The problem with "Every man is a potential rapist"

[Paidiske]

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

That's an interesting question. The answer is probably, "it depends," as in, are we talking about in the workplace, in the church, in the home?

I think there is still an expectation of more stoicism for men, especially in the workplace; but the flip side of that is that the stereotype that women are emotional, irrational, flaky is also alive and well. So maybe we are expected/allowed to cry more, but we are also punished for it.

But I also see a lot of public campaigning to break this down. Messages that expressing emotion is healthy, that people (men) who are struggling should be treated with compassion rather than contempt, that sort of stuff. I think the zeitgeist is for our sons to be raised that there is no shame in tears (I don't have a son but my peers seem to be taking this approach in their parenting of sons). So it is a time of change.

 

[Gadarene]

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.

Obligatory unoriginal feminist sneering at International Men's Day, for starters.

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-an...s-international-mens-day-20151119-gl2v7r.html

As for censorship/consistency on expression, I don't think I can really post examples without running foul of the profanity rule again, but let's just say she got a man fired because he called her a certain word online that she is more than happy to direct at other women in her articles and tweets. She also defends the notion of "ironic misandry" but a few gendered comments at women makes her want to have men fired for it.

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-an...rstanding-ironic-misandry-20140825-3eafb.html

 

[Gadarene]

But I also see a lot of public campaigning to break this down. Messages that expressing emotion is healthy, that people (men) who are struggling should be treated with compassion rather than contempt, that sort of stuff. I think the zeitgeist is for our sons to be raised that there is no shame in tears (I don't have a son but my peers seem to be taking this approach in their parenting of sons). So it is a time of change.

Meanwhile plenty of feminists - like Ford - reinforce it.

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-an...rstanding-ironic-misandry-20140825-3eafb.html

 

[Jack of Spades]

That's an interesting question. The answer is probably, "it depends," as in, are we talking about in the workplace, in the church, in the home?

In Finland, I would be excused if I cried in three places, when I become a world champion of any sport, in funerals and in a battlefield.

Everything else would be a social suicide. Except if you're drunk, then you can say whatever you want and cry all you like. Which does promote alcoholism btw.

I think there is still an expectation of more stoicism for men, especially in the workplace;

There is one men's issue for you. There are more to be found, I am sure. But as a foreigner I can't name them since I don't know your culture.

The fact that women have issues of their own doesn't make that any less of a problem for men.

 

[Paidiske]

Yeah... I'm not seeing Clementine actually doing anything that does any of the above listed things there. Men's Rights Activists (of the ROK/red pill variety) are quite frightening in their ideology and highlighting that isn't obstructing what I would see as legitimate men's issues.

I take the point about International Men's Day, and perhaps she could have been more nuanced, but I didn't see her actually obstructing men's issues there either.

She's a newspaper equivalent of a shock-jock. They're not paying her to be calm and measured.

As for "getting" a man fired, frankly, I thought good on her. He broke his employer's code of conduct, he should have known better. I'd be accountable if I broke my employer's code of conduct, too.

 

[Jack of Spades]

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.

May I secretly confess that I often enjoy the company of conservative women? For a while. It's kind of a escapist guilty-pleasure trip for me.

Now, I couldn't live with one, because I have no interest to play the role of an old school man myself, but you know, as a trip.

But that's a secret, don't tell anyone. I'm a bit embarrassed to admit it.

 

[Paidiske]

Jack, I didn't say men had no issues. (What I said was that I didn't see issues where men were suffering from inequality with women, which is a different thing). But what you've described is as much a product of patriarchal expectations as the problems women experience. A feminist utopia would not have that set of social expectations.

Dismantling patriarchal expectations benefits both genders.

 

[Gadarene]

Yeah... I'm not seeing Clementine actually doing anything that does any of the above listed things there. Men's Rights Activists (of the ROK/red pill variety)

Let's stop you right there.

Return of Kings is a pickup artist (PUA) website, and their contributors have written several articles explicitly saying they are not Men's Rights Activists.

