Bigotry Against Men In Childcare
| December 15th, 2005There’s been a bit of a fuss recently about seating of children on airplanes in New Zealand. A man who was seated next to a child travelling alone was asked to change his seat, because the airline has a policy against men sitting next to unaccompanied minors. The man objected, the fuss reached the press, the airline claimed that it was only doing what most airlines do on international flights. (Why not domestic flights?) In the fallout, there have been many cogent objections to the policy:
Mr Latta agreed studies of sexual offenders showed somewhere between 70 and 90 percent were male but the airlines’ policy would not help protect children.
“In 15 years of working with thousands of sexual offenders I’ve never treated or heard of a man who sexually offended against a child on a plane.”
New Zealand’s Green Party says the airlines policy banning men from sitting next to unaccompanied children is discriminatory and will take the matter to the Human Rights Commissioner.
Green MP Keith Locke said the policy was an example of moral panic about men posing as potential threats to children.
They’re all quite correct: It is a stupid policy, it won’t help children, it’s discrimination, and it’s moral panic.
It’s also an extremely common and widespread bigotry, although not one usually codified in policy.
Reading about the New Zealand flap, I was reminded of a study by anthropologist Susan Murray that was published in the academic journal Gender and Society. The study’s subject was men who work in child care in the U.S.. From Murray’s article:
In my study, many workers, both men and women, talked about how the men who are child care workers are subject to different unwritten rules regarding their physical access ot children. Specifically, in many centers, men are more restricted in their freedom to touch, cuddle, nap, and change diapers for children. As one worker who I surveyed stated, “I have worked in centers that employ male caregivers. Parents have on occasion been hesitant to accept them. One parent explicitly asked that a male caregiver not rub her daughter’s back at naptime.” [...]
…My data clearly showed numerous cases in which parents clearly did not want their children taken care of by a man at all. Sometimes parents requested another caregiver for their children; at other times, parents refused to enroll their children or withdrew them once they discovered a man was working at the center.
The article goes on to recount many other examples of male childcare workers being discriminated against in this exact way - men are not supposed to be in physical contact with children. Murray, in a discussion of the implications of this, suggests that the bigotry against male caregivers is rooted in sexism and in bigotry against gay men (even if the caregiver isn’t gay).
In the case of men in child care, just the act of their caring for children calls into question their heterosexuality. The fact of their sexuality, whether gay or straight, need not ever be confirmed. It is their choice to do child care that arouses suspicion and leaves them vulnerable to homophobic reactions. Men’s actions become suspect because they are choosing to do something that women do and, even worse, because child care is undervalued employment for women. Gay is a sexualized identity. When a man admits to being, is discovered to be, or is suspected of being gay, his gay identity may come to define everything else. He is, then, seen as someone who is guided by sexual practices, thoughts, and feelings in all else he undertakes. Within the child care setting, anything having to do with adult sexuality is strictly off-limits. So, when a person’s identity as a gay person is discovered or even suspected (as may be the case with straight men doing “women’s work”), that person’s competence as a teacher/caregiver gets called into question. To the extent that being gay is viewed as a perversion, it is linked with other perversions, such as child sexual abuse.
Murray also discusses the “glass elevator” effect, in which men in childcare professions are promoted to administrative positions more often and more easily - an advantage to men who want to be administrators, but a disadvantage to ambitious women caregivers who’d like to advance, and to men who’d rather stay in direct childcare positions. The overall effect is to turn many child care centers into places where traditional gender roles are enforced.
["Jeff," a male childcare worker Murray interviewed, said:] “You just need to be ultracareful. In San Francisco the men Early Childhood Education teachers can’t have a child on their lap, the women can, but the men can’t. I’m thinking, what kind of a message does this send to the children?”
Murray concludes with the speculation that child care centers may be teaching children traditional gender roles: men as administrators and playmates, women as nurturers. This discrimination is bad for the men being discriminated against, and also bad for the girls and boys who are subjected to gender-discriminatory childcare.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
I would have to disagree with Murray’s suggestion that the discrimination stems from bigotry against gay men. In most cases, including the recent one, the reason for discrimination was because of the assumption that the men were or could have been sexual predators. The majority of the regulations applied to men, but not to women, are specific in that men should never have any physical contact with children. Given the increase in the panic over child abuse in recent years, this honestly is not surprising.
Also, Murray’s suggestion that this discrimination creates a “glass-ceiling” does not tend to hold up as most schools and childcare providers tend to not have many males applying for the jobs, either as a result of lack of interest or because of the common discrimination.
I would also argue that the message sent to children is more likely that men are somehow dangerous and threatening, or perhaps cold and uncaring given that men are restricted from physical contact with the children. Neither of them are helpful to children.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
Actually, Murray’s belief that men in chidcare have a “glass elivator” is founded in evidence that men are, on average, promoted faster than comparable women in childcare professions. The research takes account of the number of men applying.
