I didn't mean to imply that men are the ones driving empowerment through feminism. I meant that feminism is about realizing inner strength in spite of existing power dynamics.
The "all PIV is rape" concept implies that women are powerless against the existing social and sexual dynamics between men and women. While, at the same time, relegating all sexually active heterosexual males to rapist status and all sexually active heterosexual women to vicitm status.l Which, in my opinion, spits in the face of feminism.
I mean, I don't think you, nor I, can actually define feminism in any meaningful way. Suffice to say, I do not think it is about inner-strength in the sense I take you to mean, which is a DYI understanding that says the woman, as an individual, should succeed and the others can do as they wish; rather, feminism, as it's been explained to me, is about understanding the strength of women and turning that strength on patriarchal structures so as to create true equality. To your last paragraph, I think many people are getting caught up in this idea that rape = sex when that wasn't what was being argued. The argument is more nuanced than that. I will quote my earlier post:
|[There isn't a one to one comparison between sex and rape within this framework; rather, the argument is there's a continuity between sex and rape. Too often, when we think about sex, we think about in an idealized state, as something abstract and ahistorical. What is being argued is that sex, in this era, is a historical production and the way in which it is constituted in a given era refers to the dominant social structures,i.e., capitalism, patriarchy and white supremacy. The continuity between rape and sex lies within these lines of power, isofar as these people with an identity that has been historically produced, as "women", "men", "trans", "queer", fall along a grid to which value, privilege, recognition, legitimacy, opportunity, is ascribed accordingly; some groups accumulated power over the others for quite some time, with explicit disparities in their interactions with the others and therein lies the issue, because when we say that rape is about power and we think about consent, we do not think about the subtle flows of power that compose our society and how those flows have essentially eroded a basis for affirmative consent.|
This does not make the woman into a victim, it is an analysis that tries to understand the historicity of sex, of coupling, of gendered oppression in relation to consent and so on. Just as an example that the aforementioned journal uses, sex now is different from how it existed in the era prior to sedimentary society. Why is this the case? Because we understand that it signified something so much different than it does in a hierarchical society. That is the point, I believe, they are making: We must know sex, historically, and if we do, and we understand the nuances of power, power which is present at the moment of socialization into gender roles and normal behaviours, then we can say that consent isn't as rigorous a concept as we believe it to be in a heternormative society. I know, for you, history is a dirty word and unimportant in terms of individual will, but I would ask that you read some of the essays that are posted in the LIES Journal and then respond, because they articulate it far better than I could.