'We are all Gisèle': French women rise up against 'rape culture' during Gisèle Pelicot trial
They line up in front of a courthouse in southeastern France, from morning to evening, and have gathered in the thousands in cities across the country. They hold signs reading, "one rape every six minutes," "not all men but always a man," and "giving in is not consenting."
They chant: "Rapist we see you, victim we believe you."
Women across France are rallying in support of Gisèle Pelicot, a 72-year-old reluctant icon whose husband is on trial in the city of Avignon for systematically drugging her and inviting dozens of men, 50 of whom are now his co-defendants, into their home to rape her over nearly a decade.
The shocking case has sparked what many women in France call a long-overdue reckoning over "rape culture" and systemic sexism in the way the judicial system handles sexual violence.
And yet, what no-one wants to face is the fact that women rape men as frequently as men rape women:
I mean, yes - let’s lock up convicted rapists. But if 50%of cross-gender rapists are women yet almost 100% of convicted rapists are men, there’s some seriously weapons-grade gender bigotry at play, there.
A legal system that is truly based on equality should see about a 50/50 split of male/female rapists convicted, and for largely equal time served as well.
I think you are hand-picking numbers here. The most current CDC Report on Intimate Partner Violence does not support your claims. https://www.cdc.gov/nisvs/documentation/NISVSReportonIPV_2022.pdf
The report you picked excludes quite a lot of victims as it's about intimite partner violence which it defines as:
For the full numbers not just for intimate partners you want this report https://www.cdc.gov/nisvs/documentation/nisvsReportonSexualViolence.pdf which confusingly has the same title. It states 2.3% of women raped in a 12 month timeframe and 0.3% of men being raped and 1.3% made to penetrate in the same timeframe, so 1.6% of men either raped or made to penetrate.
So for the first study, I have my emotionally abusive ex that would threaten suicide (at the drop of a hat, but also) when I wasn't in the mood, and for the "full numbers" there's the two women I never dated that raped me. Huh, neat. I wonder why the only three abusive women to exist in the world chose me. Couldn't be that it's more common than people think or anything, no waaaay.
I took a look at the CDC report. Those comparable numbers are only about the 12 months preceding the survey which is, while probably statistically significant, not the whole story. It's interesting to see why there's a jump in those numbers for the 12 months preceding, but otherwise if you look at lifetime numbers women are victimized at significantly higher rates than men.
that's being penetrated, I think it doesn't include being made to penetrate, which is covered in other forms of sexual violence.
side note: I don't know how the article got numbers for "being made to penetrate" specifically, the CDC article doesn't seem to specifically say it. maybe I skimmed it wrong. I only saw the 1.6% of men reporting "unwanted sexual contact" in the last 12 months, which is compared to the women reporting at 2.2% of women, which is while still almost 40% higher, closer than lifetime experiences which are estimated at 27.3% vs 10.8%. Guess which is which.
This includes being made to penetrate and other things, again if you can find where the 1.6% comes from please let me know.
this is interestingly one of the categories where it is not as close in the last 12 months: women's rate double men's. not central to my overall point but it is surprising because if anything I expected this to be closer than other categories, considering social media making stalking easier. just a note.
here's an interesting part about "always a man":
women are predominantly predated by men in all forms, but men are predominantly made to penetrate and coerced by women (I guess this is expected more than men would be doing this?), while penetrated predominantly by men (I guess obvious) and suffering other forms of sexual predation including stalking by a relatively even rate of men and women.
That sounds like it all comes pretty close to "always a man".
Right, in many municipalities it's impossible for a woman to be charged with rape for forcing someone to have sex with them through coercive means. Until that is no longer the case "men rape more than women" is like saying "you're more likely to starve without food." No shit, because definitionally woman legally cannot be charged with rape for raping.
You see how that skews the data, right? Sure "it's all men" if you don't count the women, why would that surprise anyone?
those cases are not relevant here. the data we're talking about is not skewed. they cover all these other situations independent of municipality. also these are not numbers on reported cases (they're included in the study) but estimated actual numbers.