I think you’re right that the message sent to children is one that men are threats, or less caring. I don’t think this contradicts what Murray argues; these are not mutually exclusive messages.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
I agree with jaketk.
I think when issues like this are raised there is a tendency by feminists to try and link them to Patriarchy, or Patriarchy-like structures - such as racism or homophobia. I think this is misleading in this instance. I don’t think the suspicion comes down being that someone could be gay, it’s a wider suspicion of male sexuality.
I vaguely recall Hugo Schwyzer’s writing on this. When he wrote that he has to be more aware of how he behaves towards female students than a female teacher, the reason behing this isn’t because he might be gay. I also suspect it can’t be pinned down just to being male in a female dominated profession.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
strangely, I agree with Jaketk. I think this has more to do with the fact that men are more likely to sexually prey on children than women (which leads to the totally unwarrented assumption that any man in childcare is there because he’s hot for the kids) than with homophobia. Except, of course, for the kind of homophobia that conflates homosexuality and pedophilia.
This comment was written by Jakobpunkt.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
Ampersand writes:
I completely missed elevator. My mistake.
While I am sure there are assumptions about the sexual prefernce of men who work with children, I do not think they are the primary reason for the discrimination since it is so specific to men with children. Overall, I do think assumptions about homosexuality and men in “women’s” fields is an issue, but typically it is in terms of the job itself, such as male nurses or secretaries.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 3:41 pm
11-15) Immoral Budget, Anti-Bono, Blawg Book, Biggoted Against Men, and Rehnquist Bobblehead
14) Bigotry Against Men In Childcare is something I know about myself. Being a stay-at-home dad while going to college introduced me to the dark-side of women’s circles.
This comment was written by Objective Justice.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
I’d like to throw another interpretation into the mix.
This comment was written by root.There is a pervasive and underlying sexualization of minors in our media. Even though we know it’s wrong, we see increasingly sexualized images of younger and younger children of both sexes. It seeps into our consciousness.
We also tacitly accept that men are dogs and cannot control their sexual urges. We assume if a man sits next to an attractive woman on an airplane he’ll be interested/aroused.
We don’t want to openly admit we sexualize children but it’s in the back of our mind that men are helpless before sexualized objects.
So, people begin to think that single men are dangerous around children.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 4:48 pm
“(Why not domestic flights?)”
Probably because of the length of the flights. NZ is quite small, so most domestic flights wouldn’t take that long. A flight to Europe, OTOH, would probably be about 26 or 27 hours including stopovers.
This comment was written by Sheena.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
I agree with jaketk. This is surely the airlines’ attorneys taking the liability protection track as far as they can. One child abuse prevention approach is to be proactive about making sure that passengers are not in a position where something could occur, and probably some lawyer pointed out that whoever is sitting next to the child could have fondling or other molestation opportunities. The few times that my husband and I have flown as a couple without the kids, we have been asked to switch seats so that I am sitting next to the unescorted child in our row, especially if the child is a girl, and this had nothing to do with the length of the flight.
The Girl Scouts have a rule that fathers or other men (even if they have gone through the volunteer screening) may not be alone with any group of girls (regardless of the size of the group), and also they cannot be with the group if the only other adult present is their spouse or other close relative. (Although the second part of the rule is true of adult women, as well - my sister and I or my mother and I could not be the only two adults with the group.)
I also think root has made a good point. This is the dark side of the rape culture - men just can’t help themselves, so we must protect our children from them at all costs.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 9:34 pm
So let me get this straight. Most rapists and child molesters are men. As women, we get harassed nad hassled on a daily basis by men, who then bitch that we hate them, when we’d be happy if they’d just leave us alone. We have to fight rape and wife-beating and child abuse, and do it against MRAs and FRAs who claim we hate men. God forbid, though, that you actually call men on a privilege–the ability to molest women, girls, and everyone else with impunity.
This is like those commercials that show men as crappy fathers. Sad fact is, women still do more childcare, so it’s the truth, what are they complaining about?
Bottom line is, I’ve had way more experience with men bitching about feminists than I’ve had with men bitching about other men. Hell, we’ve even got nice feminist men–supposedly nice feminist men–letting trolls bitch and moan about how evil we are. We’re supposed to take it. Then again, it’s not the nice feminist men that get called man-hating feminazi bitches, though.
If men don’t want to feared as predators in general they need to shut up about feminists who are fighting predators, fight on our side, and complain about the predators instead of about us.
Yeah, that’ll happen.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 10:11 pm
You must be joking. I’ve been called all that and more. I’ve been called a man-hating fag (isn’t that a contradiction?), a nazi, and hundreds of other names by anti-feminists over the years. And what I’ve been called is mild compared to what Hugo has been called. Name-calling MRAs don’t consider men like me allies; they consider us traitors.
