Written by Andrew Richards. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Men’s Rights Sydney
Dear Ms Jaye,
I initially sent the following letter as a private letter to you through your facebook page. However after receiving a less than encouraging response regarding when – or even if – you would read it, from one of your production assistancts, I have taken it upon myself to write it as an open letter, in the hopes that not only will you be more likely to see it, but that others might also encourage you to read it after doing so themselves.
I am writing to you because I have an idea for a future documentary which may interest you. Firstly, I want to commend you for the job you did on The Red Pill. I was one of your $100 Kickstarter backers who was on a very limited income, working casually in retail at the time and while I was extremely apprehensive and sceptical at the time and donated, I took a leap of faith in the hopes that you were being genuine in your claims. After recently watching my digital download and being highly impressed by it, I was both greatly relieved and extremely proud to have done what I could to make the project a reality, even though it was only a tiny part of the process. I am bringing this up because if you were to pursue a future documentary on the subject I am about to present to you, it would require every bit as much of the same courage that it took to make the Red Pill – if not more so. This letter is rather lengthy, however the width and breadth of the following topic necessitates it.
The topic I am of course referring to, is what some of us in the Men’s Rights Movement refer to as ‘the real rape culture’. What I am referring to is the way that society glorifies, diminishes, trivialises, and even enables and incentivises, sexual violence against men and boys female-perpetrated and overwise.
Sexual violence against men and boys begins at birth with the male genital mutilation of men and boys – specifically to control male sexuality. Male ‘circumcision’ as it is more commonly known, is of course, normalised, glorified, excused and even financially incentivised. There are many myths about male circumcision which a page on an anti-circumcision site debunks at length, while another anti-circumcision site notes that the agony levels experienced by infants being circumcised (as an aside, I’m not sure if this was the video you viewed while researching The Red Pill) are so egregious that in at least one instance, a child cried in agony for over 90 minutes, causing them to die from a ruptured stomach. It should also be noted that studies have found that circumcised men have less penile sensitivity than uncircumcised men, while one researcher has hypothesised – and this certainly corroborates my own anecdotal experiences – that the loss of the foreskin causes the head of the penis to become callused and lose nerve sensitivity due to prolonged friction by clothing against it. If you were to hypothetically imagine the clitoris losing the protection of the inner and outer labia and clitoral hood, I’m sure you could imagine a woman in a similar situation having a similar experience regarding her own clitoral sensitivity. Perhaps the most ghoulish aspect of all this is just how financially lucrative infant male genital mutilation is. In an utterly barbaric twist which is even worse than animal testing, the cosmetics industry now regards infant male foreskins as the new ‘fountain of youth’ ingredient for anti-aging treatments – including a product which has been actively endorsed by Oprah Winfrey. In short, even from the time of a few days old, sexual violence against men and boys is not only legally sanctioned, but egregiously financially incentivised.
Then there is sexual violence against underage boys- particularly female- perpetrated sexual violence against men and boys – a scourge which is far more hidden than society is comfortable with admitting. The following article from ABC News Australia is typical of the prevailing view of female- perpetrated child sexual abuse – in terms of both its representation of wider societal attitudes and attitudes within the professional bodies addressing this scourge.
The article claims that the rates of female perpetrated child sexual abuse could be as high as 25% but the conviction rates account for only 3-4% of all child sexual abuse cases.
The following excerpt from the article notes:
“The conference heard male victims in particular were encouraged by society to view their sexual encounters with women as a badge of honour.
“The implication from that reaction is that the child has not suffered,” Queensland prosecutor Michael Byrne QC told the conference.
“The bragging rights issue could be negated simply by the jury understanding there was in fact a victim.”
Dr Sullivan, who now works as a consultant for law enforcement agencies, says community attitudes must change.
“Society does not believe that women really do sexually abuse children,” he said.
“There’s almost a perception that boys should be happy or grateful, or certainly not experiencing sexual contact with females as abusive.”
Experts at the conference warned ill-informed community attitudes could result in female paedophiles being treated differently under the law.
“In categories where you’ve got a young adult woman targeting 13, 14, or 15-year-old males, typically you find their sentences are lighter than the equivalent for a male,” Dr Sullivan said of previous cases in the UK.
