The problem with "Every man is a potential rapist"

[Gadarene]

Well, given that it actually worked, maybe it had a point?

At what cost? Increasing prejudice against men. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

But here's an idea - maybe we could stop even more rapes if....bear with me - we acknowledged the *other* gender that rapes.

You want to address women rapists, be my guest. But given that particular attitudes have been shown to drive the behaviour of men who rape, and we can address those attitudes, I'd like to actually do that.

Address the problem. Just don't single out one gender given how that's not how we treat other issues, or try and "address" these problems in ways that are bigoted.

 

[Paidiske]

I would advice you to see the difference between me and the person who said that, since you are commenting to me. I am not responsible for Gadaranes comments. Would you please not generalize mine and Gadaranes comments as representatives of something same.

I have already suggested both generally the idea to find a new tone to talk about rape, and particularly two sources to find inspiration for that, one was to read Michelle Obama's speech and the second one was to take a look at anti-terrorist experts on how to communicate with Muslim community, for an example case of effective communication.

Fair points, my apologies.

The difficulty I'm having with the idea that we need "a new tone" to talk about rape is that it comes across as not taking the reality very seriously. It seems to want to minimise and divert. Part of my experience in dealing with prevention of violence against women (something I've been quite involved with), and in particular the community education side, is that it's a very common pattern that even naming the reality of what happens leaves many men very defensive and feeling attacked, and the conversation gets derailed before it even gets started. The quest for "a new tone" feels like another derail, where we end up spending time talking about what hurts men's feelings instead of what prevents rape. And that's incredibly frustrating.

Could you link to Michelle Obama's speech? I wouldn't know where to find the particular one you refer to.

Is part of the problem here that we're dealing with realities which affect not just a minority group but in some way, everyone in our communities? Every person finds him or herself somewhere in the conversation about rape, and its prevention. I wonder if that makes it quite different to trying to engage a very coherent and well-defined minority group, such as Islam.

 

[Paidiske]

Just don't single out one gender given how that's not how we treat other issues, or try and "address" these problems in ways that are bigoted.

The problem is that the attitudes which drive a male rapist's behaviour, and those which drive a female rapist's behaviour, are quite different. So they need different strategies to address them. That's not bigotry, it's targetted messaging.

 

[Gadarene]

The difficulty I'm having with the idea that we need "a new tone" to talk about rape is that it comes across as not taking the reality very seriously. It seems to want to minimise and divert.

No, the concern is equality. The reason men present a backlash to what you are presenting is because they are not idiots. They can see how minorities demand a certain standard in how they are spoken to, in the name of equality. Suddenly when men try and do the same, really we just want to stop women from getting raped. It's a pathetic reaction to a simple request for consistency, not least because it is so easily avoided - but some people want to hang to their bigotry for dear life.

Part of my experience in dealing with prevention of violence against women (something I've been quite involved with), and in particular the community education side, is that it's a very common pattern that even naming the reality of what happens leaves many men very defensive and feeling attacked, and the conversation gets derailed before it even gets started.

Saying it's ok to profile men as potential rapists will do that.

Silly misogynistic men tho rite

Stop blaming others for your own bigotry.

The quest for "a new tone" feels like another derail, where we end up spending time talking about what hurts men's feelings instead of what prevents rape. And that's incredibly frustrating.

Nothing is stopping you presenting solutions that *don't* involve bigotry! That you haven't only speaks to a lack of imagination it would seem.

Is part of the problem here that we're dealing with realities which affect not just a minority group but in some way, everyone in our communities? Every person finds him or herself somewhere in the conversation about rape, and its prevention. I wonder if that makes it quite different to trying to engage a very coherent and well-defined minority group, such as Islam.

It makes the bigotry you are recommending even more disruptive, if anything.

 

[Gadarene]

The problem is that the attitudes which drive a male rapist's behaviour, and those which drive a female rapist's behaviour, are quite different. So they need different strategies to address them. That's not bigotry, it's targetted messaging.

Again - bear with me - this is complicated stuff.

Maybe.....we could make a *different* poster as part of the *same* poster campaign with a message towards women?

 

[MehGuy]

Feminism is already really popular with the men. The solution is obviously to keep doing the same things and continue the course.

 

[Gadarene]

Feminism is already really popular with the men. The solution is obviously to keep doing the same things and continue the course.