And yes, I let some MRAs post here (although I ban the most extreme name-calling ones). My own thinking is made stronger and more effective through civil debate, and so I use my website to facilitate such debate, both for me and for feminists who find this style of discussion worthwhile.
But that’s just how this blog is run. Many of my favorite feminist blogs either don’t allow anti-feminists at all, or allow anti-feminists but don’t have any civility expectations, and that’s fine with me. It’s a big web, and there’s no reason to expect everyone to have the same approach.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 10:44 pm
Agreed: I doubt it’s about anti-gay male bigotry, but about concerns that males in general are more likely to be sexual predators — to feel they have the right to pursue such desires. Moral panic, in that sense, sure.
As for lawyers, oh certainly it’s that defensive logic. I once worked with some at a bank, implementing a policy about whether we could link to Web site in a publication. No way, unless we had permission from the NYT, CNN, etc. first. And this was for an internal publication!
This comment was written by Bitch | Lab.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 10:56 pm
I have worked in daycares & afterschool programs for quite a few years, and I remember being astoundingly pissed off one day when I was forced to leave a 4 year old room to change diapers in a 1 year old room. Why? The regular teacher in the 1 year old room was a man, and since we were short-staffed, he wasn’t allowed to change diapers in the room by himself. Instead, I was placed in his room, by myself, to change the diapers of toddlers I didn’t know. Apparently, the knowledge and care that the male teacher had concerning these children was much less important than his ownership of a penis.
The anti-male perspective usually ends when the kids are out of diapers, though. The glass elevator definitely exists when the program is for school-age kids. It’s parents as well as childcare administrators. Parents, in my experience, will almost always take a discipline problem more seriously if a man or an older (looking) person relays the information. Also, parents won’t tend to argue about payment if the director is a man, especially a big man. As a smaller, youngish looking woman, I have no chance. My authority is always questioned by the parents, even if I have strict control over the kids. My biggest pet peeve, though, is that a guy teacher can get away with being a lazy ass a lot more easily than a woman. I guess it’s just enough that he showed up and let one of the kids ride piggyback, huh?
/bitter
This comment was written by batgirl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 11:00 pm
man does this hit home for me. my very first job was in a daycare center back in the 70s. and now, i stay home with my 2 girls. there is an automatic suspicion that i’m some kind of pervert because i want to be around children and i love taking care of them.
i’ve always loved kids. i can’t help smiling and reacting to them when i see them when i’m out doing the shopping or something. some of the moms react weird when i smile and say hi to the cute kid in their cart. i always make sure to tell them i have two toddler girls at home to try to put them at ease.
but the other thing i’ve noticed is in the daycare my girls are in (i need to have 3 days a week when i can do shopping, dr appointments, cleaning etc., so the girls go part time to daycare) the same old sexist attitudes abound. especially the daycare center they’re in now as opposed to the one before on the college campus my wife attended (it was destroyed by katrina). as i listen to my older girl play-act her day (when she doesn’t realize daddy’s eavesdropping) i hear her say all kinds of subtle and not-so-subtle sexist things. they make her play more with the girls and separate the boys into different lines & play groups. this annoys her because her 2 best friends are boys and she’s a rambunctious, adventurous, tomboyish kid. so she doesn’t like the teachers who more strictly enforce the boys together/girls together rules. as soon as we’re able, we’ll be taking them out of that center and looking for one less sexist. (and racist… my older girl cannot distinguish between the colors black and brown because brown people are called black, so she thinks that the brown crayon is the black crayon. also, she called my mom, who’s a very dark tanned native-american, black one day and that really upset my mom. my daughter said that her teacher told her that her maw-maw was black but her daddy was white (i took after my irish dad in looks). it surprised me that the teachers would point out that difference to her so directly.
at the daycare they were in at the college, the boys played dress-up and kitchen as much as the girls played with cars and rough-housed. and she never noticed that some of her classmates were darker-skinned than others.
maybe it’s not that the daycares are different but she’s almost 4 at this one and was just past 3 at the other one. but i think it’s the cultural influces of being in a place where the purpose of the daycare center is to teach ECE to adults vs a daycare center where the purpose is to prep the kids for kindergarden & “socialization”.
but back to the “male childcare givers must be perverts” theory… it really hurts me to know that there are people out there who think that i could ever conceivably hurt a child. that my motives for loving and caring for babies and children must be because i want to molest them or something.
i think this attitude prevents men who really do want to be more active and affectionate fathers/caregivers from doing so. it’s just easier to shut down those feelings than risk being accused of something dirty if you give your daughter too long a hug or a light kiss on the lips instead of the cheek. after shutting down that affection long enough (and it doesn’t take long) i think guys just believe that it doesn’t exist and don’t even realize that they’re missing something.
sorry if i’m a bit rambling & incoehrent tonight… we all have a dreadful case of the flu combined with katrina-cough, and it’s really wiped me & the girls out. fortunately my wife hasn’t caught it and she can take care of us sickly types. but at least the meds are good %-)
This comment was written by stay-at-home-dad.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 2:59 am
“Most rapists and child molesters are men. As women, we get harassed nad hassled on a daily basis by men, who then bitch that we hate them, when we’d be happy if they’d just leave us alone. We have to fight rape and wife-beating and child abuse, ”
Is it any wonder that there is so much suspision about men, when you have the likes of ginmar about, that can only talk of men in the negative and dismiss any issue that comes up.