The Red Pill is similar to PUA, but more generally about success in a conventional patriarchal environment.

Neither Redpill nor PUAs want to reform the conventional system of gender at all. They think it's a mug's game to try. MRAs *are* trying to reform the conventional gender system. You might not agree with how they are doing it or what problems they highlight, but it is a different ideology than PUA.

If you're going to write off a whole movement (hypocritcally, I might add, based on their shock jocks, but Clemmie doesn't invalidate feminism or render it a scawy threat), it would help if you knew what you were talking about.

I know what I'm talking about, because I actually looked into these groups myself and spent time with them talking to them, rather than simply getting my info from people like Clementine Ford who are automatically biased against it or who don't care to make the effort to find out the truth.

are quite frightening in their ideology and highlighting that isn't obstructing what I would see as legitimate men's issues.

It is when it's got nothing to do with the group highlighting them, if you mean International Men's Day here. IMD is not an MRA event, the founder, Jerome Teelucksingh, is not an MRA. Do some MRAs take part in it? Yes. Because they're men or concerned about men's issues.

If you were referring to the ironic misandry bit....yeah, it's funny how the MRAs are the big bad here, but it's Clemmie who regularly posts Kill All Men as a joke.

I take the point about International Men's Day, and perhaps she could have been more nuanced, but I didn't see her actually obstructing men's issues there either.

That would be the ideological obstruction I referred to. Constant dismissal of a particular idea, event or group by influential people will make it harder to gain traction.

The theme of IMD last year was tackling male suicide btw.

She's a newspaper equivalent of a shock-jock. They're not paying her to be calm and measured.

This excuse only applies to feminists, apparently.

As for "getting" a man fired, frankly, I thought good on her. He broke his employer's code of conduct, he should have known better. I'd be accountable if I broke my employer's code of conduct, too.

So then you agree Ford should also lose her job?

 

[Gadarene]

May I secretly confess that I often enjoy the company of conservative women? For a while. It's kind of a escapist guilty-pleasure trip for me.

Now, I couldn't live with one, because I have no interest to play the role of an old school man myself, but you know, as a trip.

But that's a secret, don't tell anyone. I'm a bit embarrassed to admit it.

Conservatives generally are moving into the gap created by liberalism's abject failure to cogently handle gender, particularly men's issues.

The best coverage on men's issues - and by that I mean they at least cover men's issues as an existent thing - is in conservative newspapers. If the left doesn't want to lose its grasp on the conversation, they need to ditch the sneering idiot misandrists like Ford and their ideological roadblocks like "men can't be oppressed because of their gender" ASAP.

 

[Zoii]

See, @Paidiske, @KTS, @Zoii - this is where your rape culture is.

Not in being told that you don't get to profile men in a way that we don't accept being done to every other demographic out there.

But you and your men-as-potential-rapebeasts mindset overlaps quite nicely with this poster's wouldn't you say?

All of your traditionalism is to be rejected.

Oh I profile thats for sure.... no apologies for it

 

[Gadarene]

Jack, I didn't say men had no issues. (What I said was that I didn't see issues where men were suffering from inequality with women, which is a different thing).

What does that mean exactly? Men aren't disadvantaged in any way relative to women?

But what you've described is as much a product of patriarchal expectations as the problems women experience. A feminist utopia would not have that set of social expectations.

Mmm... and I'm sure you're all getting round to dismantling those expectations any day now, right?

Dismantling patriarchal expectations benefits both genders.

You need to actually specifically address them though. Feminism doesn't really do that. It assumes things will improve spontaneously for men as they do for women. Doesn't necessarily happen that way. They need to be specifically addressed. And yet when we try and do that, your movement gets in the way.

 

[Gadarene]

Oh I profile thats for sure.... no apologies for it

So it seems you have something in common with the rape apologists

 

[Zoii]

Well since you have no experience as a rapist or being raped ( according to you at least) your words are empty

 

[Gadarene]

Well since you have no experience as a rapist or being raped ( according to you at least) your words are empty

Are the words of a woman who hasn't been raped empty if she agrees with you?