“However once you get into the realm of a mother or caseworker molesting an infant in a nursery or their own home, then they tend to get much more substantial sentences.””
However findings from the Canadian Children’s Rights Council not only tell a very different story, but put that low conviction rate in an even more chilling light.
The Canadian CRC’s collective findings actually put the 25% figure at the low end of the spectrum, while noting that 86% of children who are sexually abused by women aren’t believed when they disclose their abuse – citing a British Documentary from the late 1990s. Conversely, the high end of figures come from the Canadian CRC’s special report, “The Invisible Boy”. The report notes that retrospective studies into female-perpetrated sexual abuse against boys, found that rates varied from 60% of all respondents, to as high as 72-82% of all respondents reporting previous sexual abuse by women as children(page 30).
The report notes on page 29 that between 25% and 72% of female perpetrators co-perpetrated with a male perpetrator, however in her own research, Michelle Elliot notes in an interview, that her own findings were that women acted alone in over 75% of cases. She also notes that the majority of survivors she interviewed were abused by their own mothers. However she also noted that the maternal mytstique – the myth of mothers being arbitrary nurturers – created a barrier to disclosures of female perpetrated abuse being either believed or taken as seriously as cases of fathers sexually abusing their own children.
It should be noted that female-perpetrated child sexual abuse isn’t something which begins at adulthood. In October 2013, JAMA Paediatrics published the findings Dr Michele Ybarra of the Centre for Innovative Public Health Research and Dr Kimberly Mitchell of the Crimes Against Children Research Centre, which examined the sexual behaviour of American youths to determine if there was any indication of sexual violence. Their findings turned conventional beliefs about sexual violence on its head.
As National Geographic noted when publishing their findings:
“The study found that females and males had carried out sexual violence at nearly equal levels by the age of 18. Of the survey respondents who reported being perpetrators, 48 percent were female and 52 percent were male. Interestingly, females tend to assault older victims, while males are more likely to choose younger victims. Females are also more likely to engage in “gang rape” types of activity and act in groups or teams (1 in 5 females reported this type of activity, compared with 1 in 39 males).”
As Dr Ybarra crucially notes, concerning the effects of gendered preconceptions and biases on research into abuse:
“Not long ago, males were asked the perpetrator questions and females were asked the victim questions. We never appreciated the fact that males could be victims and females could be perpetrators.”
“[This study] highlights the importance of asking both sexes both questions.”
It should also be noted that in her interview, Elliot also cited feminist hostility towards even acknowledging the severity of the problem (0:08) – to the point of being “cast out of the sisterhood” for daring to recognise and raise awareness for this issue – as well as the condescending and apologist attitudes of feminists towards recognising this scourge, recalling an exchange with Germaine Greer as follows:
“And as Germaine Greer said to me, on a television program “Well, if it is a woman having sex with a young teenage boy (i.e. a 13 or 14 year old) and he gets an erection, then clearly it’s his responsibility.””
In other words, feminists are cited by Elliot as being hostile to any view of female-on-male child sexual abuse which refuses to brand male child sexual abuse victim with a scarlet letter by regarding them as patriarchal predators who “oppressed [their abuser] into [abusing them]” and in doing so, giving their abusers a perpetual victim pass. As an example of just how egregious this double standard is, I would refer you to Sheik Hilali, a radical Australian Islamic Cleric who found himself at the centre of a political fire-storm, when he compared women who are raped to “pieces of meat” and was publicly pilloried by the media and faced angry protests on his doorstep in response. In fact I distinctly recall witnessing a news program broadcasting footage of angry women confronting him at the entrance of his mosque at the time.
Such feminist attitudes towards female-on-male sexual violence are far from isolated, as I will explore later, however for now it is important to note that the notion of equating sexually abused boys – children no less – to pieces of meat – if not predatory pieces of meat, if “Patriarchy” and the Duluth Model are taken into account – are ironically completely in line with the textbook chauvinist view of such horrors, which are the other barrier faced by male victims of sexual abuse. Such locker room attitudes and the effect they have on victims, is best summed up by a performance art piece on YouTube entitled “Why rape is sincerely hilarious (when it happens to dudes!)”. Evidence of the attitudes expressed by and represented by that performance art piece, can readily be seen in not comments on news stories of this nature, where sophomoric comments from men wishing the same thing happened to them as a teenager, along with men claiming it happened to them and it was positive, litter said comments sections.