I don’t want to cause offence here but you have to admit that Feminism is complicit in the whole Men = abuser situration, i am not saying it is wholely guilty but it has contributed to the problem.
This is gender profiling, and is no different from racial profiling. Just becasue men statisticly commit more child abuse, does that mean that me as an individual is any more dangerouse than the woman I am with?
This is the cance for the feminists to demonstrate they are about equality for all and not just about women.
We have reached a very sick point in our society that views all men a dangerous, too both women and children, ignoring the fact of how many men sacrifice their lifes for women and children, the fact that a man is more likely to help a woman and children than harm a woman and children.
I work in the voluntary sector and see first hand men self selecting away from working with children, its just not worth the comments and hassell to them. But I guess that this is what some feminists want.
And Finally Ginmar, men work on a daily basis to prevent rape, and child abuse, feminists are not the only ones that are doing it! If it was something that was condoned within the male community, can you explain why rapists and child abusers have to be seperated in prisions from other prisoners?
This comment was written by Wookie.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 3:36 am
I think our society has reached a sad point when a man is profiled for wanting to work with young children. Gender profiling is a damaging as racial profiling. I think that it only serves to reinforce the idea of females as caregivers when men are pushed out of that role through the fear of being considered a pervert.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 5:01 am
on airplanes in New Zealand. A man who was seated next to a child travelling alone was asked to change his seat, because the airline has a policy against men sitting next to unaccompanied minors. The man objected, the fuss reached the press, [...]Continue reading at Alas, a blog … posted 4:32 pm at Alas, a blog
This comment was written by feminist blogs.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 6:49 am
But far more socially acceptable.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 6:57 am
Yes, but most men are not rapists or child molesters.
This comment was written by Dylan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 7:05 am
Ampersand:
No more so than it is a contradiction for a man to be a misogynistic heterosexual.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 7:13 am
When I was little, I can remember being afraid of men - anyone who wasn’t my father, really. No history of abuse, and my best friend was a boy who lived across the street from me, but adult men scared me. Looking back, I’m trying to figure out what it was I was so afraid of, and it may have had something to do with the fact that male relatives were more likely to tease and make fun of me. It may have had more to do with the fact that they made me feel stupid and belittled than that I was afraid of molestation, but I definitely didn’t trust them.
It seems to me that the bias against men being responsible for children extends through elementary school; at least at my elementary school, all the teachers except for the gym teacher were women. Once I got into middle school, the number of male and female teachers balanced out, and remained about even through college. I’m not sure how I would have handled a male teacher when I was little; probably I would have gotten used to it. It’s more likely that my fears were a result of the bias against men taking care of children than something that can justify that bias.
This comment was written by Rebecca E.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 7:25 am
Gee, Wookie, thanks for proving my damned point ever so eloquently. Yeah, fight are fighting sexism? With the exception of Amp and a few others who actually do fight sexism, they’re just invisible–because there’s way more men fighting feminsts. Cry me a fuckin’ river already. How do they fight sexism without fighting sexists? Becuase those are everywhere. Even you post on a feminist blog and whine about how I MUST hate men. Until men stop raping women, they can just bloody well cope with it.
Daran, you’re just plain being dishonest again. Amp’s nailed you for it over and over again so I’m not really going to bother, except to say, you know—You don’t get a damned door prize just for not being a rapist. That’s how hard it is being a straight guy in today’s world—if you’re not a rapist, you expect a prize. Note to DAran: that’s your cue for willfully ignoring the sarcasm and whining about it. We live in a rape culture that blames women for rape instead of men and you yourself have been nailed for crappy behavior toward feminists right here on this blog. I very much doubt you’re a feminist or so much as entitled to talk about feminists. That doesn’t stop you, though. You’re just determined to get in every shot at feminist you can, though. If most men aren’t rapists, what are they doing to stop rape? Harassing feminists? Blaming victims? Where are all these men? With few exceptions they’re guys who are more than content to let the anti0feminst nutjobs make them look good.