Nah bro, the fact there's only now 7% of my country that's feminist (down from about 20%) is just because men now hate women more. It's got nothing to do with feminism displaying zero willingness to self-reflect. Nope nope nope

 

[All4Christ]

From my perspective, it makes perfect sense to take precautions. I'm not going to go with a stranger in the car by myself, I carry pepper spray with me when I'm out at night, I don't put myself into potentially compromising situations if I don't know the person. I don't walk down dark alleyways if I can avoid it, and I avoid walking through some of the rougher parts of the city. I even have taken a self defense course.

So to those who disagree with the title of the thread - does it bother you when anyone takes basic precautions to protect ourselves from potentially compromising situations? Or is it just the phrase that is problematic?

 

[Gadarene]

From my perspective, it makes perfect sense to take precautions. I'm not going to go with a stranger in the car by myself, I carry pepper spray with me when I'm out at night, I don't put myself into potentially compromising situations if I don't know the person. I don't walk down dark alleyways if I can avoid it, and I avoid walking through some of the rougher parts of the city. I even have taken a self defense course.

See I do a fair few of those things too.

Note what I don't do.

I don't just go "ah, a man. Potential threat." I would like it if people are being diagnosed as a specific threat based on more the fact they are walking publicly while male.

So to those who disagree with the title of the thread - does it bother you when anyone takes basic precautions to protect ourselves from potentially compromising situations? Or is it just the phrase that is problematic?

Context also matters too. It is far less acceptable to say such things about minority groups, but apparently fine to say so to men.

 

[RDKirk]

No; my proposal is the exact opposite. My proposal is that our culture allows and propagates the attitudes which lead to men becoming rapists, and that those can be addressed.

But, when that has been done successfully, as in the "Don't be that guy" campaign, suddenly I'm told that's bigoted!

That's not the message of "Every man is a potential rapist," however.

Let me put this into another perspective:

I can (and have) argued that "Black Lives Matter" does not mean "only black lives matter."

However, I've discovered that my interpretation of "Black Lives Matter" is not, in fact, upheld by the people who originated the hashtag, and those women continually release statements that belie my interpretation.

The upshot is that I've abandoned trying to "reform" the phrase. I still believe my own interpretation expresses a valid concern, but I realize I can't continue to use that particular phrase to express it.

And the same is true of your attempts to rehabilitate "Every man is a rapist."

 

[Jack of Spades]

Fair points, my apologies.

The difficulty I'm having with the idea that we need "a new tone" to talk about rape is that it comes across as not taking the reality very seriously. It seems to want to minimise and divert. Part of my experience in dealing with prevention of violence against women (something I've been quite involved with), and in particular the community education side, is that it's a very common pattern that even naming the reality of what happens leaves many men very defensive and feeling attacked, and the conversation gets derailed before it even gets started. The quest for "a new tone" feels like another derail, where we end up spending time talking about what hurts men's feelings instead of what prevents rape. And that's incredibly frustrating.

When dealing with such a culture-bound issue as rape, those attitudes are part of both the problem and the solution. You can either see those men as a nuisance, and make enemies of them, or you can try to find a way to make them part of the solution. If there was an easy way for it, someone else would have fixed it by now.

If you want someone to walk a mile for your cause, you might have to first walk two for them. A man is morally responsible for not raping women himself, but to take part in an activist campaign is something of a calling-thing, and it's unreasonable to expect everyone to hop on board automatically, or to try to guilt them about it being their personal responsibility.

I might or might not know something about being involved with victims of a problem that seem to not be taken seriously, but I won't go in detail. Just so you know that I'm not making this up.

Could you link to Michelle Obama's speech? I wouldn't know where to find the particular one you refer to.

Is part of the problem here that we're dealing with realities which affect not just a minority group but in some way, everyone in our communities? Every person finds him or herself somewhere in the conversation about rape, and its prevention. I wonder if that makes it quite different to trying to engage a very coherent and well-defined minority group, such as Islam.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/14/michelle-obama-speech-transcript-donald-trump

^that's the speech

That's why I called it "possible inspiration", since it's a different topic but there might something useful to find. No need to reinvent a wheel if someone else had thought about it already.

 

[Jack of Spades]

So to those who disagree with the title of the thread - does it bother you when anyone takes basic precautions to protect ourselves from potentially compromising situations? Or is it just the phrase that is problematic?

Just the phrase, because it's used for another purpose too, for a more foundational anti-male agenda by extreme feminists. I have explained it already couple of times in the thread, and if you're interested, I can explain it again, but I assume you have read some of the thread already?

Taking precautions is perfectly reasonable, and I try to personally avoid causing a situation where a woman would feel vulnerable when I'm f.e. dating someone for the first time etc.