Worse still is the way that such abuse is financially incentivised by the family court system. As the a web page on the subject notes, in countries like the USA, it is a matter of Family Law legislation, that rape is in no way, shape or form, a barrier to fathers of children being made to pay child support for children they father. In other words, according to the law, if a man, or even an under-age boy is raped by a woman, his rapist uses him as an unwilling sperm donor, she becomes pregnant and gives birth to a child, under the law, the victim must pay child support to their rapist. It should be noted that there are recorded cases of children as young as 12 who have been raped by women, only to later be ordered by the family court system, to have to pay child support to the rapist. An incredibly chilling example of this is Nick Olivas, a man who at age 14, was statutorily raped by a 20 year old woman, only to have her sue him, 10 years later, for child support for a child she had through raping him. The story further notes that while she can no longer be prosecuted for statutory rape due to the statute of limitations having expired, she can sue him for child support as that legislation has no statute of limitations bar the child turning 18. Far from being isolated to the USA, it should be noted that there is also an alleged case of a 13 year old boy in Gypsland who was statutorily raped who was forced to pay child support to his female rapist, while a lawyer who volunteers for Lone Fathers Australia, openly told me a few years ago that at the very least, statutorily raped boys are legally required to pay child support in Australia if it can be legally established that the victim has “a relationship with the child”. It should be noted here that this is the exact same society which is outraged when even adult female rape victims are denied abortions in instances of rape pregnancies.
Ultimately this only serves to harm not only men and boys, but also women and girls, with page 30 of “The Invisible Boy” noting:
“Finally, there is an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders and sexually aggressive men – 59% (Petrovich and Templer, 1984), 66% (Groth, 1979) and 80% (Briere and Smiljanich, 1993). A strong case for the need to identify female perpetrators can be found in Table 4, which presents the findings from a study of adolescent sex offenders by O’Brien (1989). Male adolescent sex offenders abused by “females only” chose female victims almost exclusively.”(Page 30)
In other words, society has normalised and glorified female-perpetrated child sexual abuse against boys so much and encouraged sexually abused boys to normalise their abuse so much that between 3 in 5 and 4 in 5 sexually violent men have normalised it by emulating it; that’s a situation where one of the biggest predictors of men perpetrating sexual violence against women and children, is the perpetrators sexually having been sexually abused as children themselves, by women. Certainly there is no question that their own history of child abuse should diminish or excuse their own crimes. Conversely and more importantly, their own crimes in no way exonerate or excuse society in its culpability in turning themselves into factories for turning sexually abused boys into sexually violent men.
Then there is the prevalence of female-on-male rape itself. One of the biggest barriers to male rape being taken seriously besides chauvinism, is feminist attitudes to what does and does not define rape; feminists dogmatically define rape solely in terms of a perpetrator sexually penetrating a man – where it is only rape by a women if said woman uses an object to sexually penetrate their victim. Situations where men are forced to engage in vaginal intercourse against their will are deemed as “other sexual violence” according to feminist dogma.
To that end, it is worth noting what prominent feminist Mary Koss wrote in a peer reviewed journal article on rape which Koss wrote in 1993:
“Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.”
While it may be tempting to presume that such attitudes may have changed over time, the evidence suggest otherwise.
Blogger Toy Soldier notes an exchange between Koss and reporter Theresa Phung on May 10, 2015, during an on air piece which Phung was doing on the subject of female-on-male rape, which was as follows:
“When Phung mentions Charlie, a man she interviewed who recounted his rape at the hands of a woman, Koss dismissed Charlie and his experiences:
Theresa Phung: “For the men who are traumatized by their experiences because they were
forced against their will to vaginally penetrate a woman..”
Dr. Mary P. Koss: “How would that happen…how would that happen by force or threat of
force or when the victim is unable to consent? How does that happen?”
Theresa Phung: “So I am actually speaking to someone right now. His story is that he was
drugged, he was unconscious and when he awoke a woman was on top of him with his penis
inserted inside her vagina, and for him that was traumatizing.