Amp, I have to say I think this is probably the start of a whole other conversation, but you should see my email and the comments I have to screen. Why do anti-feminist men want to emasculate feminist men? I have to say, too, that I find anti-feminist views utterly repugnant. Of course, that’s my opinion and on my blog they don’t get the light of day unless I want to remind people they’re still there. But there’s already too much woman-hating stuff in the world, why give more of it any exposure? But, anyway, let a man express any unqualified support for feminisn and other men emasculate him, other him, insult his sexuality and so forth. I think it’s deeply revealing about the anti-feminist mindset.
I do know that a great many of my friends have kept silent for fear of attracting the response I do. I’ve been threatened, told I deserve to get raped, and so forth. The thing is, those are things that men actually do to women in real life. As a gay guy, it’s something that you have to face, too. It’s a real threat. That just fascinates me. The straight male’s inviolate sexual identity is such that he can rape and gay bash with impunity, but gay men and women are not allowed to so much as defend themselves against it. Rebellion is not allowed. Tell me that’s not a rape culture.
Anyway, I posted late last night and I totally blanked on some of what you must go through. I’m sorry about that. I have to point out something, though. At least before I went to Iraq, I would have perceived the threats I get very differently. Now anybody says anything to me I’m in their face. That’s very definitely a side effect of being a soldier, and it makes guys really really frightened. Another reason to keep women out of combat, huh? I haven’t grown six inches, and in fact I lost a lot of weight in Iraq. I just gained so mething along the way, and I’m not quite sure what it was—a command of myself that men might view as theirs? Smething else?Whatever it is, I’ve realized that I can fight back, and it shows. It’s really interesting making guys back down. If that attitude doesn’t, the explanation does.
It’s so weird that the insurgents in Iraq express less vile sentiments than do the anti-feminist guys here at home. They appreciate bravery as a characteristic, while these trolls find it frightening when it comes in a non-white-hetero-male package. Maybe it’s because they lack it themselves. Beats me.
I need way more caffeine so I’m going to go set up a caffeine IV.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 7:34 am
No kidding, Ginmar!
It’s like all those damn Muslims complaining about being profiled as terrorists and not allowed to travel because of their religion! Sad fact is, Muslims still do commit more terrorist acts, so it’s the truth, what are they complaining about?
Or all those black people complaining about being profiled as criminals, and being stopped in nice neighborhoods! Sad fact is, black people still are poorer and commit more violent crimes than whites, so it’s the truth, what are they complaining about?
How fucking disgusting.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 7:54 am
I agree with root. I don’t think it’s so much about homophobia as about the widespread patriarchal assumption that men are helpless in the face of any sexual urge that comes along.
There’s also the common notion that men are naturally attracted to people (male or female) who are significantly smaller, weaker, younger and poorer than they are (people they can dominate), while women want people who can dominate them. If it’s “normal” for all men to want to have sex with younger, smaller, weaker people AND “normal” for them to “lose control” and act on their desires no matter what, then having sexual contact with children isn’t perverted for men; it’s just a question of being “normal” to a higher degree.
And many men actively work to shore up these myths about themselves because it shifts the blame to women and children if the men misbehave (”well, what did you expect, leaving her with a strange man?”). I think this is a case of PHMT.
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 7:55 am
Myca, says all that needs to be said.
I am sorry that you have got so offended by my comments Ginmar, was not intended.
I am sorry that you have such a low opinion of men, I see men on a daily basis, working against rape and child abuse, but I guess that I must live in a bubble, seperate from this rape culture you live in. I see men that police our towns and cities, I see men that have enacted laws to protect victims of rape, I see men working with rape projects to ensure that they have anougth support and funding to continue their work. It is a shame that you cannot see this. And you know what some of these men would not identify themselves with feminism!
I came to this discussion, because this is a discussion close to my heart, as I see in my work, men are self selecting away from working with groups that involve children, this worries me, there are plenty of men coming foward to volunteer in the voluntary sector but so many of them, when we are discussing what they can do, express a concern of working with children and the current climate we live in that implies that any man seeking out work with children must have alterior motives.
But hay lets keep up the gender profiling, lets keep forcing men to distance themselves from children, it will keep feeding the feminists with amunition to use against men for not getting involved enougth.
I will end by saying that I feel that the media is most to blame for the current climate, but I do feel that feminism has been complict in creating that current climate.
This comment was written by Wookie.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 8:07 am
In my experience, the gender-equalization is generally happening, but is going to other way — more restrictions for women childcare workers, rather than less for men.
The sister is a childcare worker, and her center has all sorts of restrictions, one of which is that no worker — male or female — is ever allowed to be “alone” with a child. One of my sister’s co-workers (female) was suspended for two weeks for closing the bathroom door while changing a child’s diaper. There was no implication of abuse — merely a violation of a clear rule: Open doors at all times if you are the only adult in the room.