With how unlikely men are to report (or sometimes, they don't even realize they have been raped), I'm not sure how they can accurately estimate.
In any case, making it a gendered issue and lumping me, a victim, in with the perpetrators simply because I was born with a penis, and lumping my rapists in with the victims because they were born with vaginas, isn't what I call "cool." I'd much prefer if we made it a victims VS victimizers thing, rather than a men VS women thing, personally.
Furthermore this whole "women can't rape men" thing needs to be fixed. I simply will not have the conversation about "who rapes who more" until it is fixed, by acknowledging it as a legitimate law I am erasing my own experiences and enabling others to do so.
How's that relevant? It looks at one year and within that year the number of rape/made-to-penetrate victims is roughly equal for men and women. Unless there was something unusual happening that year or the same men are made to penetrate more often then women get raped, then if you extend the timeframe the numbers should change similarly for men and women.
From the 2011 study in the Results section:
wow, your argument really becomes impenetrable once you concede to "unless"es and "if" and "should"s.
there is an extended timeline. it's called lifetime. and it tells a different story.
about the stats: thanks for finding it, I mixed the numbers and was looking for the 1.6% ... anyway, looking for lifetime numbers, if you compare women who have been raped vs men who were raped and made to penetrate combined, the numbers add up to 19.3% of women vs 1.7+6.7 = 8.4% of men assuming zero overlap. that's still more than double the rate of men.
in the same section for sexual violence other than rape, women's rates nearly double men's in lifetime numbers. again for some reason much closer in the 12 months preceding.
sexual coercion: 12.5% vs 5.8% lifetime (more than double) and not that close in the 12 months as other categories, 2% vs 1.3% (1.5x approximately)
etc etc...
I don't know what the fuck happened between 2010 and 2011 but the numbers for that year do not reflect lifetime experiences of people at all. it makes no sense to disregard the extended timeline and instead use the snippet to extrapolate.
The share may differ - I'm not aware of it being equal and you bring up interesting stats right there - but regardless, men can absolutely be victims of all kinds of abuse, and we have to treat it seriously.
Yes, men forced to do what they don't like or coerced to have sex is rape, and same for women.
Some American jurisdictions can’t even properly report a male victim of rape or sexual assault because their software is hard-coded to assign the victim as female and the perp as male.
Plus, the vast majority of men have been brainwashed into thinking that it is impossible for a woman to rape a man. So many of them don’t even see their rape as a rape, and frequently blame themselves.
And for the cherry on top, male rape victims can and frequently are forced to pay child support to their rapist if a child is conceived, thereby further traumatizing them. This happens even if the male victim was a minor - upon their 18th birthday they are hit with tens of thousands in arrears, and face jail time if they cannot immediately begin paying. Imagine - jailing a rape victim for the product of their rape!!
Think of how this would go down if the genders were swapped, and then ask yourself: why isn’t it going down like that as it currently is?
Because men don’t matter. Because men are trivially disposable. Because if men cannot provide something of value, they are worse than useless: they are a threat to society and need to be violently coerced into being useful. It’s why so many men are saying, “thanks, but no thanks” to the various “traditional” societal expectations of them (career, marriage, and even relationships entirely), and are going their own way. And I don’t blame them one bit.
I follow you, until the last part.
"Men don't matter", "women don't matter" - those statements often seem to imply that the other gender is dominant and treats the other as disposable. This is not true - both men and women heavily suffer from bias, discrimination, and abuse - both in their own ways.
Traditional expectations hurt everybody, men and women, and should be thrown out the window. This includes a traditional concept that men are always perpetrators but not victims of abuse, among other things - something that is still commonly ignored, sometimes out of genuine ignorance, sometimes in bad faith.
I have never heard that, anywhere within the last half a century. A statement like that would be seen as misogyny of the highest order, and would have the speaker publicly crucified on the altar of public opinion.
I mean, sure - it might be uttered in dark, hidden, ChristoFascist corners, but that isn’t spoken anywhere in public like the statement “kill all men” is widely lauded and celebrated by female supremacists.