Dr. Mary P. Koss: “Yeah.”
Theresa Phung: “If he was drugged what would that be called?”
Dr. Mary P. Koss: “What would I call it? I would call it ‘unwanted contact’.”
Theresa Phung: “Just ‘unwanted contact’ period?”
Dr. Mary P. Koss: “Yeah.” (from 8:15)
Blogger Toysolider notes that Mary Koss has been a key figure in how the FBI has defined rape. A Voice for Men has also catalogued Koss’ longstanding influential position with the CDC, while Toysoldier has further presented evidence which demonstrates how her influence was a significant factor in why the data for the CDC’s 2010 NIPSVS was deliberately misrepresented in its findings.
In case you are unaware, the claim in the summary of the 2010 NIPSVS that 1 in 5 women and 1 in 71 men were found to have been raped(Page 1) and that over 90% of all rape is perpetrated by male(Page 24), is actually far more the result of shifting goalposts on the definition of rape, than it is a clear reflection of the findings themselves. In terms of the actual data, NIPSVS found that 1,270,000 women (1.1%) had been “raped” in the previous 12 months(Page 18, Table 2.1 “Rape”). Conversely, it found that 1,267,000 men (1.1%) had been “made to penetrate” in the previous 12 months(Page 19, Table 2.2, “Made to Penetrate”). Even more telling was that 79.2% of men who had been “made to penetrate” had been raped by a woman(Page 24).
However far from allowing the facts to get in the way of a good story or headline, the CDC shifted the goalposts so to bury the prevalence of female-on-male sexual violence in such a manner that they were able to claim that only 1 in 71 men had been raped compared to 1 in 5 women and that over 90% of all rapists were male.
When queried about this, both Toysoldier and A Voice For Men have noted that the CDC responded to criticisms over this goalpost shifting by claiming that there was “insufficient space” to include the “made to penetrate” results, while doubling down on the feminist take on rape – namely that rape is only “real rape” when the victim is penetrated against their will – not when they are made to penetrate against their will. This is entirely in line with Koss’ original statements back in 1993 and the long history of such “studies” going back to at least the 1980s.
In fact it should be noted that such attitudes are far from limited to simply Koss in terms of the feminist movement. In fact when attempts were made to change rape laws in India and Israel so that female rapists would be legally recognised, feminist groups in both countries successfully lobbied against those amendments. Feminists in India argued that male rape victims were non-existent, while further arguing that supporting women who had been raped was “the need of the hour.” [sic] Meanwhile, feminists in Israel argued that said amendments would open the floodgates to female rape victims being further victimised by vexatious rape claims.
The irony of the arguments of said Israeli feminists and other feminist who hold similar views, is in their hypocrisy when viewed in light of male rape cases, such as the case of James Landrith. Landrith was a former marine who was invited out to drinks with another male friend and his pregnant female friend who Landrith had not previously met. After only 1 or two drinks, which Landrith notes, was well below his alcohol tolerance level, he wasn’t feeling well and knew he was unable to drive. Trying to do the right thing, but unable to drive, he got both himself and the woman a room – with them both explicitly agreeing that sex was not happening. Landrith woke up unable to move, with her on top of him and with him inside of her.
He notes the following of his experience:
“I woke up about 2 hours later – to find my clothes removed from the waist down, penis erect and the woman on top of me – raping me. She had apparently brought me to erection while I was unconscious – not hard as I was 19 and could easily maintain one with little effort at that age. She told me everything was okay and to go back to sleep and despite my best effort to the contrary, I was unable to speak coherently in my half-conscious state and did fall asleep again quickly. I have no idea how long she continued on top of me as I remained unconsious for the remainder of this first attack. It is very possible that this lasted for several hours as my rapist was (as I would learn later) an experienced domintrax and quite aggressive.
After the alcohol and/or possible sedatives had worn off in the morning, I awoke again to find her on top of me – angry and hostile. I immediately remembered waking up at least once prior during the night to find her on me and felt my body freeze up at the realization I was being raped. This wasn’t a dream. This wasn’t a fantasy. This wasn’t consensual.
