The problem with "Every man is a potential rapist"

[Gadarene]

Well, I still don't buy the argument that it's bigotry.

But I'm not acting out of fear. I'm acting out of a desire for a society in which the flourishing of all members is maximised, and one aspect of our society which needs to change to bring us closer to that, is the level of rape.

By doing so in a way that has done the exact opposite in the past, or at least is claimed to when it is applied to every other demographic.

And yeah, still not buying it. There is nothing rational about your stance, so that forces us to conclude the emotional.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I eyeroll as much at the traditionalist guff from some of the Christian posters here as I have at the feminist-flavoured stuff being posted by some of the female posters here.

The important difference is no-one takes the former seriously anymore and so is a receding problem, hence why I don't really talk about it. But the latter is taken seriously, and there is a ridiculous level of hostility towards criticism of feminism in society.

Exactly. I have personally spent miles of posts on bashing the things said on CF by many posters such as "women who dress modestly don't get raped" etc. and those attitudes are, in some regions of the world, really serious problems.

But, as a Scandinavian, the attitudes I encounter in my everyday life are more on the other extreme. Honestly, there have not yet been a practical discrimination on my sex that's something I couldn't handle, like the example of the internship thing, but what I'm worried about is the direction, not the current situation being untoleratable.

 

[RDKirk]

The problem is that not all men have the same control ovr their passions. That can be dur=e to two factors:

1. Age
2. Heredity

Age:

During Early manhood we men are overwhelmed by CONSTANT thoughts of sex and the CONSTANT reaction of our body to such thoughts. That is why the Bible recommends that marriage is better than to burn with passion because at an early stage we men are literally on fire. If two people who are highly sexually oriented temperamentally produce a child, that child is likely to be supercharged at adolescence and manhood.. For such a man petting is like flooring the accelerator on a car accelerator and keeping it there. Stopping becomes virtually unimaginable.

No, that's not true. That's a matter of whether that man has been condition to think so.

 

[Gadarene]

Exactly. I have personally spent miles of posts on bashing the things said on CF by many posters such as "women who dress modestly don't get raped" etc. and those attitudes are, in some regions of the world, really serious problems.

I did that tons too. In the past. Until I realised feminism wasn't holding itself to the standards it sought to impose on others.

I'd already given Christianity a heck of a questioning when I realised how prevalent that was among Christians, why should feminism be exempt from the same? And yet I have had far, far more backlash from challenging feminism than I ever have from challenging Christianity. It really puts my angry-New-atheist years into perspective. Those issues were dealt with, and the the more entrenched problems were lurking on my own wing of the political spectrum all along

 

[Armoured]

Horniness is definitely NOT the sole cause of rape. There is also hatred. A need to humiliate based on previous rejections. An inability to function sexually otherwise. True, heat of passion is not a viable defense in a court of law for any crime. However, provocation does figure into the penalty chosen. If I insult someone repeatedly and he clobbers me in the heat of emotion, my instigation will indeed be taken into consideration.

If a woman admits unecessarily exposing herself naked to a man and the man makes an advance which she considers excessively aggressive-her provocation will be taken into serious consideration as well.

Ever been to a strip club, topless beach or around nursing mothers? Nakedness =/= consent.

 

[Armoured]

No, that's not true. That's a matter of whether that man has been condition to think so.

Much as I hate the phrase, I think this is where "rape culture" is appropriate to mention. Tell men long enough and often enough that they can't be expected to control themselves in heightened emotional states, they come to believe it. Or, at least, use it as an excuse.

Also, ever notice that the people making the "boys will be boys","men can't control themselves around attractive women" type claims are almost always the same people claiming the passed out drunk 16 year old girl was "asking for it", or otherwise insisting that the female in the scenario was in complete control of her faculties? Why are men uncontrollable slaves to passion but women are cold, manipulative human calculators in the precise same situations?

 

[Jack of Spades]

I did that tons too. In the past. Until I realised feminism wasn't holding itself to the standards it sought to impose on others.

I'd already given Christianity a heck of a questioning when I realised how prevalent that was among Christians, why should feminism be exempt from the same? And yet I have had far, far more backlash from challenging feminism than I ever have from challenging Christianity. It really puts my angry-New-atheist years into perspective. Those issues were dealt with, and the the more entrenched problems were lurking on my own wing of the political spectrum all along

There is plenty of self-criticism from within in Christianity, liberal and moderate Christians, anti-spiritual abuse activism etc.

But with feminism, the serious baggage is the historical narrative where "Equality is achieved when men shut up and listen to women" is the norm. It was exactly the shock-therapy needed for time when women had no voice, but that's changed now, so it's about time to stop the shock-therapy for more subtle problems and try to discuss them from multiple points of view, not just from womens concerns - point of view.

