This gets tossed around quite a lot. Perspective is easy to say; it's less easy to define. The problem is tailoring the scope of inquiry either too narrowly, or too broadly. One must find the correct scale.
Anyway, I am reading an actual rape victim's take on this. I've read many, and they come in a lot of flavors. Some of them are angry, some of them are reasoned, some of them are a mixed bag of something I can't define. The angry ones are the least relevant, but saddest of the lot. The ones where a woman adds the caveat that it's not possible for the story to be by her told without crying are just about as sad. Why? Because, they're not capable of remembering the event without reliving the event.
I do not understand this, but it's not important that I do. I accept that their first person conversations with themselves are different than mine. I think my way is healthier than their way, but it's their lives and they're free to do with them as they see fit. I just think it's silly to hold onto that much baggage. But, that's not my problem; it's ultimately theirs to work through how best they can.
This isn't a measure of strength I hasten to add. There's nothing particularly requiring of me some reserves of emotional wherewithal to recall my past without being subject to it time and again. I just long ago learned how to detach my present state from my prior states such that I can analyze them without being victimized in the process. No idea why I can do this and others cannot.
However, I am growing quite a bit tired of the meme that people are denying to victims the right to their feelings. That people are denying to Twatson the right to have felt uncomfortable. Few people, if indeed any at all, are saying she's, or you or me for that matter, are not entitled to whatever it is we feel. This is a byproduct of being evolved denizens of the universe. It's a brute fact of our existence; don't like it? Tough. Go find another universe to live in.
I am told that there exist some valid points on Twatson's side. I've yet to see one that is in disagreement. I have read carefully and thought a long time on the matters implicated in this nontroversy. I see no point made by the opposition which has any feature that puts it in the ballpark of externally valid. I add this caveat because what someone experiences in their own head, in their own imagination, in their own feelings isn't a valid argument beyond the already conceded point that we all have feelings and are entitled to experience them.
This says nothing whatever about reality. One's first person experiences need not generalize. They need not even map onto reality. In fact, quite often our internal dialogue does not map reality. We are constantly living in "what if" universes inside our own heads; it's how we make decisions and learn. If x is true, that implies what? Ok, what about if x + a is true, what then? We whittle it away until we decide on something.
I haven't thought it necessary to mention whether or not I've suffered abuse in my life. I still think it irrelevant. Assume that I have. Now assume the contrary. What merits of my argument change incident to either assumption? None at all.
Anyway, go take a look at the article to which I earlier linked, and participate in the comments section. I would urge you to be forthright, but respectful. There's a difference in the abstract conversations we've been having and engaging an actual person on the merits of her experiences.
As you can see, I have been in her comment section quite direct in saying, essentially, yes, it sucks - so what does this tell us? It's not flip. She claims there are valid points on Watson's side. Press her. Find out what they are. Listen to her story, and evaluate on two levels: emotional and rational.
She seems to conflate dismissing an anecdote as having utility in deciding societal affairs writ large as being the same as dismissing the person's story and, by proxy, the person. I think not. It is entirely possible to empathize with a person on the merits of a story they have about an event that happened with them. That's quite a human, social thing to do. It is also entirely possible to that while simultaneously saying, "yeah, and that provides us no insight into how to organize a world". Appreciate her experiences. Feel them if you like. Cry with her. Laugh with her. Listen to her. Argue with her. But do not let base instinct and emotion replace careful, reasoned thinking on the issues.
I am very much interested in the take on matters that women have. I think it's highly relevant to listen and validate their feelings and experiences. But I think this is true of all women, not merely the ones who favor a particular side. I am fully capable of saying, "I know how you feel, but your conclusions aren't borne out by data." This is, as I'm reminded daily, akin to misogyny and dismissal of a person and her experiences.
Which is odd as this line of reasoning seems perfectly acceptable to atheist with respect to listening to the religious: I appreciate and understand how your religion makes you feel. It's still factually wrong. Sorry, since you're trying to say that your feelings on the matter somehow dictate how reality for the rest of us functions, we have a problem. If you're just telling me how you feel so that I'll know, we have an entirely different matter.
Do not take "I feel __" to imply "therefore ____ is true." Just because to you and those who love you your feelings are profound it does not follow that your reasoning is profound. It's entirely possible to be hyper-passionate about something and be completely wrong. In fact, this is almost always true.
The correctness of a position is inversely correlated to how emotional one is about the issue. It is when a subject is most important to us that we must be on our strongest guard against our feelings, lest we be led hopelessly astray.