She sternly warned me to “be quiet” and “not be forceful” and made it clear that she would accuse me of raping her if I tried to stop it. I was stunned to say the least and not sure how to respond. I could easily have thrown her off me and ended it right then, but I was not willing to risk harming her child or her to protect myself. Further, I took her threat very, very seriously. She said it so easily that I doubt I was her first.
I weighed my options for a moment and came to the conclusion that a sober, pregnant, locally raised, college student of 24 was far more likely to be believed by the authorities than what they would perceive to be a drunk 19-year old Marine in the best shape of his life. I frequented that club a lot and I’m sure several people saw me leave with her. My choices were jail vs. enduring further rape at her hands.”
In others words, in Israeli feminists taking the actions they were and for the reasons they were, they were making what they feared might happen to women who are raped by men, a reality which can and does happen to men raped by women– never mind the way that said rapist and other female rapists like her, no doubt knowingly used her own unborn child as a human shield and weapon of rape. But then as I have heard Karen Straughan put it multiple times, that’s perfectly okay to said feminists, “because penis and vagina”.
Of course, once again, this is the same feminist movement who, “Because Patriarchy”, has an ideological stance towards female-on-male sexual violence which essentially amounts to a response of “it’s his fault because his patriarchal power systemically and collectively oppressed her into doing it.” I would also remind you here that the same laws which allow female rapists to rape underage boys, use them as unwilling sperm donors and then financially enslave them by suing them for child support, also give female rapists of adult men, the same weapons of legal abuse and enslavement.
It should be noted that giving female sexual predators a free pass not only harms men and boys, but also women and girls – in particular women and girls in some of the most barbaric conflicts in the world today.
As TIME Magazine also noted in its December 13 article entitled “Congo’s Forgotten Curse: Epidemic of Female-on-Female Rape”, the notion that the horrors women suffer in conflicts is solely male-perpetrated, is a dangerous myth. In fact 40% of all women and 10% of all men who have been victims of war rape in the Congo, have been raped by women, often in far more horrifying ways than when men rape women there. The two stories it told were horrifying – those of Marie and Valerie. In Marie’s case, she was brutally raped by her female rapists who successfully fought for the privilege of raping her and would have been murdered by her female rapists had the men in the guerrilla unit said rapists were with, not intervened. In Valerie’s cases, she was raped at age 15 by a man and left with a rape pregnancy; she was later raped at age 17 and left sterile. Even more telling was that in conflicts in countries such as Liberia, Haiti, Sierra Leone, Northern Ireland and Sri Lanka, it was actually found that female combatants were far more sexually violent than male combatants. Yet it seems that even when it is women being sexually violated and maimed by female rapists, feminist academics still seem determined to give female rapists an automatic victim pass, essentially “because vagina”. After all, according to Miranda Alison who unearthed said findings, it can all by the female rapists’ need “to compete for status and recognition in a traditionally patriarchal context.”
In other words said rapists are all innocent victims of the ‘big bad boys club’ who were just trying to fit in’.
I wonder how Marie would feel about knowing that people like Ms Alison were all too quick to give her rapists a free pass when they were the ones wanting to kill her and it was the men who intervened to save her life.
I wonder how Valerie would feel about Ms Alison’s attitudes when as bad as a rape pregnancy is, it was her female rapist who left her unable to have children.
I wonder how re-traumatising it would be for both of them, and women just like her, to hear their horrid ordeals trivialised, dismissed and excused in such a manner.
But then I guess that’s just socially acceptable “because penis and vagina”.
You may notice that I haven’t addressed prison rape as yet and that has been a deliberate move on my part. The reason for this is because I wanted to save it for when I brought up malicious rape allegations through a lens you may not have previously encountered – namely in terms of proxy violence.
You may or may not be familiar with the term “proxy violence” – namely the act of perpetrating violence upon another person by means of an external agent, or proxy. However you would be no doubt familiar with the concept of murder by proxy in the form of one person hiring a hit man to murder someone for them. In that case, the hit man is no different to a gun, a car or a knife – they are ultimately a weapon used by the murder to murder their intended target. I am sure you would agree that ethically speaking, it is entirely valid to state that someone who hires a hit man to murder someone is every bit as much a murderer as someone who shoots their intended victim.