As for lap-sitting, I’m not so sure that is a bad rule. Men can get erections for non-sexual reasons, too (like having to pee), and just like it’s not sexist to say only pregnant people can get abortions, it’s not necessarily sexist to set a rule that all children most be at least 12-inches away from a functioning penis (whether that penis is on a man or a woman).
This comment was written by Richard Bellamy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 8:09 am
Another problem is that men in school and pre-school are very much supposed to be the honorary male role-model and are expected to behave in a “masculine” way. Men who are too “feminine” doesn’t have it very easy. Thus the men in these proffesions end up reinforcing gender roles instead of breaking them.
This comment was written by B.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 8:10 am
I have, as usual ambivalent feelings about the airline thing. As for the Girls Scouts, I can attest to the fact that the organization has a bout a thousand stupids rules which all seem to stem from an absolutly phobic attitude toward liability, and many troop leaders and parents ignore them. My daughter’s leader is a man, BTW.
I know of two cases here in MI in which girls were molested on airplanes when they were unaccompanied. One resulted in charges and I believe a conviction (the girl was very young, it was the 80’s). The other was more recent, and the girl was 12 or so. They were unable to convict and the family unsuccessfully sued the airline. The problem was the lack of criminal conviction. I believe the 12 year old because at that age and in high school creepy men seemed to come out of the woodwork for me and other girls. Our Algebra teacher used to press his buttocks up against the girls (me included) when he was “helping” the student behind them. The English teacher “Dr. Grabber” got all touchy feely. The yearbook teacher always got girls on his lap and offered me rides home all the time and eventually dated a student. One teacher was fired and tried for statutory rape, another was fired for having sex in school with a student. Yet another started calling a student (and freaking her out) all the time to chat after his wife left him. A friend had a long time friend of the family feel her up. My mother had a stranger stroke her leg in a movie theater when she was 11. I was offered money for sex in a mall at 12, my sister was flashed at the same age, and recently a friend admitted that when she was 11, unaccomanied on a plane, the man next to her fondled her. These are only the cases I know about. In all of them, with teachers and strangers, we were too young and intimidated to say anything to the men, and mostly we told no one at all.
So you bet I am careful with my daughter. I don’t practice apartheid on men, but I watch them carefully, hoping I can detect if they are creeps or not. And I am hopefully teaching my daughter NOT to be intimidated and to tell me if someone gets too “friendly”. Child rapists may be few and far between, but men getting their jollies off touching young and easily frightened children are a dime a dozen.
This comment was written by Elena.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 8:12 am
As far as the issue of whether or not male child-care providers are stigmatized as ‘probably gay’ or not, I think that both what Amp was saying and jaketk’s point of view are accurate.
I absolutely do think that when a man engages in stereotypically ‘female’ pursuits like childcare, he’s branded as effeminate, less manly, and probably gay. In fact, I think a lot of this (although not as much) carries over to male teachers all the way up through high school, and that it also ties in to our culture’s deep-seated distrust of education and intellectuals. I blame the patriarchy and our cult of masculinity for this. Oh, and President Bush. Because he’s fun to blame, and he certainly doesn’t mind bashing smart people.
I don’t think that it makes much sense to lump all of this in under homophobia, though. I mean, one of the bits from the article was, “one parent explicitly asked that a male caregiver not rub her daughter’s back at naptime.” I doubt it’s because she thought he was gay. I think that another huge part of this is the idea that men are dangerous monsters, that perfectly normal male sexuality is creepy and scary, that all men are rapists and child molesters, etc. That’s something that I think the attitudes of the patriarchy reinforce, but I’ve mostly heard it articulated outright by folks like Ginmar, so I tend to think that both sides take a hit here.
Wookie — I don’t believe that “feminism” is to blame for this or that femisim is about bashing men. You’ve been here a while, and you’ve seen what Ampersand posts . . . he is a feminist, and he recognizes injustice when he sees it, and has always tried to address it, whether it’s men or women getting the short end of the stick. Sticking ‘feminism’ with the blame for this moral panic isn’t that far off from what we’re saying this policy does to men. That being said, yes, I think some types of feminism do think of men as inherently violent monsters with creepy, scary sexuality, and I think that those types are dumb.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 8:47 am
Actually, it is quite sexist to suggest that. On one hand it suggests that men are getting random erections frequently. However, unless the guy is taking Viagra, it is far less likely to occur. On the other hand it suggests that a man who have erections would not have the deceny not let a child sit on his lap or to remove a child if he thinks he is about to get an erection. Both serve only to further the myth that men are incapable of controlling their desires and are some sort of threat. It also suggests that women do not get aroused by such things, which is probably far from the truth. The only difference is that male arousal is noticeable and visible. But regardless of that, it sends the wrong message to a child when you restrict them from having physical contact with another person, male or female, based solely on the actions of other people.
