I give 0-shits about how M-W defines that word. Why? Because they until very recently defined rape as an act committed by a man against a women and now have added wiggle-words to their definition to make it seem like a less pejorative against men. Their "examples of rape" involves or intimates a male assessor.
It's absolutely hilarious for you to ascribe this definition to feminism, because it actually derives from the common law definition of rape, which is hundreds of years old and predates modern feminism by more than quite a bit. The common law definition is an anachronism in more ways than one--it excludes rape against men in the same breath as it excludes spousal rape against women.
The most deeply ironic thing about your post is that it was feminists who led the effort to reform rape laws in the 1970s-1990s, which included making them gender neutral in addition to applying within marriages and eliminating degrees that made rape by acquaintances less severe than rape by strangers.
Modern feminists also pushed for the FBI definition of rape which is forced penetration but construed in such a way that it really only covers insertion of a penis. They also pushed for useless laws like rape shields which prevents the accused from addressing their accuser in the press while allowing the accusers to speak freely. They also pushed the "Dear Colleague" letter that's lowered the standard to preponderance in disciplinary hearings that strongly favors female accusers.
The modern definition of rape is no longer the one espoused by second wave feminists, which I happen to agree with. Rape shouldn't be a gendered crime, but thirdwave and radical feminists don't seem to think so.
Rape perpetrators are overwhelmingly male. You do realise that, right? Because without at least an acknowledgement that that vast majority of rape is carried out by men there's no point engaging with you.
That seems to be a question better suited for empirical evidence than an ideological litmus test. I'll agree it's the conventional wisdom that more men than women commit rape, and it seems likely, but the whole point of feminism is to challenge conventional wisdom when it comes to gender and to avoid excluding people's valid experiences based on their gender. The question isn't whether statistically more men than women commit rape, the question is whether men who are raped and abused by women are marginalized and systemically denied justice by a system that asserts that such acts are impossible. Judging from the experiences of male victims of abuse and rape, unfortunately it seems that they are not only denied justice but systemically oppressed.
Rape perpetrators are overwhelmingly male. You do realise that, right?
No, they really aren't. The majority of "rapes" are institutional (meaning they happen in prisons and other custodial environments) and are perpetrated by women against women (See the Canadian prison systems 2011 report). Further, rape statistics are skewed by how rape is defined -- almost singularly as something committed by a man . In many jurisdictions, a women forcibly having sexual contact with a man is sexual assault and not rape. The '1 in 6' (or '1 in 5' depending on who says it) number of women raped is bullshit.
Yes, all feminists are the same and it's impossible for one person/group which calls itself "feminist" to do something that other femininsts wouldn't agree to.
Comments
I give 0-shits about how M-W defines that word. Why? Because they until very recently defined rape as an act committed by a man against a women and now have added wiggle-words to their definition to make it seem like a less pejorative against men. Their "examples of rape" involves or intimates a male assessor.
It's absolutely hilarious for you to ascribe this definition to feminism, because it actually derives from the common law definition of rape, which is hundreds of years old and predates modern feminism by more than quite a bit. The common law definition is an anachronism in more ways than one--it excludes rape against men in the same breath as it excludes spousal rape against women.
The most deeply ironic thing about your post is that it was feminists who led the effort to reform rape laws in the 1970s-1990s, which included making them gender neutral in addition to applying within marriages and eliminating degrees that made rape by acquaintances less severe than rape by strangers.
Modern feminists also pushed for the FBI definition of rape which is forced penetration but construed in such a way that it really only covers insertion of a penis. They also pushed for useless laws like rape shields which prevents the accused from addressing their accuser in the press while allowing the accusers to speak freely. They also pushed the "Dear Colleague" letter that's lowered the standard to preponderance in disciplinary hearings that strongly favors female accusers.
The modern definition of rape is no longer the one espoused by second wave feminists, which I happen to agree with. Rape shouldn't be a gendered crime, but thirdwave and radical feminists don't seem to think so.
Rape perpetrators are overwhelmingly male. You do realise that, right? Because without at least an acknowledgement that that vast majority of rape is carried out by men there's no point engaging with you.
That seems to be a question better suited for empirical evidence than an ideological litmus test. I'll agree it's the conventional wisdom that more men than women commit rape, and it seems likely, but the whole point of feminism is to challenge conventional wisdom when it comes to gender and to avoid excluding people's valid experiences based on their gender. The question isn't whether statistically more men than women commit rape, the question is whether men who are raped and abused by women are marginalized and systemically denied justice by a system that asserts that such acts are impossible. Judging from the experiences of male victims of abuse and rape, unfortunately it seems that they are not only denied justice but systemically oppressed.
You make interesting points, around which a useful discussion can be had.
The MRA aroch is not interested in any of that, as can be seen by their weird use of cherry picked data to make outlandish claims.
I just wanted to check, and they've provided confirmation.
No, they really aren't. The majority of "rapes" are institutional (meaning they happen in prisons and other custodial environments) and are perpetrated by women against women (See the Canadian prison systems 2011 report). Further, rape statistics are skewed by how rape is defined -- almost singularly as something committed by a man . In many jurisdictions, a women forcibly having sexual contact with a man is sexual assault and not rape. The '1 in 6' (or '1 in 5' depending on who says it) number of women raped is bullshit.
Yes, all feminists are the same and it's impossible for one person/group which calls itself "feminist" to do something that other femininsts wouldn't agree to.