You may or may not see where I am going with this. However it is first crucial to distinguish between wrongful rape allegations and malicious rape allegations. Wrongful rape allegations are situations where someone makes false rape allegations against another person, genuinely believing that said person had either raped them or was in the process of attempting to rape them; a classic example of this would be where someone was raped, but the system and the victim got the identity of the rapist wrong.
Conversely, malicious rape allegations are where someone knowingly makes a fraudulent claim that someone else raped them and where no actual rape took place. It is these malicious rape allegations that I will now focus on.
It is entirely logical to claim that someone who makes malicious rape allegations, does so knowing that the end result of such successful allegations is that their target will be wrongfully incarcerated. In doing so they are actively using the judicial systems and penal systems to inflict violence upon their victims. Ergo malicious rape allegations could reasonably be classed as either acts of proxy violence, or acts of attempted proxy violence.
So what of the nature of the violence itself. It is no secret that male-on-male prison rape is so widespread and comedified, that jokes like “dropping the soap” are commonplace, while movies like the Naked Gun Series have used it as the subject of comedy. Some have even argued that male-on-male prison rape is far more common than female-on-male rape. Likewise, it is an open secret that groups of prisoners like convicted child predators, rapists, male batterers and corrupt police officers are often the subject of ‘special treatment’ while incarcerated. The nature of said ‘special treatment’ often involves severe beatings and even the prisoners being raped themselves. In cases of malicious rape allegations, all such instances of ‘special treatment’ can reasonably be considered to be forms of proxy violence – where the perpetrator of said malicious allegation is in effect using inmates of the penal system as proxies to perpetrate violence through.
To put this in context, let’s take the hypothetical situation where a man is the victim of a malicious rape allegation, is successfully prosecuted and the judge decides to ‘send a strong message to the community’ – sentencing the victim of said allegation to 20 years behind bars. In the case of said victim receiving ‘special treatment’ on a weekly basis, we are talking about the victim enduring 52 counts of rape and 52 counts of aggravated assault over the course of a year, or 1040 counts of rape and 1040 counts of aggravated assault over the course of being unjustly imprisoned for 20 years. Worse still, in cases of said ‘special treatment’ occurring daily, we are talking about 365.25 counts of rape and 365.25 counts of aggravated assault over the course of a year, or 7,305 counts of rape and 7,305 counts of aggravated assault over the course of being unjustly imprisoned for 20 years.
In other words, where a sentence of 20 years is unjustly given because of a malicious rape allegation, said allegation amounts to between 1040 counts and 14,610 counts of rape and physical violence by proxy.
To put this in context, the Ariel Castro case, which saw 3 women kidnapped and sexually abused for over a decade, saw him charged with 977 counts of sexual violence in comparison – spread across 3 victims. In other words only a malicious rape allegation can be reasonably argued to result in at least 7-8 times the amount of violence against its victim than Ariel Castro inflicted between 3 victims. Did anyone dare trivialise those horrors by asking how often horrors like that take place in an effort to diminish or dismiss them? Yet all too often, feminists do just that, while many misguided MRAs focus on destroyed reputations rather than the above real harm and horrors malicious rape allegations cause.
In getting you to truly reflect on the above, how much of it would get the same level of a free pass, the same excuses and the same level of systemic and institutionalised enabling if it were female victims of male perpetrators? Very little of it I’d wager.
Yet doesn’t that fit the very definition of a rape culture – where sexual violence is condoned, normalised, glorified and even incentivised? That’s without even exploring anecdotal accounts I’ve encountered in countries like Pakistan, where women can rape a 12 year old boy and the 12 year old boy is subsequently imprisoned for the crime of adultery.
To be clear, by no means am I saying that we should reach a point in society of “teaching women not to rape” or parading slogans like “all women are rapists”. That said, I do think that we need to teach men and women that men and particularly boys have the right to say no and that when a man says no, it should be respected every bit as much as when a woman says no.
Ms Jaye, I am aware from your own statements that you started your journey of making The Red Pill with the initial intention of making a documentary on rape culture. Perhaps the reason you were destined to make The Red Pill, was because the documentary on rape culture you were meant to make, was the complete opposite of the one you imagined.
In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope that it has inspired you to make a documentary on this hidden social scourge and taboo in the same way that you were inspired to make a documentary on the Men’s Rights Movement.