 

[Zoii]

No just yours ... The women commenting here are lovely. And most men too actually

 

[Jack of Spades]

Jack, I didn't say men had no issues. (What I said was that I didn't see issues where men were suffering from inequality with women, which is a different thing). But what you've described is as much a product of patriarchal expectations as the problems women experience.

Inequality in what exactly? Legislation? Attitudes? Culture?

If we stick to legislation alone, then rape is not a equality problem either, because I believe the legislation related to it is somewhat gender-equal.

If we stick to equality-approach, that means both men's and women's problems are to be taken seriously AT ALL TIMES. Even when there are more problems for women than there are for men.

Dismantling patriarchal expectations benefits both genders.

Not in itself. It depends entirely with what they are being replaced with. You can't just destroy the floor and automatically expect a new, fine one to take it's place. A careful attention must be paid on what it's being replaced with, preferably before the dismantling.

If patriarchalism is dismantled and "let's fix all women's problems because they have more, and ignore men" - takes its place, then I'm not on board.

 

[Gadarene]

No just yours ... The women commenting here are lovely. And most men too actually

So it's got nothing to do with whether you've been raped or not then

 

[Zoii]

Inequality in what exactly? Legislation? Attitudes? Culture?

If we stick to legislation alone, then rape is not a equality problem either, because I believe the legislation related to it is somewhat gender-equal.

If we stick to equality-approach, that means both men's and women's problems are to be taken seriously AT ALL TIMES. Even when there are more problems for women than there are for men.



Not in itself. It depends entirely with what they are being replaced with. You can't just destroy the floor and automatically expect a new, fine one to take it's place. A careful attention must be paid on what it's being replaced with, preferably before the dismantling.

If patriarchalism is dismantled and "let's fix all women's problems because they have more, and ignore men" - takes its place, then I'm not on board.

Hi Jack. I followed the first bit and agree with you ☺. I dont understand the comments about patriarchal aspects (im googling though) can u dxpand a little?

 

[Uber Genius]

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.

Saying, "Every man is a potential rapist", whether it is intended to or not, can be taken as a statement about men. Not about culture. Not about social conditions. A statement about the psyche of every male member of our species. And apparently a lot of people, wittingly or unwittingly, do take it that way.

Preface: I'm about to role-play some nasty truths about the secular view. It is going to be offensive if you don't get that context.

We don't want to exclude women or animals in the whole rape-culture discussion.Researchers of primates were involved in some untoward behaviors back in the 1960s. Now that science tells us that those primates are our genetic cousins, well, why not rape, we have the state of West Virginia to remind us that raping family members is "natural."

But what is strange (I by that I mean incoherent), on naturalism where there is no God to give moral standards and duties, just "blind chance and pitiless indifference," as Dawkins likes to say, why think rape is wrong?

On atheism, it seems there are no objective (independent of culture) moral values and duties (just subjective ones). Rape in fact would be Darwinian evolutions preferred method given that many or most mating across the last 530 million years has been rape (non-consensual). Why would a larger prefrontal cortex all of a sudden change 570 million year of mating history into a moral crime? (Moderator alert: I'm role-playing an atheist response here in order to demonstrate its logical incoherence).

If Darwinian evolution says who ever dies with the most offspring wins, then I'm just saying rape should still be on the table (pun intended).

 

[Jack of Spades]

Hi Jack. I followed the first bit and agree with you ☺. I dont understand the comments about patriarchal aspects (im googling though) can u dxpand a little?

Hi Zoii

Patriarchalism means a society, or a family, where a man is the leader and only men have power.

It's opposite is Matriarchalism, which means that women are leaders.

Historically, most countries have been patriarchalists, men having more power in family and society than women. There have been few matriarchalist societies too, but they are more rare.

What I wanted to say there could be said this way too: "Taking power away from men doesn't lead to equality, if we give all the power to women instead."