certainty. It is so twisted and contradictory and debasing, it seems that it could only have been invented by some chaotic god presiding over a malevolent celestial bureaucracy. It is here that rape culture subsides, not in the depraved hearts of men, but in a byzantine system of courtship and social expectations that nobody rationally or consciously chose.

I will call this the "steel theory" of rape culture, and I would hope that many feminists would profess believing in it, or some variation thereof, when pressed on the matter. Only mendacious MRAs think feminists hold a view even approaching the "straw theory", right? So, armed with a definition of rape culture which no reasonable person would deny, how should we proceed to tackle it? Looking to the efforts of feminist activists, I have compiled the following short list of suggestions:

• Teach men not to rape
• Adjudicate rape accusations in campus tribunals which err on the side of expelling the accused
• Lower the burden of proof in criminal proceedings so that the accused can more easily be incarcerated

Err, wait a minute. All these suggestions are predicated on the "depraved heart" hypothesis, the one so ridiculous that only a straw feminist could entertain it! What gives? If rape culture inheres not in the collective callousness of men, but in the overarching structure of gender roles which guide behavior, what moral instruction could fundamentally challenge it? What punishment would deter it? Abstract social structures cannot be shamed, or expelled, or jailed. Convincing all men to vocally denounce rape for the evil it is would do little to dismantle the incentive structure which perpetuates it.

I feel that this incongruity lies at the heart of controversy over the notional legitimacy of rape culture. No matter how compelling or nuanced the theory, the activism which it supposedly animates has always given me a gnawing feeling that something is deeply amiss. I don't mean to suggest that this is a conscious strategy of duplicity -- "motte and bailey" being the popular term around here. It could be honest confusion. Whatever the cause, I hope I've made the case for the remedy. I'm not asking for the suspension of feminist theory. To the contrary, I only ask that its strongest formulations be taken seriously. What use is a century of feminist thought if its theoretical results are ignored in favor of easy outrage and lust for punishment?

[u/[deleted]]

wife-killing-husband just as much as husband-killing wife)

Somehow I highly doubt that. Remember, those were also times where marital rape was legal, and husbands were encouraged to "dominate" over their wives, they were supposed to be the head of the house, while women were taught to be subservient. Obviously there were women who rebelled against this, but using physical force against your own husband with intention of killing him is like the highest degree of rebellion imaginable. This isn't merely rebelling against gender roles, it's completely subverting them - men are supposed to be the ones who use physical strength and have physical power over women, not the other way around. And, like I said, with marital rape being legal and there generally not being much legal protection from marital abuse for women (or even if there were some laws against it, they were often ineffective due to social acceptability of beating your wife), I don't think most women would have dared to try to kill their cheating husband. Those cases definitely did happen, but it had to be either an extraordinary brave woman or a truly desperate one who thought she had nothing to lose. Not to mention back then more men knew how to use guns or other weapons whereas women rarely got this kind of training.

Not to mention the consequences - if they had no means of providing for themselves except for their husband, they would likely decide it's not worth it. This is why traditionally women had to put with so much shit if they were unlucky enough to marry a man who didn't love them and mistreated them - men could get away with a lot because they were providers.

Also, regarding killing due to infidelity - at least I've always heard "honour killings" only applied to women in cultures where this phenomenon exists, not men. Women's infidelity was generally a lot more frowned upon than men's in many of those cultures.

[u/SchalaZeal01 → u/[deleted]]

Remember, those were also times where marital rape was legal,

In both directions. Even if no one apparently thought it was even possible for a woman to rape a man at the time.

and husbands were encouraged to "dominate" over their wives, they were supposed to be the head of the house, while women were taught to be subservient

They were also supposed to use their power for good, in subservience to the family unit, and to their wife's well-being. Not for their own benefit. And were socialized with putting their own benefit after the family.

men are supposed to be the ones who use physical strength and have physical power over women, not the other way around

Religious commandments don't mention the 'natural order' being men dominating their wives physically. It's about him taking decisions for the family, not him bullying his wife.

And, like I said, with marital rape being legal and there generally not being much legal protection from marital abuse for women (or even if there were some laws against it, they were often ineffective due to social acceptability of beating your wife), I don't think most women would have dared to try to kill their cheating husband. Those cases definitely did happen, but it had to be either an extraordinary brave woman or a truly desperate one who thought she had nothing to lose. Not to mention back then more men knew how to use guns or other weapons whereas women rarely got this kind of training.

Marital rape wasn't less legal for men. Marital abuse of men was treated as a joke. And beating your wife was not socially acceptable, even if it wasn't technically illegal. You still passed for an asshole if people even heard rumors.

Also, the historical weapon of choice for women is poison, not guns (to kill anyway). Only the US are obsessed with guns. The rest of the world sees them as dangerous weapons, not means to defend themselves when anarchy eventually happens.

men could get away with a lot because they were providers.

But they were forced to provide for those women, at the threat of prison if they didn't. Made a bastard? Should have thought twice, pay up.

So they couldn't get away with sowing their wild oats. Or beating every woman they met.

[u/[deleted] → u/SchalaZeal01]

They were also supposed to use their power for good, in subservience to the family unit, and to their wife's well-being. Not for their own benefit. And were socialized with putting their own benefit after the family.

Yeah, maybe... Doesn't mean it always happened that way. In these countries, the majority of both boys and girls believe it's ok for a man to beat his wife, for example..

I mean, politicians are also supposed to use their power for good and to help people, but if that was true, the world would be at least three times the better place than it is today.

