On September 22, 2014, Dana Bolger posted her article “It’s on us to go beyond ‘It’s On Us'” on Feministing, in which she exposed her true nature and the true nature of feminism. See, in her mind, it isn’t enough to reinforce the old male gender role that men are here to protect women and that men must be blamed for every single instance when women are not safe. Fellas, if something bad happens to a woman, it’s your fault that she wasn’t protected and your fault that the world isn’t safe for women. Bolger promotes this despite the fact that feminism says that one of its goals is to destroy gender roles for men and women.
Gender-based violence is not like the weather. It has direct, immediate human agents and is structural and systemic at its core.
If you want an example of a person engaging in victim-blaming and rape apologia, then Dana Bolger’s article is it. A man raping a woman is gender violence, but any other form of rape isn’t—that’s what she’s saying. She says that “gender violence” is “structural” and “systemic,” i.e., the “patriarchy.” She actually believes that men dominate and oppress women and that rape is a result of this domination and oppression. The “patriarchy” is a feminist myth proclaiming that we live (and have always lived) in a culture constructed by men to oppress women. In this cultural construct, rape is condoned, supported, and encouraged as a way for men to keep women in a state of fear, thus under male control. Feminists even gave this “rape is the result of patriarchy” a name: “rape culture.” In Bolger’s bigoted little mind, the patriarchy is real, despite the mountain of historical and scientific evidence to the contrary.
Dana, there is no such thing as “gender-based” violence. It’s an attempt to label any violence that is perpetrated by a man on a woman as a hate crime. Rape and sexual assault are perpetrated by men and women against men and women. There are no acts of violence limited to being perpetrated by one gender on another. Women are not special. Women as a group have not and are not oppressed by men as a group. Women deserve no special treatment. Deal with it.
But the new campaign de-politicizes and de-genders sexual assault, portraying it as an easy-to-avoid problem solely between individuals, and making perpetrators out to be vague “someones” who do “something” to other “someones.”
Um. Rape is between individuals or a group of individuals. Sexual assault is when “someone” does “something” sexual to “another someone” without the “other someone’s” consent. Mmmkay?
I would strongly disagree that the new program “de-politicizes” and “de-genders” sexual assault. Much like a pimp, Barack Obama has worked hard to pull women into his political harem. In true feminist form, his new program puts women’s safety squarely on men’s shoulders, thus making his program gendered. But that’s not what you meant, Dana, is it? Bolger is from the old “the personal is political” school of feminist hate. Rape, in the mind of a gender bigot (feminist), is political because it sometimes happens that a man rapes a woman. If a man (or a few men) rapes a woman (or a few women), then rape is a political struggle for all women. Remember: feminists believe that women are now and always have been treated similar to slaves on the cotton plantations of old. Rape is not just a crime but it’s also the metaphorical “whips and chains” that keep all women under the control of all men. This is how feminists justify using rape as a women-only cause to net them millions of government and private-donor dollars and as a political bludgeon to force through their political agenda. This is why revealing the truth that rape is not obsession of women by men, thus not political, and that rape is not a gender issue because perpetrator doesn’t equal male and victim doesn’t equal female is cause for great concern for feminists.
In reality, perpetrators are disproportionately likely to be men and their victims are disproportionately likely to be women (particularly queer and trans women, women of color, and women with disabilities), queer men, and gender non-conforming folks.
There is a lot of money and political power at stake in continuing to lie about the true nature of sexual assault. Feminists must maintain the intentional misinformation that men rape and women are rape victims in order to keep the money flowing in and to keep their jobs as professional feminists—jobs for which they receive a salary. So, it’s no wonder that Dana Bolger would boldface and flat-out lie about the ratios of male perpetrators to female victims, despite the growing evidence to the contrary. This is no surprise to MHRAs and non-/anti-feminists—we have seen this a thousand times before. But she extends the category of victim a little further. She pulls in “queer men and gender non-conforming folks,” plus she breaks down women into subgroups. She says that straight women are less likely to be raped than “queer and trans women, women of color, and women with disabilities.” Notice how, unsurprisingly, she doesn’t cite a source for this. Does any of this sound familiar?
This is pure Social Justice Warrior bullshit. SJWs believe that equality can only be achieved through discrimination, along the lines of: “Women must be treated as special, with special women-only rights and privileges that men do not have, in order to have equality.” You can insert any of the following in the previous sentence—other race vs. White, other sexual orientation vs. straight, other religious beliefs vs. Christian, not able-bodied vs. able-bodied, not thin vs. thin, etc.—and all would be true according to SJWs.
Bolger uses men vs. women and “gender-based” violence when it suits her purpose. And when it doesn’t, she throws some women under the bus in favor of more fertile victimhood. It’s men raping women until a more oppressed group comes along; then it’s men raping gay men, transgender men, women of color (as if White isn’t a color), lesbians, etc. It’s all about victimhood because victimhood is the only claim feminists have. Without it, they don’t have a leg to stand on. Feminists have always been happy to throw men under the bus to maintain their false narrative that women are victims. Now they will throw some women under the bus for better quality victimhood and to leech from groups like non-White, non-straight, non-Christian, etc. After generations, feminists are finally showing that they don’t give a damn about women—they focus only on victimhood and the money and political power said victimhood brings them.
The It’s On Us campaign’s failure to conceptualize of violence as systemic and structural guts meaningful responses to it. While bystander intervention more broadly may be usefully integrated into a more comprehensive anti-violence approach, it has serious limitations. And the way it’s framed in It’s On Us, it offers a strategy to avoid violence, not meaningfully reduce it. The campaign’s tips — like guiding your friends away from perpetrators at parties — might help an individual woman avoid a rapist in an individual instance but it won’t stop that rapist from turning to the next girl down the bar. It makes the problem seem discrete and manageable, with a quick fix that fits comfortably within an existing structure of how our world works, who has power, and who doesn’t. It enlists men, for instance, to protect their female friends at a bar but not to recognize their own power and privilege, the subtle ways in which they enact violence all the time.
