The problem with "Every man is a potential rapist"

[Gadarene]

So she would walk anywhere, at any time of day or night, alone? Dressed however she'd like? Perhaps after a drink or two? Or does she take these precautions so automatically now that she doesn't even think about them?



I do believe my first post in this thread was saying that the "all men" bit was unhelpful. I don't think all men are potential rapists. My point was that I can't know which men the potential rapists are.

Right and I can't tell which blacks are out to steal my car. I'm not saying they all are.

Nope. Still bigoted.

 

[Paidiske]

So you leave your car unlocked, and with the keys in the ignition, because it would be bigoted to think someone might steal your car, Gadarene? Or do you recognise that it's a possibility and act accordingly?

 

[Gadarene]

So you leave your car unlocked, and with the keys in the ignition, because it would be bigoted to think someone might steal your car, Gadarene? Or do you recognise that it's a possibility and act accordingly?

Haha, seriously? Did I just get the car keys analogy used on me here?

Recall how when women are compared to cars in order to argue that they should take precautions against being raped, it's seen as misogynist and objectifying?

This might shock you. But men are not cars. They are people, and have a right to fight prejudice against them.

And yes, take precautions. But do so without bigotry. It's what we demand of people who might be a bit antsy around black people, or Muslims. Even when they might have personal (or statistical) reasons to feel so. So do the same with men and work on your own tendency to prejudice towards them.

There is no difference in essence between what you are doing here and the sort of profiling that gets pounced on when directed at black people, or Muslims. But when men are the target, the same excuses come out.

Just *be consistent*. It's the fundamental aim of the gender equality movement you affiliate with. It's also really easy to do. How do you botch this *this badly?*

 

[Gadarene]

So you leave your car unlocked, and with the keys in the ignition, because it would be bigoted to think someone might steal your car, Gadarene? Or do you recognise that it's a possibility and act accordingly?

Actually you know what, forget it. Men should just treat all women like potential false accusers instead. Only women, mind. Men might do it. But women do it more, so that means it's ok to appeal to stereotype to justify our bigotry and profile women only.

(I kid, but it starts to seem reasonable in the face of nonsense like Schrödinger's Rapist)

 

[Paidiske]

So what exact behaviour are you finding unreasonable and "antsy"? Refusing to walk alone at night, for example, causes you a problem... how?

I don't believe I'm prejudiced against men. I would not treat a man badly as a classmate, colleague, or church member (etc) because he is a man. So what exactly is it that you're objecting to?

 

[Gadarene]

So what exact behaviour are you finding unreasonable and "antsy"? Refusing to walk alone at night, for example, causes you a problem... how?

Profiling. I've said this several times now.

Like so many feminists, you talk to men in ways we KNOW would cause outrage if you spoke that way to minorities. I am against your bigoted attitudes because bigotry harms men.

Airlines profiling Muslims? Islamophobia.

Police stopping and searching (and shooting) mainly black people?
Racism.

Treating men as potential rapists simply because they're men?
Misandry. Oh wait sorry, apparently not. Apparently the answer there is "but that's ok because men rape more".

I don't believe I'm prejudiced against men. I would not treat a man badly as a classmate, colleague, or church member (etc) because he is a man. So what exactly is it that you're objecting to?

Feminists never think they're bigoted against men. What of it?

As for what I object to, why are you asking me this? I've told you already, several times.

 

[Paidiske]

I honestly don't understand what you're objecting to. In what practical way does my outlook affect any man negatively?

You're claiming profiling, but profiling is identifiable because of negative outcomes (higher incarceration rates of certain groups, for example). What negative outcome flows from a woman saying, I can't know which men are rapists?

Does it affect someone in his professional life? His worship community? His family life? Something else?

If you could demonstrate, for example, that men were being refused promotions because of that, or receiving inadequate pastoral care from women in ministry, I'd say fair enough, we need to address that. But if all you've got is "I don't like that you said that, but it makes no actual real difference to anyone's life," then I'm not feeling that that's a real issue, compared to the negative outcomes of actual rape.

