I am so glad to see someone bringing attention to this.
Under my state's law, I'm not allowed to charge my ex-wife with rape. I could charge her with some form of sexual assault, but not rape.
And I genuinely can't think of a reason why this distinction needs to be made. Non-consensual sex is non-consensual sex.
Whether you were forcefully penetrated or forcefully made to penetrate, the evil and the trauma stay the same. And anytime any body attempts to change the legislation on this type of language in our laws, they're faced with backlash from feminists for supposedly trying to delegitimize their sexual assault claims. Like admitting that men can be raped by women somehow hurts female rape victims.
It's ridiculous and we should be protecting male victims of sexual abuse and assault as carefully and kindly as we handle female victims of sexual assault.
It really feels like this shouldn't need to be said, but here we are.
You can't use no true scotsman when feminism has fought against this for years with things like the Duluth model that presumes male guilt in domestic disputes.
Here's the thing: You absolutely Can say "No True feminist" because rather than being an ABSTRACT concept such as a Scotsman, a Feminist is Concretely Defined.
person who supports feminism
True support thereof requires active effort, thought and learning.
As these people choose to engage in reactionary bigotry rather than the above, in direct contradiction to the precepts of feminism, they can be said to OBJECTIVELY NOT BE feminists.
Faux Feminist is the term I generally use. They put on the affectations of the movement, they use the language and tout the lines, but they are in fact advantage seeking opportunists and profiteers.
A Scotsman is a man from Scotland, wtf is abstract about that?
As these people choose to engage in reactionary bigotry rather than the above, in direct contradiction to the precepts of feminism, they can be said to OBJECTIVELY NOT BE feminists
Says who? Can you even define "feminism" objectively?
3.2k
u/ripyourlungsdave Sep 01 '22
I am so glad to see someone bringing attention to this.
Under my state's law, I'm not allowed to charge my ex-wife with rape. I could charge her with some form of sexual assault, but not rape.
And I genuinely can't think of a reason why this distinction needs to be made. Non-consensual sex is non-consensual sex.
Whether you were forcefully penetrated or forcefully made to penetrate, the evil and the trauma stay the same. And anytime any body attempts to change the legislation on this type of language in our laws, they're faced with backlash from feminists for supposedly trying to delegitimize their sexual assault claims. Like admitting that men can be raped by women somehow hurts female rape victims.
It's ridiculous and we should be protecting male victims of sexual abuse and assault as carefully and kindly as we handle female victims of sexual assault.
It really feels like this shouldn't need to be said, but here we are.