It is NOT a minority that believe men can't be victims, especially in the feminist academia groups.
You're wrong - it
is a fringe minority. They are a loud and angry fringe, which is why they can sometimes seem much bigger than they actually are.
Very, very little of the documented
research going back to the 1980's even comes close to reflecting the idea that "men cannot be victims, because they are men - ergo, they always hold the power in all circles". In fact, I'd challenge anyone to
find a piece of published, peer-reviewed research that DOES attempt to make this argument.
You won't be able to.
How can I be so confident about that? Because the premise that there is absolute gender inequality is a socio-political hypothesis. There are not enough facts in the world to bear it out. Therefore, any piece of writing that attempts to prove absolute gender inequality will
have to be
opinion writing.
A theory only. Not reality. An interpretation of carefully-selected data sets.
Quick definition: The theory of 'absolute gender inequality' starts with the idea that men will
always, in
all circumstances, have the most power; everybody else will always, in all circumstances, be at a disadvantage.
There's no way it can logically be true. I mean, forget about how people actually
are - this theory cannot incorporate race, or any gender other than "man" and "woman". It can't adjust for culture.
You can only make the point if you selectively ignore whole populations.
An example, using a different topic: A person could build a carefully constructed argument stating that the size and shape of a human's skull is the absolute factor in determining intelligence and personality. There are pieces of science and history that could be quoted to support that hypothesis. Other people might even be convinced by the argument. In fact, a dude named
Franz Gall did
exactly this, beginning in the latter half of the 18th century.
The world looks at that hypothesis now, and easily sees that it's bullshit. Non-science, and just not true. But the notion had a lot of traction for about 100 years.
Anyone arguing absolute gender inequality is doing exactly the same kind of theorizing.
Bottom line: all feminist theory
must begin with the notion of significant gender inequality. Kind of like how a cup of coffee must incorporate the flavor of coffee. Otherwise, it's not a cup of coffee.
Only after it establishes inequality, and what kind of principle it's using to determine it..then, that feminist theory can go about the business of digging deeper into exactly what, and when, any why, and how the inequality exists.
Here's the TL;DR - It's no accident that
'academic' has two meanings. One, it means "scholarly, educational". And two, it means "having no practical purpose, theoretical".
Taking these kinds of academic ideas too far into practical reality is never, ever, ever a good idea. They've got to be read very carefully, with a good amount of fore-knowledge of what context they've been written in. That's the point I'd really love to convince SRG of...these voices that are so upsetting to him (and others) are writing about their beliefs. Not universal truths. And those beliefs are not at all widely held. Perpetuating the idea that they
are is just giving more headspace to a distorted thought pattern that makes them look bigger, more significant than they are.
AND: (and this is the bit that frustrates me) totally
ignores the ways feminist theory
is extremely significant and important for
entirely different reasons.
Argh, I don't have a good enough command of my brain to make this point clearer...but anyone who made it through this post, thanks for trying.