 

[Paidiske]

It's interesting you should say that, Jack. A couple of years ago I was at a conference for women. Some time into the conference, it was suggested that we invite some of the men around (who were not officially conference participants, but part of the same organisation) to be part of some of the conversations. It was fascinating to me that the women discussing this divided neatly on generational lines; the older women were very against it and wanted a women-only space. The younger women (say, younger than forty) found this incomprehensible and thought it was important to include men.

So I suspect that you would find a younger generation of women to have a lot of sympathy for what you've just said, but perhaps we are not yet the women who are in positions of relative power and influence.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Much as I hate the phrase, I think this is where "rape culture" is appropriate to mention. Tell men long enough and often enough that they can't be expected to control themselves in heightened emotional states, they come to believe it. Or, at least, use it as an excuse.

Also, ever notice that the people making the "boys will be boys","men can't control themselves around attractive women" type claims are almost always the same people claiming the passed out drunk 16 year old girl was "asking for it", or otherwise insisting that the female in the scenario was in complete control of her faculties? Why are men uncontrollable slaves to passion but women are cold, manipulative human calculators in the precise same situations?

It's curious how both extremes, matriarchalists and patriarchalists have the same view on male sexuality, as if it was an uncontrollable force.

Think if our urge to pee was being met with the same attitudes? How many more people would start peeing on their pants or on other people... This calls for a lab experiment!

 

[Gadarene]

It's interesting you should say that, Jack. A couple of years ago I was at a conference for women. Some time into the conference, it was suggested that we invite some of the men around (who were not officially conference participants, but part of the same organisation) to be part of some of the conversations. It was fascinating to me that the women discussing this divided neatly on generational lines; the older women were very against it and wanted a women-only space. The younger women (say, younger than forty) found this incomprehensible and thought it was important to include men.

So I suspect that you would find a younger generation of women to have a lot of sympathy for what you've just said, but perhaps we are not yet the women who are in positions of relative power and influence.

I've personally found the complete opposite. It is usually the women around my age (late 20s early 30s area) that are likely to comprise the most mean-spirited, hateful, misandrist, bigoted, segregatory and generally inegalitarian feminists.

Older (second wavers, possibly) feminists I'm usually more on the same page with. I suspect this is due to a combination of ideological differences (the second wave did criticise norms affecting women but was also quite open about the need for men's issues to be resolved as well, but they did spawn the radfems too) and I suspect more importantly, they not only grew up a bit, but also reared sons.

It's harder to hate males when you give birth to one.

 

[Gadarene]

Much as I hate the phrase, I think this is where "rape culture" is appropriate to mention. Tell men long enough and often enough that they can't be expected to control themselves in heightened emotional states, they come to believe it. Or, at least, use it as an excuse.

Also, ever notice that the people making the "boys will be boys","men can't control themselves around attractive women" type claims are almost always the same people claiming the passed out drunk 16 year old girl was "asking for it", or otherwise insisting that the female in the scenario was in complete control of her faculties? Why are men uncontrollable slaves to passion but women are cold, manipulative human calculators in the precise same situations?

This does of course cut both ways. Tell women constantly that their risk of rape is *insert bogus stat here* and they will come to be permanently afraid of it as we've seen here.

That then gets used as an excuse for prejudice itself. As for agency, that cuts both ways too. Women are helpless little victims in the face of horrible rapey men, to the point where nice non-rapey men (or to use the technical term, "the vast majority of men") are expected to take on the burden of alleviating their prejudices.

 

[Jack of Spades]

It's interesting you should say that, Jack. A couple of years ago I was at a conference for women. Some time into the conference, it was suggested that we invite some of the men around (who were not officially conference participants, but part of the same organisation) to be part of some of the conversations. It was fascinating to me that the women discussing this divided neatly on generational lines; the older women were very against it and wanted a women-only space. The younger women (say, younger than forty) found this incomprehensible and thought it was important to include men.

So I suspect that you would find a younger generation of women to have a lot of sympathy for what you've just said, but perhaps we are not yet the women who are in positions of relative power and influence.

Maybe. But it's going to be a long way. As long as there are old slimy boneheads like Donald Trump making excuses for sexism and worse, they keep giving ammo for the extreme feminists to promote the old two-axis model and militarize younger women too to fight a dying dinosaurus. It's a fight that's going to end up seeing the men's equality becoming a collateral damage, good as the original intentions for the fight might be.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't think it's just folks like Donald Trump.

I know you're in Scandinavia, but where I am, there are still significant and real issues for feminism to tackle. Often, I've found, it's at the point where we're having children that we encounter where the problems are most acute (which might also account for Gadarene's observation that the women he finds most difficult are at about the age where women are having babies... or at least, that's my off-the-cuff theory on that). I've lost count of the number of women who said they thought we had done the work of feminism until they had children, and then encountered how far we still have to go. So it's not older women recruiting younger women, I think (or not in my experience; mostly the older battle-axes ignored us as irrelevant), but younger women discovering for ourselves where the issues still are.

