It’s a straightforward consequence of male privilege. Belonging to the more powerful gender gives you a psychological boost that protects you from trauma.
On this I have to disagree with you I think–while it would be wrong to assume no man can be raped by any woman (and extraordinarily sexist to assume so), WF Tomba is only talking about what is most likely, and on that, she’s surely right. Granted in the great majority of contexts, to talk in this way about what is likely is a derailing tactic designed to get the conversation away from important and difficult facts like “men can be raped,” in this particular case WF Tomba doesn’t seem to be doing that.
Pretty much all the things you said I agree with, except slightly at the very end–I think your conclusion is too strong. It can still be a social problem that needs to be corrected, even if it is rare, and even if its effects are swamped by other social problems that act more severely on other groups. Toxic attitudes about masculinity are a social problem, and they can be part of what leads to under-reporting of rape among males.
Note that I specifically referred to the low rate of reporting of female-on-male sexual assault, not the low rate of reporting by male sexual assault victims in general. I am guessing that in most cases where a man is assaulted, the aggressor is also a man.
My problem is with these two statements:
As to the first, trauma reactions aren’t dictated by anything I would call “ego strength,” and feeling violated and wanting to report to the police for redress after being assaulted is certainly not something I would associate with “ego weakness.” That statement is saying, in so many words, that brushing off a sexual assault is the stronger position, and further that men are better able to take that position. That is basically exactly the philosophy that causes so many fucked up conversations about sexual assault and gender. It’s a straight line from that premise to there being something inherently wrong with victims of sexual assaults.
My problem with the second follows pretty directly from my problem with the first. Unless sexual assaults are good, the fact that WF Tomba is assuming – that they happen and nothing is done about them because of societal conditioning – is bad.
[QUOTE=Jimmy Chitwood]
That statement is saying, in so many words, that brushing off a sexual assault is the stronger position, and further that men are better able to take that position. That is basically exactly the philosophy that causes so many fucked up conversations about sexual assault and gender.
[/QUOTE]
Conversations about sexual assault and gender are fucked up because the reality of the situation is fucked up.
You don’t think that the ability to be unbothered by something that would deeply disturb someone else is a form of strength? You don’t think that being a member of a socially disadvantaged group tends to make one more psychologically vulnerable?
Gender inequality would not be inequality at all if it hurt men and women equally. It hurts women more. Everything tends to hurt women more; that’s why inequality matters, and why sexual assault is a feminist issue.
No, I don’t think the ability to be unbothered by sexual assault is a form of strength, unless strength is being used amorally. I think it’s just as likely to be a disordered reaction as an especially healthy one.
I like this post so I’m quoting it for being awesome.
Sounds about right.
The law in my state does a pretty good job. Andy misinterpreted it but otherwise – absent the misinterpretation – it does a pretty good job.
…and it says?..
I did mean “strength” in an amoral sense. I see psychological strength as a morally neutral quality — or perhaps even a slightly morally negative quality, since people tend to use their strength to overpower others.
Assuming your talking about me, what did I misinterpret?