Edited to add: I've just realised also part of why I don't find this approach insulting. I live with it in another way; in ministry, these days every minister is treated as a potential child abuser. I will never ever be alone with a child in my pastoral care, because we've set up our protocols that way to protect children.

I'm not insulted at the idea that I might be a child abuser. I know that those of us who aren't child abusers need to work within a system that assumes we are all a risk because some of us are. And so that's just a part of the landscape of "normal" to me, and I'm finding it difficult to get my head around other people objecting to strongly to what just looks like a focus on protecting the vulnerable rather than mollifying the powerful.

 

[Gadarene]

I honestly don't understand what you're objecting to. In what practical way does my outlook affect any man negatively?

Really? Now we're pretending social attitudes don't have knock-on harmful effects? Ah yes, we're talking about men so the rules must have changed for convenience.

Treating men as potential rapists just because of their gender is itself an indignity to them as people, but leaving that aside...

You're claiming profiling, but profiling is identifiable because of negative outcomes (higher incarceration rates of certain groups, for example). What negative outcome flows from a woman saying, I can't know which men are rapists? Does it affect someone in his professional life? His worship community? His family life? Something else?

A greater propensity to see men generally as potential rapists would lead to more false accusations against men.

Treating men and only men this way minimises the fact that women rape too, and at higher rates than people usually give credit for - something we as a society are spectacularly failing to address. Again - this is a stereotype, and stereotypes are considered harmful for these sorts of reasons. This is true even if factually true that men are majority of rapists. Even if black people commit more crimes, it's still considered racist to assume that only black people are worth being hyperaware of simply because they happen to be black.

Men generally won't go into professions where they are likely to be accused of sex crimes than women - teaching, for example, and stereotypes like Schrödinger's Rapist reinforce this.

I mean, this seems like pretty basic stuff even by feminist standards. You other a group by making the most basic acts part of some web of Oppression.

Man is walking down the street?
HE MIGHT BE A RAPIST.

Man sits down?
MANSPREADING, A DISPLAY OF DOMINANCE.

Man gives opinion while being a man?
MANSPLAINING. HE DOES NOT RESPECT WOMEN.

If you could demonstrate, for example, that men were being refused promotions because of that, or receiving inadequate pastoral care from women in ministry, I'd say fair enough, we need to address that. But if all you've got is "I don't like that you said that, but it makes no actual real difference to anyone's life,"then I'm not feeling that that's a real issue, compared to the negative outcomes of actual rape.

I'm not comparing it to rape. I'm comparing it to other prejudices.

And as usual when the feminist has nothing, commence Oppression Olympics and misrepresentation.

 

[Paidiske]

Why would it lead to false accusations? Or do you mean false accusations are more likely to be taken seriously? (If so, I agree that that's a problem).

And, again, if men avoid teaching because of this, I agree that's a problem. I think there are ways we could work to minimise it; but denying the reality of rape isn't one of them. Maybe teaching needs to be structured with more in-built protections? (Eg. teaching environments that don't allow teachers and students to be isolated together).

I think it's possible to work together to create environments that are safe for everyone. But refusing to acknowledge that some people do the wrong thing isn't the way to get there.

 

[Gadarene]

Why would it lead to false accusations? Or do you mean false accusations are more likely to be taken seriously? (If so, I agree that that's a problem).

And, again, if men avoid teaching because of this, I agree that's a problem. I think there are ways we could work to minimise it; but denying the reality of rape isn't one of them. Maybe teaching needs to be structured with more in-built protections? (Eg. teaching environments that don't allow teachers and students to be isolated together).

I think it's possible to work together to create environments that are safe for everyone. But refusing to acknowledge that some people do the wrong thing isn't the way to get there.

Yeah again, that closing statement is gender neutral. Vigilance for abuse among teachers is one thing. Focusing on male teachers simply for being male in a way that isn't done to female teachers "because men rape more" isn't egalitarian. Nor is pointing this out a pretence that people don't rape, goodness me.

 

[Gadarene]

Following on from your edit - yes I am aware of safeguarding standards in churches having gone through a few myself. But mine at least weren't gendered. I assume yours weren't either. The problem is the gendering as gender is innate and not chosen. Not that certain professions take steps to minimise spurious abuse claims.

