RadFems vs MRAs: You’re Both Wrong.

The battle of the sexes has reached the upper eschilons of idiocy with radical feminists going to World War III with men’s rights activists. Well, I’m going to say this up-front: RadFems and MRAs, you all need to stop fighting over who is more opppressed – Hitler would have killed you both, and if he did, I wouldn’t blame him.

I’ve made my stance on third-wave feminism abundantly clear in the past, but I’ll sum it up again: in the United States specifically, it strikes me as little more than first-world nitpicking and seems to be striving for the title of the female answer to Christianity. But the men’s movement is really no better. Even if it wasn’t basically a sarcastic “What about me?” response to the RadFem takeover, their complaints have little basis in fact (again, from a U.S. point-of-view; feminism seems to have more power in the U.K. and has completely and utterly pussified Sweden).

First, let’s address the common complaint of how men “don’t have abortion rights.” Well, if they had the physical capability to need an abortion, they would, but that’s not the real issue here – what they mean is, they can’t control whether or not the bitch they knock up decides to abort the kid that they may want or keep the baby and bleed them dry of child support money. Well, that’s actually not true – men do have the option of signing a “Denial of Paternity” form (here’s one for California). There also seems to be some misconception that it is impossible or illegal for a man to receive physical custody of his children, which I know for a fact is bullshit because my ex-husband has physical custody of his children from both marriages, and while his first wife may be something of an unfit mother, I am not – we came to the mutual decision because he is in a better position to physically care for the children. While I understand that my situation is not as commonplace, it needs to be understood that custody decisions are, at face value, dependent on the best interest of the child, not the genitals of the parent.

Second, men like to complain that there are not as many domestic violence shelters for men, if any at all, in the United States. People of both sexes seem to forget that domestic violence shelters focus their energy on taking in victims of physical violence, and serious physical violence at that – the first thing they do when they take you in is check you for bruises, and their resources go to the more immediate demand. In fact, the police will generally only send you to a shelter if you’re at high risk for being murdered by your partner – if your boyfriend gets drunk and slaps you after you call him a pig, they’re most likely going to file a PC 415 (disturbing the peace) at worst. (I can tell you horror stories about what goes on inside of the shelters, but I’ll save that for another day.)

The next big thing that both parties constantly wage war over is the concept of rape. All you have to do is look at a RadFem to be accused of raping her, and MRAs point out that “men can get raped too!” Well, sexual assault is not exclusive to any age, sex, color, or creed, but I think that both sides have a hard time coming to terms with what constitutes as “rape.” Indeed, the definition of “rape” has evolved over time – it has been used to explain bridenapping (The Rape of the Sabine Women), seduction under false pretenses (the rape of Artemesia Gentileschi), the seduction of minors (statutory rape), sexual violence (forcible rape), and taking advantage of someone who is under the influence (date rape), among others. Without clarity in explaining what the fuck “rape” is supposed to mean, it is nothing more than an ambiguous buzzword that ranges from “I was reluctant but it wasn’t the worst thing in the world” to “that fucker held me down and forced me.” It’s like comparing involuntary manslaughter or self-defense to premeditated (first-degree) murder – when you explain “killing” someone, it encompasses a variety of definitions, and the worst is always assumed. That is why when RadFems talk about how “one in four women will be raped in her lifetime” and stuff about how rapists can get custody of their children, they are not talking about the legal definition(s) of rape (convicted sex offenders cannot live within so many miles of a school, let alone have custody of children). With that in mind, it is possible that MRA “rape victims” are just as delusional as RadFem “rape victims” because they don’t understand that technical definition does not always equate to the letter of the law.

All this ranting is making me hungry. After the RadFems go make me a sandwich, I think I’ll wash it down with a nice tall glass of “male tears.”