The problem with "Every man is a potential rapist"

[Ana the Ist]

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.

I don't like to tell you how to do your job...

Perhaps though, you should consider that regardless of sex..."rapist sees victim as acceptable to rape" is probably the starting point for any examination of motive. I don't think it's going to be all that different just because it's a female.

 

[Paidiske]

Well, that's the starting point, yes, but you've got to get beneath that to why they see it as acceptable to rape that person. And that's where I'm saying a man and a woman will have different underlying attitudes.

 

[JeriB]

The problem with "Every man is a potential rapist" is that it implies that sexual assault is an explosion waiting to happen in every male member of our species.

....... discussions where people, including men themselves, were saying that if you are a man you are fooling yourself if you think that you are not capable of ever raping a woman. ....

That's a rather silly statement - every normal man (by which I mean one capable of "getting it up" is capable of rape. (That kinda goes without saying.)

I met a woman once who taught self-defense to other women (to help them stave off rape.) She believed absolutely: "There are only two kinds of men; men who rape and there are men who have not raped yet." Nothing in between.

Disagree with her and your title above. In my opinion and in my experience, there are men who rape, men who might rape if the "conditions" were right but there are men who do not, have not and will never rape.

Kinda the whole bang shoot - so perhaps it's better not to lump all men in rape basket. We wrong those who never will when we do that.... but I never managed to convince Patricia

Edit - oh yeah, I got so engrossed in what I was saying I forgot to ask - please will you help Shira?
http://bit.ly/HelpShira

 

[JeriB]

That does not work. The definition of "rape" requires penetration. Women lack the equipment to penetrate.

Hmm.... objects?

 

[JeriB]

Obviously that is true ..... I suspect they would object pretty strongly if someone said "every woman is a potential false accuser of rape". (Yes they would.)

..... I suspect in the end I'll wind up trying to teach my daughter a similar strategy for when she is off at school.

-----------------------------
If you can find it, buy your daughter a book called How to Say No to Rapist and Survive by Frederic Storaska.

Been out of print for a long time now but it is (and should be) "The Woman's Bible."

 

[Eudaimonist]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_males

Female-on-male rape

Female-on-male rape is under-researched compared to other forms of sexual violence.[12]

Statistics on the prevalence of female-on-male sexual violence vary. A 2010 study by the CDC found that 93.3% male rape victims reported only male perpetrators. 1 in 21 or 4.8% of men reported being "made to penetrate".[13] The survey also found that male victims reported only female perpetrators in instances of being made to penetrate (79.2%), sexual coercion (83.6%), and unwanted sexual contact (53.1%).[13] A 2008 study of 98 men interviewed on the National Crime Victimization Survey found that nearly half of the men (46%) who reported some form of sexual victimization were victimized by women.[14]


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Kylie]

I am aware of these, and I'm afraid that we are again talking about different things here. I have no problems admitting statistical truths.

My problem is the rhetoric, which has more than one meaning. I have already said this, and so has @RDKirk but I repeat it once more:

The phrase "All men are potential rapists" is used by certain feminists to promote an idea of men being monsters who are only tamed temporarily, and are all the time seeking way to get out of their chains to attack women. Not just some men, but all men.

It's at the very best demeaning, and at the worst discriminatory view on males. That is why I take offense with the usage of that phrase.

If I was to say that all drivers are potentially dangerous drivers, would you take offense at that?

 

[Kylie]

By that logic being a terrorist is a role for Muslims, being a thief is a role for black people etc.

Wow.

That's just terrible.

 

[Kylie]

You literally just contradicted yourself. Why on earth should we take that point seriously? You don't have any more clue what it's like to be a man anymore than we do about being a woman.

You evidently aren't aware men are more likely to be physically assaulted, for one. And yet most men I know don't seem to have this overweening fear of it that so many women have which tends to outright bigotry.

You got a source for that claim?

And in case you are having trouble reading the thread, we are talking about rape. Sexual acts that are forced on a person. So that includes physical assault as well, doesn't it?

 

[Kylie]

So what you are doing is out-and-out bigotry.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-syrian-refugees-trayvon-martin-a7318496.html

I mean, this is literally used today to describe refugees and in the past, the Jews by the Nazis.

How much clearly do you need it pointed out that what you are saying is bigotry? You do realise that applies to men too, right?



I'd prefer if you stopped being bigoted, not least given the whining that occurs when women are spoken of in the same fashion.

Fear is an unreliable evaluator of risk, and it is obviously leading you into bigotry. Reconsider.

Wow, you are calling me bigoted because I used a particular analogy that was used by bad people.

Wow, that's amazing.

Are we to say that men with facial hair are bad as well because Hitler and Stalin had facial hair?

Or can you start addressing the actual topic rather than quibbling over an analogy.

 

[Kylie]

And I knew as soon as you posted that figure that you haven't looked into this even remotely. That 1 in 71 line is a dead giveaway.

Pull up that CDC study, and have a look at the stats for men "made to penetrate".

Okay.