I don't really see much threat to men's equality where I am. We're so far from that it's not even on my horizon.

 

[smithed64]

So a serial killer who tortures and kills people leaves the world in the same state as someone who devotes their life to charity? So to a Christian torturing and killing is the same as charity...

Did I say that?
No...you just want to argue.

Sin is the problem, Because of Sin, this world is fallen. No matter how much someone pays out to charity, if its not done out of love. It's for nothing.

Odd religion you have there...

LOL....problem is, you know what I said is true.

So Christians can't be Christians if they sin, even after they repent? That's not what I was taught...

Sure they can. They make mistakes. But that isn't what I said.
I said those who claim to be Christian and LIVE in sin...are not Christian.

I probably wasn't clear... I don't believe in a god now because I don't have a reason to believe in a god.

Why don't you have a reason?

Hell of course. Similarly, if a different god exists we both might end up in that hell, depending on the tenets of that religion.

It doesn't concern you that you could end up in Hell?

 

[Gadarene]

I know you're in Scandinavia, but where I am, there are still significant and real issues for feminism to tackle. Often, I've found, it's at the point where we're having children that we encounter where the problems are most acute (which might also account for Gadarene's observation that the women he finds most difficult are at about the age where women are having babies... or at least, that's my off-the-cuff theory on that). I've lost count of the number of women who said they thought we had done the work of feminism until they had children, and then encountered how far we still have to go. So it's not older women recruiting younger women, I think (or not in my experience; mostly the older battle-axes ignored us as irrelevant), but younger women discovering for ourselves where the issues still are.

Er...my point was the opposite, in fact. It's childless younger women who are living in the most egalitarian period of history for women who are amping up the rhetoric saying things are worse than ever. This is not only untrue but they wouldn't know that sort of inequality if it bit them in the face having not lived through circumstances the second wavers (and even the earliest third wavers) lived through. Trying to have kids usually doesn't even come into it.

The issue isn't so much whether they have a child or not, simply that having to rear a boy to a man IME gives a feminist woman far more compassion for men on average. Outside of those circumstances feminist compassion for men is distinctly lacklustre.

It is those younger women that are the worst, and not in itself because of their childlessness or whether they are trying to conceive a child or whatever. It is not exclusively their doing, of course - they are picking up on the residual misandry spawned by the second wave.

I don't really see much threat to men's equality where I am. We're so far from that it's not even on my horizon.

Sure, if you disregard e.g. feminism's growing contempt for due process for those (invariably men) accused of rape, their obstruction of event days to talk about male suicide, their general obstruction physical, ideological and political of anything to do with men's issues, and their propensity to silence any form of speech they don't like.

 

[Paidiske]

Sure, if you disregard e.g. feminism's growing contempt for due process for those (invariably men) accused of rape, their obstruction of event days to talk about male suicide, their general obstruction physical, ideological and political of anything to do with men's issues, and their propensity to silence any form of speech they don't like.

Where I am (which was my point to Jack) I have seen none of these things.

(Heck, I'd be delighted to see more effort going into suicide prevention; I'd be the last person to obstruct it!)

 

[Gadarene]

Where I am (which was my point to Jack) I have seen none of these things.

(Heck, I'd be delighted to see more effort going into suicide prevention; I'd be the last person to obstruct it!)

Oh, there's some pretty virulent Aussie feminism alright. I'll refer you back to Clementine Ford, for example.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't agree with everything Clementine writes, but I have not seen her do any of the things you mentioned (showing contempt for due process for those accused of rape, obstruction of event days to talk about male suicide, general obstruction physical, ideological and political of anything to do with men's issues, or propensity to silence any form of speech she doesn't like).

If you can link to a piece written by her in which she does that, I will acknowledge that she has done it, but as of right now, I have not seen it.

 

[RDKirk]

It's interesting you should say that, Jack. A couple of years ago I was at a conference for women. Some time into the conference, it was suggested that we invite some of the men around (who were not officially conference participants, but part of the same organisation) to be part of some of the conversations. It was fascinating to me that the women discussing this divided neatly on generational lines; the older women were very against it and wanted a women-only space. The younger women (say, younger than forty) found this incomprehensible and thought it was important to include men.

So I suspect that you would find a younger generation of women to have a lot of sympathy for what you've just said, but perhaps we are not yet the women who are in positions of relative power and influence.

I'm not surprised. The same thing occurs in the US with regard to race. That's because those early cultural combatants see their old opponents still alive and kicking with the same old attitudes. Basically, the Boomer Generation liberals and conservatives are locked in a death match.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I don't really see much threat to men's equality where I am. We're so far from that it's not even on my horizon.

Will a man who breaks down crying publicly be viewed any differently than a woman who does the same in your society?