My foster father constantly goes through this because he works from home and is the primary caregiver. Even though most of the social workers know him and his wife well and trust them with the high-risk children they take in, it is still an issue he has to face. With his own children, or the ones he has adopted, he can put his foot down, and often does. But with the foster children, he constantly has to call his wife if a child needs to go to the doctor, or if some sort of medication needs to be applied, or a kid needs a bath. If he does it, they will revoke their foster parent status. Even when the child is more comfortable with my foster father, he still is not allowed to do it.
It is smart to be aware of all adults who touch children, not just men. The look that comes across my foster father’s face when random women come up to his 5 year old son and touch his face or squeeze his cheeks is very obvious, as is his clenched fist. But that does not mean we should automatically assume every person, particularly every male, is somehow a threat to a child because some other guy did something to a child. It is not only unfair, but the reality of the situation is that such behavior probably serves to help mask the real abuse. After all, you are busy looking for a strange man, not your boyfriend or the girl who babysits for you.
It is possible to be aware of those dangers without discriminating or stereotyping whole groups of people.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 9:00 am
Historically speaking, children have been considered sexualized beings. Our current view is actually contrary to what was thought, and is still thought, in most cultures. The only real similarities our views and ancients one have in common is that the child should not be forced. Outside of that, humans have always had some sort of attraction to children. The images of 10 year old girls dressed in napkins and shoestrings do not help. I think most people who have attractions to other people are capable of controlling themselves and operating within the rules of society. There may be an element of projection going on (certain people are attracted to children and attempt to disguise it by being over-vigilant and accusing others, mostly males, of such attractions), but I still think it has more to do with the perceptions of men as uncontrollable predators.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 9:22 am
Ginmar:
I haven’t said anything about wanting a prize. What I object to is being blamed for rape purely because I’m male. I don’t consider not being blamed from something I haven’t done or supported in any way to be a prize.
I assume this is a reply to my comment number 20 above.
Yes, I deliberately ignored the sarcasm and responded to the literal statement. It was a quick response which I didn’t put a lot of thought into. So what? How was that whining?
The culture is heterogeneous. There is an element which blames women in general for the rape of women, but it seems fairly marginal, albeit vocal. Much more common is the blaming of victims. Note that “women” and “victims” are overlapping but different groups. You appear to be one of a large number of people who blame men collectively. I blame rapists for their individual actions.
I don’t consider myself to be a feminist, no, although I’ve been called one. I do, however subscribe more or less to the principles elucidated by Cathy Young. As far as talking about feminists is concerned, everyone who lives in a place where freedom of speech is respected has the right to talk about whatever they choose. But in particular they have a right to talk about what effects them personally, as femininism does and has done me. As for my choice of forum, I’m well aware that this is private property, and I am here at Ampersand’s sufferance, same as everyone else.
Most men do very little. Most women don’t either. Most women do nothing at all to help male victims, but that doesn’t make them responsible for the problem.
At a guess, hundreds of thousands of men are sexually penetrated against their will every year in the US, mostly behind bars. When you blame men, collectively, you include them in your blame. So who is victim-blaming here?
Antifeminist nutjobs make everyone look good. Fortunately, Ampersand doesn’t allow them here.
[...]
I haven’t seen any woman-hating stuff here. Criticism of, hostility towards, or even downright hatred of feminists (which I’ve also not seen here) is not the same as women-hating.
The antifeminist nutjobs who behave like that are beneath contempt.
That too is disgraceful and I condemn it utterly.
I notice you refer to straight males but gay men and women. “Males” would be appropriate if you meant “men and boys”, but I can see nothing in the context that would suggest you intended to include straight boys but exclude gay boys and girls. I guess you choose the word because it is dehumanising: animals can be males but only humans can be men and women.
Apart from that, I notice once again you are blaming an entire class - straight males for what only some of that class do.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 9:31 am
“”In 15 years of working with thousands of sexual offenders I’ve never treated or heard of a man who sexually offended against a child on a plane.”"
In Inga Muscio’s new book she talks about seeing a man acting extremely inappropriately with a girl traveling alone with her younger brother. Inga informed the flight attendants who moved the kids, but nothing beyond that was ever done. I’m sure stuff like that happens all the time but it never gets reported.
This comment was written by Delany.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 9:39 am
Myca, give me a fucking break. You’re being willfully disingenuous. Men rape. Muslims do not bomb. Nice strawfeminist, though. Good job.
Wookie, just come right out and say that any criticism of men gives you hives. Your ‘you just hate men, but I won’t come right out and say it’ schtick just gets more and more tedious as time goes by.