Is this the one? https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv-datasheet-a.pdf

Because it says:

• Nearly 1 in 5 (18.3%) women and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) reported experiencing rape at some time in their lives.

Why do you think that the only statistic that matters in instances where men are the victims are the ones in which they are made to penetrate someone else?

And the same statistic is given in this source: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

Approximately 1 in 71 men in the United States (1.4%) reported having been raped in his lifetime, which translates to almost 1.6 million men in the United States (Table 2.2).

Yes, it does say that only 4.8% of men were made to penetrate someone, but like I said before, are you really claiming that this is the only way a man can be raped?

 

[JeriB]

I'd like still to bring up the alternative meaning of the phrase, which means that all men are deep down rapists. It's a bit inflammatory rhetoric, and can be easily understood that way, suggesting that you can never trust a man, and men must be controlled all the time because of their heinous nature.

I hope this doesn't sound like nitpicking, and if you happen to live on a very conservative country, or area, I understand that my concerns might sound outlandish, but the constant demeaning tone towards men in public discussion in my country has been a mainstream cultural force for a while and I think it's the next big threat for an actual gender-equal culture.

All men are NOT "deep down rapists" (I'd go so far to say that the majority are not) and at least 95% of the men I've met are quite capable of controlling themselves and do so, and I'd find the generalisation ludicrous if it wasn't for the fact that I've met a woman (but only 1) who really did believed that and most adamantly.

I don't know why she did (I don't know if she knew why) because I asked her if she'd been raped and she said no. I suppose she coulda lied.....

I hear what you say about the constant demeaning tone towards men in public discussion - there is a lot of it. There is also a lot of constant demeaning tone towards women in public discussion...

Perhaps the real pity is - it seems to me - too many can only support one side of the divide by denigrating the other.... and that is what we should look to fix rather than perhaps promoting the other side to the detriment of the other again?

And while there seems to be a real problem with men from highly patriarchal societies (the ones where good women are never seen or heard) I'm inclined to the view that is a cultural/tradition issue and not a .... man-evil-rapist ... one. I mean, where it's learnt behavior it can be unlearnt and the next generation can learn different.

 

[Gadarene]

Wow.

That's just terrible.

It's about as logical as what you're posting. What you are doing is stereotyping, not describing a "gender role"!

 

[Zoii]

When I was assaulted, what I didn't do was treat all people of the same gender, race, economic background as people to be feared by default.

And yes, I had to work on that. Do the same.

I need to clarify something because you criticized me heavily for fearing all men..... are you saying you were raped by men?...If yes I cant understand why you didnt empathize with my thoughts... and being raped by men kinda fulfills my point anyway....If you werent...well what was all the harassment you did because if you werent then all the words you directed my way were just vexacious and empty..... But I dont expect you to answer because if you were raped by men then u have no need to say a dam thing....if u werent then u should be ashamed of yourself and perhaps saying nothing is still your best option

 

[Gadarene]

I need to clarify something because you criticized me heavily for fearing all men..... are you saying you were raped by men?...If yes I cant understand why you didnt empathize with my thoughts... and being raped by men kinda fulfills my point anyway....If you werent...well what was all the harassment you did because if you werent then all the words you directed my way were just vexacious and empty..... But I dont expect you to answer because if you were raped by men then u have no need to say a dam thing....if u werent then u should be ashamed of yourself and perhaps saying nothing is still your best option

Physically. And no, my point is unchanged. And no, you are not being harassed (kek).

You made a bigoted statement publicly and got called on it. Get over it. You don't want it to happen again, don't make bigoted statements k?

 

[Jack of Spades]

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.

I know it sucks to be afraid. I don't really know what else to say. And it's good to take measures to keep safe.

If I were to travel to Somalia, I'd make sure I have armed bodyguards around me who are ready to shoot to kill. That says a lot about the violence situation, and the culture over there, and nothing about my possible racism.

 

[Dave-W]

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.

But which is more efficient? Since 90+% of the rapists are men, should that not be where you get the most "bang for the buck?"

Is it profiling? Yes.
Is it biased? yes.

But is that REALLY such a bad thing?

 

[Dave-W]

Hmm.... objects?

Exactly. That is the "artificial means" I mentioned in a subsequent post.

 

[Jack of Spades]

If I was to say that all drivers are potentially dangerous drivers, would you take offense at that?

In the current cultural context, no I wouldn't.

But if the phrase was used consistently by fanatic bicyclist-movement, who see the mere act of driving a car being a moral disqualifier and who would consistently promote an idea that driving a car gives away the fact that I am deep down a monster who wants to kill bicyclists, and can never be trusted as a person, as long as I own a car, I most likely would either take offense or simply advice to use some other wording to communicate the point, if the agenda is not intended to be the same and it was used innociously.

 

[Dave-W]

How can we find a way to have a constructive discussion about inequality, women's oppression, domestic violence, rape, and so on, without creating the cultural narrative that "men are evil"?

That is a very narrow road indeed.

And narrow roads are inherently inefficient. (sorry - but I have an engineering degree so efficiency is important to me)