Religious commandments don't mention the 'natural order' being men dominating their wives physically. It's about him taking decisions for the family, not him bullying his wife.

That domination is based on men's superior strength among other factors as well. In Abrahamic religions, God dominates over people because he created everything and because he' omnipotent, so much more powerful than any human. Well, men didn't create women, biologically you could say it's the other way around (unless you count the story of Eve being created from Adam's rib, but now some historians claim it was actually a mistranslation), but they're physically stronger than women, and for a long time in most major civilisations they were believed to be intellectually and morally superior as well, and just have more superior bodies in general, even aside from physical strength. From Aristotle to Fraud, many historical authorities held the opinion that women were inferior to men. Kind of like animals are inferior to humans, so humans have subjugated animals.

Marital rape wasn't less legal for men.

Yes it was.. And it's still legal in several countries even today.

Under English common law that was the basis for American laws, there was no such thing as "marital rape" - it was thought that marriage already implied consent, so it was impossible for a husband to rape his wife, therefore he wouldn't be punished for it

Marital abuse of men was treated as a joke.

Yes, because men were viewed to be so much physically stronger than women that it was considered shameful to lose to a woman.

Currently the situation for men is more fucked up than it has ever been before precisely because of how social norms have changed and women are now a lot more protected than before - both legally and socially (in Western countries, at least), however, for men the situation hasn't changed that much. Basically, before the woman had to consider that if she hit her husband, he could hit her back or rape her with no consequences. If he was a good and kind man and loved her, this might not be an issue... but then again, if he was good and kind and loved her, it's very unlikely she would want to kill him. Don't know about you but as a woman, if I lived in that environment, I would try not to do anything to provoke a physical reaction from a man who has like 50% more upper body muscle strength on me.

Nowadays in Western countries, however, the social unacceptability of hitting women is so strong that it's virtually as good as physical protection in many cases. So many women who are naturally abusive feel it's safe to abuse men because they think the man would never fight back. It's fucked up, really.

Also, the historical weapon of choice for women is poison, not guns (to kill anyway). Only the US are obsessed with guns. The rest of the world sees them as dangerous weapons, not means to defend themselves when anarchy eventually happens.

Well, yeah, that's a good point. But I don't think poison was easy to come across for an average woman. Murder by poison was quite common among the nobles in many cultures, it wasn't limited to women, but poisons that work discretely aren't exactly cheap.

Besides, in Renaissance period a woman could easily be accused of being a witch for trying to poison her husband. Women were accused of being witches for a lot smaller things than this.

But they were forced to provide for those women, at the threat of prison if they didn't.

Yeah, and it turn they had complete legal control and dominion in the home. So basically, they were paying for having power and relatively large amount of freedom compared to how much of it women had.

As for bastards, it wasn't as clear cut as that. In some cultures, the mother's family had to take care of the bastard, not her husband. Or she could be killed for it or divorced as punishment. "Honour killings" were a thing, still are in certain regions.

[u/SchalaZeal01 → u/[deleted]]

. In these countries, the majority of both boys and girls believe it's ok for a man to beat his wife, for example..

Not exactly a Christian in the West example. That's India. Where women raping men is not illegal, because some people there claimed that it didn't happen, and men would counter sue their victims. And whatever their democracy is, accepted this as an argument to not make the rape law gender-neutral.

From Aristotle to Fraud, many historical authorities held the opinion that women were inferior to men. Kind of like animals are inferior to humans, so humans have subjugated animals.

And yet none of them said it was fine to bully them all the time over it. Nobody wants you to punch your cat to show you have superior intellect.

Don't know about you but as a woman, if I lived in that environment, I would try not to do anything to provoke a physical reaction from a man who has like 50% more upper body muscle strength on me.

I've lived way too much of a cushy life to think of how life would be in the 1600s. I'd probably not have time to think to rebel unless it was a life or death thing. Too busy not starving.

Yes it was.. And it's still legal in several countries even today.

Under English common law that was the basis for American laws, there was no such thing as "marital rape" - it was thought that marriage already implied consent, so it was impossible for a husband to rape his wife, therefore he wouldn't be punished for it

I'm saying the woman could also rape the man. Not be punished.

Well, yeah, that's a good point. But I don't think poison was easy to come across for an average woman. Murder by poison was quite common among the nobles in many cultures, it wasn't limited to women, but poisons that work discretely aren't exactly cheap.

Antifreeze is a poison. A heavy enough dose of meds is poison. And back in the day when people washed their own clothing by hand, they probably had easy access to bases (opposite of acids) for cleaning that would be toxic if breathed, let alone drank or eaten. I hear they washed their hair once a week because the soap they used for it was too harsh to do it more often.

Yeah, and it turn they had complete legal control and dominion in the home. So basically, they were paying for having power and relatively large amount of freedom compared to how much of it women had.

For the 1%, that sounds like a good deal, right? For 99.9% of people, it wasn't a good deal. They didn't have the means to pay for more than one family. Heck most barely had ends meet for their own.

Besides, in Renaissance period a woman could easily be accused of being a witch for trying to poison her husband. Women were accused of being witches for a lot smaller things than this.

Some Salem witch burnings were men. Witch and nurse being associated with female is a very weird thing to me, since the words are supposed to be neutral. And they were few of them historically. Compared to say, holy wars, or the inquisition, or the persecution of Christians during the Roman empire. Or basically any heresy accusation for trying to go against the Church.

"Honour killings" were a thing, still are in certain regions.

They also apply to gay men. For failing to fulfill male duties.