Hey, thank you for your comment. Sorry I didn't respond straight away; I tend to avoid reading comments on articles that go viral because to do so quickly becomes overwhelming, extremely time consuming. But since things have died down and I have free time to go through the responses, here I am.
My main point of contention with this comment is what you say here: "You are literally arguing that male victims of sexual assault should not be taken as seriously as female victims of sexual assault because the abusers in both scenarios are men. You are applying responsibility to the entire human male species, and using that to disregard their trauma and abuse, all while excusing any responsibility of females in perpetuating the underlying cultural beliefs that fuel this problem. Why does it matter who the perpetrator is when talking about taking a victim's claims seriously?"
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying here. I understand that what I intended to say is less important than how my words come across, but even re-reading my piece I don't think it's fair to say that this should be seen as me claiming that male victims should not be taken as seriously as female victims. The whole point of this article, after all, was to argue that male victims should be taken just as seriously. The point of this section of the article was to try to explore why this isn't the case. Why aren't male victims taken as seriously? That's where the question of who the perpetrator tends to be important. If you want to stop a problem, you have to look at who is causing it.
The article does go into how women can contribute to the problem and how they are very much capable of being the perpetrator, although as you've noted, I don't go into this as much as I go into the men's roles. This is because, although I agree that there are plenty of people within the feminist movement who bash on men and promote harmful masculine stereotypes, I don't believe they're the main cause of this problem. Perhaps this is just because my own personal experience with feminists have been very positive on this issue; it's rare for me to meet a feminist or consume feminist media which does what you're describing here. And when I do see it, it often feels like they're doing so in reaction to the often misognyist undertones so many MRAs have. (Although of course, it often feels like the mysoginist tones of MRAs is also done in reaction to the mysandrous tones of feminists; a constant cycle I'm hoping to avoid.) The feminists are the first group of people to really open my eyes on this issue in the first place, to show how the way male bodies are treated is not actually okay.
But even taking into account all the feminists who do behave as you're describing, ultimately solving the issue is still, primarily, a male responsibility, in much the same way that women's suffrage was accomplished primarily through the activism of women. If it's an issue that affects men, then men are going to have to take the lead here, and unfortunately most men in our society still don't take this stuff seriously. (And in the comments to this article, both on Medium and Reddit where it was popular, the vast majority of the comments saying stuff like, "oh, this is ridiculous. The author's making a huge deal out of nothing," were men, not women.)
Basically: the point of that segment you've mentioned was not to argue that male victims shouldn't be taken as seriously, but to refute the idea that male victims are taken less seriously *because* of feminists, or because of women.
I do apologize if it came off as a little too dismissive. There are certainly some parts of this article that I wish I've worded a little differently. I think the main problem with this article is that I tried to condense it too much; longer articles tend not to do well on Medium, so I ended up taking a 4,500 word essay and cut a thousand words out of it, hoping a shorter length would make it more likely to get curated. (And I seem to have been right, although it came at a cost, lol.)
Since the success of this article, though, I've been more inclined to write longer, in-depth pieces, regardless of whether that hurts its chances of doing well. I've got a 16-minute read about South Park that came out a few days ago, and I'm currently working on a Catcher in the Rye article that's likely going to be well over 4,500 words. I'm glad you liked the style of writing here, because these types of articles are something I've always wanted to write but, up until very recently, have never felt like I'd be able to find an audience for.