Cracked on Male Rape and Feminist Problems January 30, 2015 Observatorium Leave a comment So Cracked published a very harrowing account of a man who was raped after drinking far too much. The sad part is that his account is almost virtually identical to that of a woman. He dealt with disbelief, questions of why he didn’t just fight her off, and the destruction of his relationship. Which means that the negative effects of rape aren’t discriminatory (not that it was something we wanted equality in). But there was something interesting in the article: that the frequency of male rape is much higher than we may think. It was thought that 10% of men were rape victims and the perpetrators were mostly other men. However . . . “a 2012 survey of 40,000 households found that a staggering 38 percent of sexual-assault victims were male. Nearly half of those men reported that their attacker was a woman.” If you’re wondering why it took so long to find out that statistic well, it’s for the same reason it took us so long to find out that rape was common among women: people didn’t want to come forward. The extra stigma attached to men about wanting sex all the time and being the stronger gender means they were extra careful in confessing to being a victim. Now, whether you like me or not the fact is this is a blog that offers constructive criticism on the feminist movement and where it can make improvements. So where is the problem with this article? They disabled the comments. And why does that concern feminists? Because they’re the only ones that would get shitty about it. Yes there are naturally shitheads in every conversation about rape. Hell, in the end of the article the man said: “So for me — or anyone else — to decide that my story is proof that men are the “real” victims of the modern world and that women/feminists are thus the enemy, is nuts. All victims are real. All victims should feel like they’re able to speak up without being dismissed or ridiculed.” But here’s the thing: I’m a Cracked addict (heh). I KNOW my site. Cracked’s readers are educated, reasonably left leaning, and not opposed to reasoned debate. In articles discussing sensitive topics such as racism, sexism, political correctness, and rape they are generally supportive. They are also not opposed to calling out BS when they see it (like ripping apart Zoe Quinn and Lena Dunham respectively). And MRAs and other rather unsavory characters always find their way to these articles. Yet Cracked did not censor the comments on ANY of those. Now tell me right now, the people who do traditionally doubt female rape victims (MRAs, assholes, male supremacists) . . . do you think they’re going to rag on a male rape victim? Especially when these are the groups that push the agenda that males are equally victimized and should get attention? Simply put, no. Remember, one of my biggest issues with the modern feminism is that it relies on mob style popularity to remain relevant. While that produces enormous amounts of support quickly, the supporters aren’t all that faithful and as we saw in numerous cases (Duke Lacrosse, Lena Dunham, Hofstra, UVA) the supporters virtually disappear when confronted with any sort of adversity. While false rape is NOWHERE as common as actual rape, it’s no secret feminists try to downplay it as much as possible. It’s not because a reasonable discussion isn’t possible (hey false rapes are common enough that we should give the accused the benefit of the doubt without calling the victim a liar, done) but because the bandwagon feminists wouldn’t stand for such nuanced thought. Male rape is very much in the same basket. Feminists “accept” that it happens but try to downplay it as much as possible (though recently, there’s a glimmer of change) or initiate the Oppression Olympics to protect their herd of idiots. So when all the normal dip shits who comment on previous articles are accounted for . . . which is the group likely to raise a ruckus about a article promoting the idea (and marginalization) of rape of men? I’ll give you a hint, the author addressed it in the very next sentence: “If a movement — regardless of what it represents — ever feels like it’s losing ground by showing empathy, then something has gone seriously fucking awry.” Combine that with a sentence in which he expressed how a female friend of his played the “women have it worse card” when sympathizing with the plight of a male rape victim in a book and it’s pretty clear who he’s referring to. So congratulations feminists, you are the cause of censorship on a website which otherwise discussed sensitive topics such as genocide, rape and sexism with no trouble at all. At some point, you have to abandon the mob and instead stick to reason.