Some MRA groups are really into blowing the female rapist idea up, but I have many common sense arguments for why this might be futile as a weapon against feminism, and can even do more harm to men.
1)Feminists actually support the idea of female rapists.
That’s right, they do. Perhaps they thought only men can be rapists in the 70s, but modern feminists emphasize how alike the sexes are. They deny men have higher sex drives (“Women are just as sexual as men!”). They deny getting laid can be harder for a man than a woman (“There are female incels too!”). They often don’t even accept heteronormativity, they might say that there are more genders than two, and enthusiastic consent principles should apply to all those 1001 genders they can come up with (that includes men).
For example, in Norway, one of the most feminized countries in the world, the law recognizes female-on-male rape, if he is made to penetrate her.
2) Feminists don’t care if you use their own logic to hurt women
The logic of the MHRAs seems partially like this: “If we use feminist logic to hurt women just as much as feminists hurt men, surely feminists will stop what they are doing”. But you know what? Feminists created legislation that hurts women for ages, and no one batted an eyelid. For example, in Norway they illegalized the buying of sex from prostitutes. It was “to protect them from trafficking”. The whores were not happy about it, because not only did it mess with their work, but it also made it harder for them to screen for dangerous clients. Violence against them increased. Did that bother the feminists? NO.
I’m not sure you realize it guys, but feminists don’t actually care about women. Those powerful feminists who get to make laws don’t care about people, they just like to have status and power. The only time they care that someone gets hurt, is if it makes people question their authority.
3)Saying that female rapists is a huge problem will not hurt enough women to question feminist authority.
There are several reasons for that, which requires its own sublist. In short, not enough women will be accused of rape.
3.1)Men are not as prone to rape accusations, even if a woman jumps on their dick without permission, or through force, because of biological reasons
It is an established fact for most of the manosphere, that male and female sexualities are different. Everyone knows that men, on average, want more partners, and don’t feel as bad about casual sex as women. Yet many can’t quite lead the logic further, and conclude that being raped by a woman would be, on average, less of a big deal than if the roles were switched. Women are deeply emotionally hurt by rape, because in the evolutionary past, a rape meant potential waste of her time and energy to genes she did not pick, and potential loss of support from her official mate. A man who gets forced into sex by a woman only loses a few minutes of his time, and gains a potential free shot at reproduction, plus pre-selection which makes him more attractive.
I get it, we are human and have more value than just the sexual, but think of what we are. We are essentially vehicles for our genes. If a certain type of incident is bad for propagation of our genes optimally, we would evolve an instinct to fear it and be emotionally hurt by it. If this incident is good for propagation of our genes optimally, we would not develop such an instinct.
I have talked to many men who lost their virginity early, to adult women. Or men who woke up with a girl on their dick. They were happy about it, or mildly annoyed. I also talked to men who woke up next to women they didn’t know. But that’s the thing – guys don’t go “OMG, I’ve been raped!”. They go “I should not drink so much in the future”.
And that is even in a country that accepts female-on-male rape and teaches its members to verbally attack anyone who denies women can rape men. Norway took the only male accuser that showed up and prosecuted the woman well, for sucking his dick while he was asleep. Are there any more?..
3.2) Women don’t rape (envelop) men as much as men rape (penetrate) women
After Typhonblue made her article on the NISVS2010 report (http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/evo-psych/manufacturing-female-victimhood-and-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/ ), stating that women rape men as much as men rape women, everyone has been repeating it. But I looked at the report, at the article, and don’t have the same conclusions. It shows that 1,1% of women were raped in the last 12 months (actually, this figure involves rape attempts and drunk rape, which isn’t rape), and 1,1% of men were made to penetrate in the last 12 months (this figure also involves attempts and drunk “rape”). Yet lifetime figures are 18,3% for women, and 4,8% for men. Typhonblue suggests it’s because our culture doesn’t allow men to call it rape, so they forget it:
“One possible reason for men not disclosing, or even “forgetting”, is quite simple: our social narrative does not allow for, nor does it depict, the sexual abuse of males. To a degree it allows for the sexual abuse of boys by men, but not boys by women or adult men by anyone.”
However, it might be just as likely that they don’t recall those incidents because they thought them too trivial, or the survey simply picked a year during which more men than usual were made to penetrate.
Another thing to remember that those figures involved ALL things: completed rape, attempted rape and “drunk rape”. For all I know, 1,1% of men were simply approached by pushy sexually aggressive women in the last 12 months, rather than were actually made to penetrate. Actually, the report in general likes to lump things together, making the data misleading for those not paying careful attention.
Yet another extremely common-sense reason exists for doubting that women rape men as much as men rape women: why didn’t the patriarchy of the past protect men from female rapists, if it’s such a big deal and it’s so common? Why was this never a big deal, even for the sons of the wealthy men? I understand that patriarchy was never the “rule of all men over all women”, but the men in power did rule, and DID enforce restrictions on female behavior where they considered it bad. So why not those ubiquitous female rapists?
4)Feminists don’t care if you use their logic to hurt women, so you can show how illogical they are
You shouldn’t roll around in dirt with a pig, trying to fight it. You’ll end up covered in mud, and the pig will be smiling.
Adopting feminist logic and techniques is like a woman trying to fill a difficult male role – she will make a poor imitation of a man, and will lose her femininity as well. An MRA copying a feminist will try to find a middle ground between his reasonable nature and hamstery feminist logic, but he will fail. He will degrade his intellect AND never outhamster the feminist hamster.
5)Intensifying the rape hysteria will hurt more men than women
Because men are not into rape accusations of women, intensification of rape hysteria will hurt only a few more women. A few more hurt women will not lead to questioning of feminist authority. Feminist authority will be pleased that MHRAs agree that drunk sex is rape. It will be pleased that MHRAs accept nothing less than enthusiastic consent. It will be pleased to hear more rape than previously thought is going on, and intensify the criminalization of everyone’s sexuality a little more. Then we’ll have equal injustice for all.
And this is why I’m against intensification of rape hysteria of any kind.
P.S: many thanks to Eivind Berge for the biological and the patriarchy arguments.