Then why have women been allowed to disgorge almost all of theirs, while men are being constantly nailed to the wall for theirs?
Women have been able to nearly completely release the “homemaker” status (yay! - honestly), but a man who wants to be a homemaker will nearly always remain a life-long bachelor. Having a prestigious, well-paying career (or, at least, the potential for one) is nearly always a woman’s first consideration in a man.
If a career-oriented man can (and frequently do) wife up some minimum-wage barista with oodles of student loans, why do career women almost always only look above their current economic level for mates? Because that is a reinforcement of traditional expectations.
Things along the lines of "women don't matter" are commonly spoken by feminists much the same way you said a similar thing about men - as a statement that this gender group is a victim of modern society.
You wouldn't hear "men don't matter" in another context, either.
And I'm not saying that the pressure of traditional expectations is equal on women vs men, I don't have what it takes to compare, so I won't even try. I just state they hurt everyone, and you don't have to sink one to raise the other.
And yet - facts and evidence. In a western society, those are severely lacking from their argument, whereas the flip side is bleeding out everywhere. Hell, a saucy jaunt through any dating service - online or meatworld - is a severe cognitive dissonance to anyone trying to shill the “women don’t matter” bullshit, as beyond the top-2% of men, women have ALL the power in the dating world.
I just thank the fates that I left the dating scene behind me almost three decades ago. From what I can see, things have gotten much, much worse for men since then, and it was already horrid back then.
Then there is the gender sentencing gap in the legal system, which is three times larger than the wealth sentencing gap, and seven times larger than the racial sentencing gap. And no, this is taking into account the exact same crime with the exact same damages.
Yes, in the dating sphere women do wield more power. They, however, are also more common victims of stalking, more commonly chased by men they never asked for.
Sentencing gap is also very real.
But then there's a pay gap, lower representation in politics (and also patriarchal traditions of diplomacy requiring high-ranking female politicians to show themselves as rough and cold to uphold their image), the common expectation to bear and rise children almost singlehandedly (despite also having to work full-time), etc. etc.
Women still face many real issues, and so do men. It's just that men's rights is a newer concept and it takes a lot of effort to overcome things that are sometimes as basic as the right to refuse sex.
In the context of this post this is disgusting to bring up.
This doesn't have any bearing on what this old lady was put through.
In the context of this comment section, and the image that was chosen to lead the article, it is not disgusting and it simply makes sense.
She is a fucking hero, she is brave and she gives hope to us rape victims. But if on the same breath you praise her and the people who support her, and dismiss a fuckton of rape victims just because the perpetrators of their particular rapes were women, then that is bound to raise a significant level of discomfort and take away from what the story should be, giving support to the victim of The Beast of Avignon and all rape victims, encouraging them to come forward.
Go make your own post about male victims then.
So basically, "not all men and not all women" should have been the slogan in the first place.
Yes. That is a very even and equal statement that properly balances the reality of the situation.
But equality was never their goal. That’s why those who have rationally and logically studied the ideology call the practitioners female supremacists, and are likely to call themselves egalitarianists.
Wow. That was remarkably mask off. You watch a lot of Ben Shapiro, buddy?
Ben Shapiro is a moron. And so is pretty much anyone who has ever punted the “alpha male” narrative.
What I do, exclusively, is listen to what “feminists” say, and compare it to not only reality, but also how any flip-side examples for men are perceived. From there it is clear that the ideology is one of gender supremacy. There is no other possible interpretation, because there is no equality in their objectives. Any “benefits” that men accrue from feminism are purely by happenstance and lucky accident, but the foundation and exclusive intent of any one incident has always been female-first and almost always to the intentional exclusion of men.
And what does that mean, you fill a document with feminist phrases and ctrl+v over every word 'woman' the word 'man'? That is... wow, that is incredibly academic. I'm actually hit-stunned by how smart that is.
If that’s the best you can come up with, then you are just as bad as Ben Shapiro.
Oddly defensive response you have.