Pretty sneaky, sis - a victim identity cult spin tactic | HBR Talk 84

A few years ago I ran across a post on reddit’s mensrights subreddit that highlighted an article on the now-defunct site, in which the writer lamented her really bad relationship with a guy she knew was a falling-apart drug addict when she committed to him, and described her subsequent bad breakup with him after finding out her demands of him didn’t magically make him better. She was especially angry to have learned after breaking up that he had cheated on her. She wrote that, since in her view it was based on lies, her consent was invalid for every sex act they’d engaged in during their entire relationship. She concluded that her ex was a rapist, and she was a rape victim, and it was just not fair that the law didn’t support her view.

I pointed out a few things. The article wasn’t about consent, or rape, but about rage and revenge. She was just angry and wanted a better weapon to use against her ex than telling him she faked all of her organsms. She wanted to be able to sic the state on him for lying to her. And she was really opening up a can of worms if she was arguing that sexual consent acquired after lying was invalid. Women lie to men all the time. Just ask her make-up representative, her hair dresser, her tailor, and if she’s really spoiled, her plastic surgeon. 

The writer’s logic was based on existing feminist manipulation of definitions & standards regarding sexual assault, wherein they’ve replaced “against the victim’s will” with “without the victim’s consent.” It’s a very sneaky, underhanded pathway that removes victim aversion and perpetrator intent from the equation.

In the comments, that logic led to some interesting permutations. When I pointed out such a standard would also justify criminalizing birth control sabotage, including lying about being on the pill, feminists argued that would violate women’s bodily autonomy.

In favor of criminalizing adultery, some of the same folks essentially argued that a sex partner’s potential health risk outweighs a man’s bodily autonomy. One attempted to bolster her point with examples of one-sided actions like pushing someone into traffic, totally ignoring the mutual nature of a sex act, and referring to the potential lack of state-enforced child support as a punishment. The entire discussion relied on spinning mutually engaged consensual heterosexual sex as something men do to women, not something men and women do together.

That kind of spin is how victim identitarians slip double standards and irrational arguments under the radar all the time, largely by polarizing the ideas of personal agency and responsibility. Feminists do so by gendering them.

This is how they justify the double standards that allow them to avoid acknowledging female-perpetrated abuse. When a man uses assault to address his fear that his female partner is disloyal or disrespectful, that’s called “coercive control.” When a woman does the same thing to her male partner, they call it preemptive self-defense. When feminists want to create the illusion of a rape epidemic, they insist that conviction rates vastly underestimate the crime and instead cite statistics manufactured using deliberately biased research designed to make it seem like most women have been sexually assaulted, and most perpetrators are male. Remember, over ⅔ of Koss’s respondents disagreed with her assessment of their experiences, and nearly half went on to have sex with their alleged rapists again, a fact feminists ignore when citing those statistics.  

They support their toxic masculinity narrative by deeming it a reason why male victims don’t report their experiences of intimate partner and sexual abuse, and aren’t taken seriously by authorities when they do. Then, when men’s advocates want to talk about female perpetration, male victims, and the made-to-penetrate stats from that same research feminists cite as evidence of an epidemic, the ideologues dust off those conviction stats they rejected, which do rely on the victim’s complaint and authorities’ response, and cite them with great enthusiasm as solid evidence that 95% of sexual assault is male-perpetrated. 

They turn women’s expensive sensibilities into a legitimate-sounding complaint by referring to the resulting increase in cost when products are custom made to satisfy women’s expectations as “The pink tax.”

Does the government get that money? No! The product manufacturer does, because items with special features cost more to make. 

Know whose money the government does get? Men’s money, at least according to information cited in The New Modern Man’s 2018 article, The gender tax gap: Men pay 200% of the taxes women do. Why? Because men’s tax dollars are spent to fund entitlement programs mostly used by women, most of whom get back way more than they ever pay in. Yet… when feminists want to add more entitlements, they market the idea using the word “free.” The women’s march protested for free birth control for women. They demanded free abortions. They think women should receive free education. And as long as they ignore their own free will, they can feel very rational arguing how much money the government will save if all that free stuff prevents women from relying on other entitlements like cash assistance, free housing, utility assistance, and medicaid when through some completely unknown, unpredictable misfortune, they become single mothers, who we all know are superheros. You know, because it’s not custody interference when the mother does everything she can to cut her kids’ father out of their lives while simultaneously demanding full access to his wallet. It’s that he’s a deadbeat, and she’s amazing for dealing with that all on her own (with a little help from the government,) right?

And her dependence on the state is totally not because women don’t put in the risk, effort, and endurance to earn the kind of living men have to earn as breadwinners of their households. No, guys… that’s called the pay gap, and it’s misogynistic to talk about the way women’s choices affect their financial outcomes! After all, the problem really exists because businesses aren’t sufficiently tokenizing… er, I mean focusing on workplace and management diversity. Yeah.

And speaking of diversity, don’t talk about the social justice invasion of male-dominated hobbies, either. That’s about diversity and inclusion, you woman-hating-outdated-attitude-having-hobby-hogging-buffoons. In modern society, we don’t divide anything by gender anymore… except if we’re talking about women’s spaces, where it’s ok to exclude people on the basis of their sex because threat narratives and girl power and stuff.

Are you tired of the double standards? Feminists have weasel-words for that, too. After they’re done complaining about how men are suicidal because they don’t talk about their problems, they’ll call you a basement-dwelling man-baby for having any kind of complaints that don’t serve feminist interests. But don’t feel too singled out. They’ll call your sister one, too, if she has the gall to stand up for you.

So the next time you hear a feminist demonizing men while demanding entitlements paid for by your tax dollars, remember, she’s not being a deadbeat or a thief when she uses Uncle Sam’s authority to help herself to your wallet. She’s just preemptively self-compensating for her future emotional labor under the oppressive standards of the patriarchy! You wouldn’t say no to a girl with problem glasses, would you?

Tier Benefits
Recent Posts