You're heavily (wilfully) misinterpreting that statistic, which is bound to be invalid anyway (most rape statistics are worthless guesswork and I don't like it when people start reciting them as gospel).
But what does rape of men have to do with radical feminism?
I mentioned rape.
You assumed I was only referring to rape of women.
You started (mis)quoting statistics on rape of men, like it was some kind of competition over which gender gets raped more.
What does that have to do with anything? (Not a rhetorical question.)
How am I misinterpreting that statistic? Please educate me. So now that I present you with a statistic, you deny it and say that all statistics are just lies, and can't be believed. And certainly there are difficulties making those statistics if the law in some countries prevents a male rape from being classified as a rape.
It has a clear connection to feminism and radical feminism, as feminism markets itself as being an egalitarian movement, striving for equal treatment for both genders. Thus, they get many egalitarians to support and vote for them without really deserving that support. Their complete ignorance of these issues perpetuates their existence. You can see what radical feminists (i.e. today's mainstream feminists) think about male rape in the clips I gave you, or in the link I gave in the starting post already:
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1xi1fd/a_woman_against_feminists_a_repost_since_two/I assumed that you talk only about female rape as a real issue, as you explicitly said that only female genital mutilation is a "real" problem, and due to the fact that raping of men and boys gets no mainstream media attention whatsoever. I asked you to correct me if I'm wrong, and it took you many posts to do that. Maybe you just changed your mind?
I was simply referring to the fact that boys and men are being raped just as often as girls and women, and that despite this being a huge problem, it receives no attention in the public life. It's like it didn't exist.
I never said a single thing about Gandhi. I looked up him and MLK on the old wiki because I wanted to check something. Found a couple of interesting things. As for Mandela, it is absurd for you to group him with Gandhi and MLK who were staunch pacifists for religious reasons, while Mandela was a terrorist at one point and used all means necessary. You also posited a dichotomy between him and the very people who influenced him.
I never said they were pussies. I said you were. Is the word bothering you? I was only using it ironically. Maybe you would prefer 'spineless'?
You said that criticizing radical feminism is like choosing MLK over Malcolm X and Mandela over Castro, i.e. basically being spineless/a pussy. So if MLK and Mandela are the spineless choice because they weren't as radical as Malcolm X or Castro (or Stalin), that implies that what MLK and Mandela did was more or less spineless, doesn't it? Certainly, your comment makes it apparent that you value Malcolm X's and Castro's work more that the others'. I simply pointed out that I find this evaluation peculiar.
Also, you use the word "influenced" very liberally. In your logic, you could claim that every person who thinks that male genital mutilation is bad, is being "influenced" by Ron Paul. Thus, they all must be libertarians too. This is not the reality, however. That Mandela considered using terrorist tactics in some part of his life (though avoiding unnecessary casualties) is something completely other than what Stalin did when in power. There were no "Great Purges" in South Africa when Mandela was president, or were there?
