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.
She was likely raped (by a male, perhaps her father?) much like you were by your mother. It’s very callous to refer to her as a bitch because a sign. Women aren’t attending these protests because they find them fun. They are victims like you.
So if I make a sign that says “not all women but always a woman” because so far, both times I’ve been raped are by women, there wouldn’t be an uproar about how it’s sexist and excludes woman victims of male abusers?
Why should I be cast aside, lumped in with the “always a man” crowd as an abuser, while the women who abused me are lauded as victims? Why not just care about all victims of abuse? Why do we say “well you’re only 4% so you don’t matter” or “sit down and shut up we’re not talking about you” whenever male victims just want to be fucking included in the conversation and not forgotten about for once, and by the group that should be recognizing us as compatriots in our trauma at that?
She doesn’t have to put us down to make herself feel better and we’re rightfully angry that it happened again.
Ok I was always abused by multiple women, time to make a sign thay says always a woman
Funny how you jump into assumptions and justifications for her without knowing a thing about her other than her gender and the signpost she has, yet wag your finger at another victim for having a reaction to a message invalidating a ton of rape victims, and also lumping them in the same group as their abuser, as if it was an inherent, genderlocked flaw.
If you don’t see that as a double standard, then you should really read my last paragraph again and reevaluate your biases.
It’s just exactly like the people who saw “black lives matter” and thought they meant only black lives matter. They see the sign saying “not all men but always men” and ignored the first part and focused on the second part. Then proceeded to ignore the actual subject of the article (you know, the woman who was continually raped without her knowledge or consent for over 10 years by 50 or possibly more men and the fact that the defense is arguing that “maybe she secretly knew and liked it”). And are completely focused on being outraged by the sign.
This would only be correct or even make sense if you didn’t get triggered by a sign that read always a woman.