 

[RDKirk]

Why is acknowledging that we have no way to tell who will rape, and who will not, bigoted?

Because every white person is a potential murder.

Back in the 50s, I was taught as a child that every white woman can potentially accuse me of rape--and I would not live to see that nightfall.

Back in the 50s, I was taught as a child that every white man could kill me at any moment and nobody would even investigate the murder.

How can I tell even today if either is not true, if it's also true that you have no way to tell who will rape and who will not?

Ninety-nine out of 100 black people will report having been racially discriminated against by the time they leave college...compared to 25 out of 100 women reporting being sexually assaulted.

And if I--as a Christian--take that view with every white person I meet, how can I also see him or her as a potential brother to hear the gospel?

 

[RDKirk]

So you leave your car unlocked, and with the keys in the ignition, because it would be bigoted to think someone might steal your car, Gadarene? Or do you recognise that it's a possibility and act accordingly?

Only if he locks his doors when blacks are near, but not when whites are near. I suspect he always locks his doors.

 

[Paidiske]

Yeah again, that closing statement is gender neutral. Vigilance for abuse among teachers is one thing. Focusing on male teachers simply for being male in a way that isn't done to female teachers "because men rape more" isn't egalitarian. Nor is pointing this out a pretence that people don't rape, goodness me.

But nobody is suggesting focussing on male teachers in a way that isn't done to female teachers. Or at least, I'm not, so if you apply that to me, that's not what I'm saying at all.

Following on from your edit - yes I am aware of safeguarding standards in churches having gone through a few myself. But mine at least weren't gendered. I assume yours weren't either. The problem is the gendering as gender is innate and not chosen. Not that certain professions take steps to minimise spurious abuse claims.

No, mine aren't gendered either. That's my point; the gender really isn't the issue.

But what happens - in my experience - whenever you put safeguarding measures in place, is that people get very offended at being treated as if they might do the wrong thing. They complain. They delay doing whatever you've asked of them. Some of them outright refuse and leave certain roles instead. Not because they actually do the wrong thing or want to do the wrong thing, but because they object to the perception that they are a risk for doing the wrong thing.

They don't understand that we don't have the option to pretend that there is no risk. And that's where explanations that in fact, we have to treat everybody as a potential risk, in order to minimise the risk of the few who are the problem, become important.

 

[TerranceL]

So you leave your car unlocked, and with the keys in the ignition, because it would be bigoted to think someone might steal your car, Gadarene? Or do you recognise that it's a possibility and act accordingly?

Do you treat every person you see as a potential car thief?

 

[TerranceL]

I'm not insulted at the idea that I might be a child abuser. I know that those of us who aren't child abusers need to work within a system that assumes we are all a risk because some of us are. And so that's just a part of the landscape of "normal" to me, and I'm finding it difficult to get my head around other people objecting to strongly to what just looks like a focus on protecting the vulnerable rather than mollifying the powerful.

Now we just need to force you into training to ensure that you won't sexually abuse any children.

You know, because you're a woman and people need to be on their guard around you when there are children present.

Right?

 

[Paidiske]

Are you making that comment because of things like mandatory workplace harassment training, Terrance? Because in my experience, plenty of people actually don't understand what is legally considered harassment.

 

[TerranceL]

Are you making that comment because of things like mandatory workplace harassment training, Terrance? Because in my experience, plenty of people actually don't understand what is legally considered harassment.

No, I'm making that comment because statistically it's women who are more likely to harm children.

I'm sure you'd be fine with people clutching their children and starring at you like your a monster when you walk into a room.

 

[Paidiske]

No, I wouldn't, nor am I fine when people behave that way towards men.

I'd not be at all surprised to learn that women physically or emotionally abuse children more than men, (although I haven't seen any studies), if only because we're more often the primary carers.

In general, I've gradually come to the idea that social isolation is not very healthy, no matter who we are.

 

[TerranceL]

No, I wouldn't, nor am I fine when people behave that way towards men.

Yes you are.

I can't believe you don't see that. If you believe that every single man you see might be a potential rapist you will go out of your way to treat him differently. That's the exact same thing I've just said should happen to you because you're a woman.