 

[Gadarene]

Taking precautions is perfectly reasonable, and I try to personally avoid causing a situation where a woman would feel vulnerable when I'm f.e. dating someone for the first time etc.

And given the "all men are potential rapists" mentality, that is arguably a self-defence precaution of your own.

 

[Gadarene]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/14/michelle-obama-speech-transcript-donald-trump

^that's the speech

That's the sort of stuff I've been talking about. No attempt to imply collective guilt on men as a group or impute responsibility to fix it, no profiling men as potential abusers rather than not - and all those unpleasant attitudes that do lead to assault being publicly called out. It can be done!

 

[Jack of Spades]

And given the "all men are potential rapists" mentality, that is arguably a self-defence precaution of your own.

It's a precaution for myself too, yes. If a woman comes off as very manipulative or unstable, I'm going to avoid being left alone with her anywhere, so she can't make up any stories.

That's the sort of stuff I've been talking about. No attempt to imply collective guilt on men as a group or impute responsibility to fix it, no profiling men as potential abusers rather than not - and all those unpleasant attitudes that do lead to assault being publicly called out. It can be done!

It's a masterpiece, but admittedly she does have probably the highest paid speech writers in the land to help her, so maybe that's an unreasonable standard. But a good example.

 

[Paidiske]

It's a good speech, for what it is; part of a political campaign. I'm sure it swayed some voters. I'm not sure it's a model for the kind of deep attitudinal work we're talking about here, though.

FWIW, I understand about the long and patient work of changing attitudes. (That's what preaching week after week is really about, after all). I remember being told once at college that you have to tell a congregation basically the same thing every week for a year before they even start to believe it. And that's when you've got a group of people who are invested in the message and motivated to take it on board. When you're dealing with wider social change it's harder and it takes longer.

 

[Gadarene]

It's a good speech, for what it is; part of a political campaign. I'm sure it swayed some voters. I'm not sure it's a model for the kind of deep attitudinal work we're talking about here, though.
.

It's a darn sight more in depth than Schrödinger's Rapist and Don't Be That Guy.

 

[All4Christ]

Just the phrase, because it's used for another purpose too, for a more foundational anti-male agenda by extreme feminists. I have explained it already couple of times in the thread, and if you're interested, I can explain it again, but I assume you have read some of the thread already?

Taking precautions is perfectly reasonable, and I try to personally avoid causing a situation where a woman would feel vulnerable when I'm f.e. dating someone for the first time etc.

Yes, I did read some of it (though not all as there are many pages). Some here, however, seem to imply that taking precautions against potentially dangerous situations is profiling in a bigoted fashion. One person even stated that his wife doesn't feel the need to be cautious in some areas that I listed above. I honestly don't remember which person said that...it was several pages back. It concerns me when some believe common sense precautions are wrong due to potential profiling- even when it isn't because of profiling. Does that make sense? It isn't wrong to take care of yourself. That doesn't mean we said "he likely is a rapist" each time we see a man. It just means we take precautions to protect ourselves.

My husband recently made sure I had pepper spray for around town. There were a series of women in their 20s and young 30s held at gunpoint by middle age white men in the alleyways. It makes perfect sense to me to protect against that scenario. That doesn't mean all middle age white men are going to hold me up at gunpoint...but i will protect myself against that scenario. (In this case it was the same two men consistently.) Behind my garage (which is not connected to our house), there is a mission youth center. One of the young men raped a girl behind my house. I'm particularly careful there. We put motion sensor lights up, secured our gate for a more secure entry into our yard. That doesn't mean all men from that youth center are rapists, but it is common sense to be cautious there as well, imho.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The problem is that the attitudes which drive a male rapist's behaviour, and those which drive a female rapist's behaviour, are quite different. So they need different strategies to address them. That's not bigotry, it's targetted messaging.

Ummm...what?

The attitudes of female rapists are different how? They really just wanted the guy to open up, be more vulnerable, and share more on an emotional level?

 

[Paidiske]

Ummm...what?

The attitudes of female rapists are different how? They really just wanted the guy to open up, be more vulnerable, and share more on an emotional level?

The attitudes which have been shown to underpin male violence against women (including rape) boil down to three key things:

- The acceptability of violence
- A belief that women are inferior to men
- An acceptance of rigidly stereotyped gender roles.

I don't know so much about the attitudes of females who are violent against men (including rape), but it's clear that their beliefs around inferiority and gender roles are going to be different, because a woman who is violent towards a man doesn't usually believe herself to be his inferior or accept the stereotypical "meek and submissive" role for women.