Any sane, rational adult knows that we will never live in a world free of violence. But no sane, rational person has ever labeled feminist bigotry as being sane and rational. The only way to lessen the chance that violence will happen to you is to take steps to prevent it from happening to you. It’s called being an adult. What will help “the next girl down the bar”? Why, teaching her and all people how to avoid being the victim of violence, of course. Maybe we could start by teaching her that she is an adult now and as an adult her safety is her responsibility and no one else’s? Mmmkay, Dana?
The “who has the power and who doesn’t” part of Bolger’s article comes from her belief in the mythical flying spaghetti monster that eats kittens and steals presents from under the Christmas tree known as the “patriarchy,” which we discussed earlier. Remember that in patriarchy land, men have all the power and women have none. Women can’t do anything to stop violence from happening to them. Women are just here, wandering around like goldfish in a shark tank, waiting for their turn to be dinner. If that sounds like misogyny, that’s because it is. Women are not mindless robots. Women are not helpless children. Women are fully capable adults. Everyone who has a fully functioning, healthy brain and body has power over their own actions. They have the power to be responsible for their own safety.
“… the subtle ways in which they enact violence all the time”—this is feminism. No one but feminists and SJWs believe that men commit acts of violence against women all the time. But the fact that they are so detached from reality is an important part of understanding the true nature of feminism. Why do they believe that all men are enacting violence on all women all the time? What purpose could this serve?
Feminists and SJWs believe in something called micro-aggressions. Micro-aggressions are small behaviors and actions that most people don’t even notice as aggressive or violent—mainly because these actions are not aggressive or violent. Micro-aggressions can include dirty jokes about a woman, calling a woman names, not taking a person’s idiotic opinion seriously if the person holding said opinion is a woman, etc. If you’re a man and you laugh when a woman says something stupid, then you have committed a micro-aggression against all women. See how that works?
This idea that all men commit acts of violence against all women all the time serves nothing more than to bolster female victimhood. Again, female victimhood is the life force of feminism. It promotes the idea that women are so weak that when they hear a dirty joke about a woman, it damages them. Men can’t call women out on their bullshit the way they can another man. You can’t call a crazy person crazy if that crazy person is a woman. The idea of micro-aggressions, coupled with social pressure, is how feminists control free speech. Free speech and the free exchange of ideas lead to scrutiny and criticism—something feminists avoid like witches avoid water. These micro-aggression ideas lead to policies that we are seeing develop on college and university campuses.
It’s On You to recognize and dismantle institutions that tolerate and perpetuate violence. If you go to a school that doesn’t expel perpetrators, It’s On You to hold your school accountable for its abuses. It’s On You not to invite rapists to your parties, and not to attend theirs. (Some sororities maintain lists of men who have raped their members and cut off ties with the fraternities to which the perpetrators belong.) If your favorite sports team shelters abusers and blames survivors, It’s On You to call it out and refuse to support it with your dollars. It’s On You to boycott the actors, musicians, and artists who beat up their partners.
If someone accuses someone of rape, it’s on you to socially ostracize that person based on the accusation alone. None of this pesky “innocent until proven guilty” stuff. That’s so last century.
It’s On You to condemn police violence against women of color — and to do so loudly and publicly.
Only women “of color”?
If you live in a country where your government doesn’t hold universities accountable for civil rights violations (hint: ours) …
In case you haven’t noticed, Dana, thanks to feminist activism, the federal government has ordered the removal of rights from anyone accused of a sex crime on post-secondary campuses. Yep, I’m talking about those irksome Constitutional rights like presumption of innocence and due process.
It should go without saying that you shouldn’t rape anyone; you should also make a commitment to recognize the ways in which you exert power over less privileged folks in your life, the ways in which you may violate someone else’s boundaries without realizing.
Here she goes with the “micro-aggressions” thing again. Let’s put this to rest once and for all. Social Justice Warriors can take their “you’re privileged so you oppress people by merely existing” hate and bigotry and go jump off a bridge. If I can violate someone’s boundaries without realizing it, then I’m not the problem. That person is the problem. These people need to learn that the world doesn’t revolve around them and their victimhood complex.
It’s On You to be conscious of the space your voice takes up, and not to talk over folks with less power. (I once attended an anti-rape rally where a group of white male students took the megaphone away from a female survivor, telling her they’d had enough.)
Notice the racism and sexism Bolger displays in the above statement. Dana, we all have had enough. We will talk about whatever we want to whomever we want. We will not allow victimhood to trump common sense, reason, logic, and the truth. Deal with it.
It’s On You to use your privilege to create space for marginalized folks to speak and be heard.
Um. No. If people want to speak, it’s on them to open their mouths. No one is responsible for you exercising your right and ability to speak except you. No one has the right to speak publicly and be free from being challenged on what they said. Deal with it.
Dana Bolger is a perfect example of the nature of feminism and SJWs. She personifies the bigotry and hate that is at the heart of these ideologies. The privilege checklist of those who use discrimination in order to achieve equality is sickening, to say the least. As Men’s Human Rights Activists fight for the right of men and boys to be seen as fully human and deserving of equal rights and treatment, we must remember that feminism isn’t our only enemy. People like Bolger aren’t just a threat to gender equality but also to the equality of every person around the world. While we focus on gender equality, we mustn’t forget that we are a part of a larger group while also realizing that we are on our own because men rank dead last every time, even among the groups fighting against SJWs—and even among some non-/anti-feminists.