Daran, you’re tedious. I said what I said, and you want to pick it apart. You don’t believe sexism exists? I’m not going to waste my time with you. Amp might, but I don’t have to. I don’t believe in re-inventing the wheel with MRA trolls who whine that sexism doesn’t exist, women don’t have it so bad, and that the real victims are men. Until you actually respond to what I said and not with what you believe all feminists say, I’m not bothering with you.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 9:59 am
ginmar:
Irony meters around the world went into overload with that last sentence.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 10:08 am
Ginmar: I suggest you do more research in many of your claims. Men are as likely to be abused and to be an abuser in a relationship and the most likely person to abuse a child is the MOTHER, not some stranger or a man at all. Under your thinking, we should look at banning mothers from their own children for their own safety then shouldn’t we?
You may also be interested in a recent study of school children that found the boys were more likely to be abused by their girlfriends than the reverse and the rate of being force in to having sex was about equal too! So here we have all these girls raping boys yet is there any help for them in it or any shelters for the abused men who wish to protect their children from abusive mothers? Nope, the men are expected to just put up with it and deal with it.
Now you complain about MEN but most of those MRAs and FRAs are actually for just having an equal chance as women for help and to see their children. Yes there are some radicals just like there are some radical feminists which you appear to be one of. I deal with people on both sides frequently and while I have NEVER seen MRAs and FRAs say they believe raping women is acceptable or even let men off for being a pedophile, I have seen plenty of feminists say women raping men doesn’t happen or it is just desserts for them since SOME men rape women. I have also watched as our judicial system has allowed women out of jail time for raping boys because they were too pretty to go to jail and those who rape 12 year old boys and become pregnant receive very little punishment and then the young boy nailed for child support of all things. Yes, can you picture a 12 year old boy facing jail unless he pays child support to a woman old enough to be his mother and was his teacher that raped him as fair and proper?
I would suggest you read more and look closely at the studies and swear less at those who are polite and just disagree with you. It may be your swearing the general threatening attitude to others that causes the threats you complain about more than anything else and you are creating a self perpetuating problem by coming across as a violent individual that hates men causing the problems you then use to justify the behavior you use.
This comment was written by Quentin0352.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 10:29 am
I don’t have a problem with airlines not seating men next to unaccompanied children on long flights. Airlines do not have the ability to identify pedophiles with any degree of accuracy. They are limited to the much rougher sorting mechanism of gender, which is unfair but relatively effective. And there’s no “right to a particular airline seat” or even a “right not to be thought a potential deviant”, so the men in question aren’t having their rights infringed. If they were, that might make this a more difficult question. but as they are not, there doesn’t seem to be any conflict.
I do think it’s wrong that men who work in childcare or teaching are viewed with suspicion. In this case, unlike the airline scenario, the ability to assess behavior and screen out people with inappropriate motives is much greater. I don’t think there’s anything wrong per se with a day care or school being cautious about the men they hire - background checks, careful observation, etc. - but once that’s done then teachers and day care workers should get the benefiit of the doubt, same as women do.
Ginmar, nice invasion of a thread about men to turn it into a thread about you. I guess it’s true that we become the thing we hate; you’re acting like an MRA troll.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 10:44 am
Gee, Robert, like your conservative, insincere, trolling feminist blogs’ constantly matters. If you weren’t Amp’s friend you’d have gotten banned a long time ago. I don’t give a f uck what you say. When it comes to feminism, you’re nothing.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 10:47 am
Really, Daran? Gee, I guess I’ve been told. Who better to lecture me than “I’m-going-to-defend-jaketk-’s rape victim-bashing antics’Daran.
Like I give a shit. Either find some new tricks or don’t bother. I’m not responding to you from now on. Amp might have the patience but I don’t. Unless you actually try and listen to what feminists actually say instead of twist it, all you’re going to get is being ignored. And good riddance.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 11:39 am
Against every bit of my better judgement, I’m going to take what you’re saying seriously, and assume that, insulting and bigoted though it has been, it’s probably possible to figure out what it is that you’re actually saying.
When you say “Men rape. Muslims do not bomb.” I figure you could mean any one of a number of things.
One possibility is that you’re saying that commiting rape is a necessary component of being a man, but commiting terrorist acts is not a necessary component of being a Muslim.
A second possibility, if I take what you’re saying literally, is that you’re saying that no Muslims commit terrorist acts, but some/all men rape.
A third possibility is that you’re saying that although not all men are rapists, all rapists are men (Not all M=R, but all R=M), and that it’s true both that not all muslims commit terrorist acts, and that not all people commiting terrorist acts are muslim (Not all MS=T, not all T=MS). Christ, my philosophy professor would be so proud of the venn diagram I have in my head right now.
Okay, so I THINK that what you’re saying is option three.
The only problem is that we know your second statement in option three is untrue. Men aren’t the only ones who rape. Certainly, they’re the majority, although when it comes to small children (the group we’re talking about) the male/female gap narrows. Moreover, the people who advocate racial/religious profiling against middle-eastern/Muslim folk believe that those folk are likely to make up the vast majority of terrorist threats.
I hope that it can be agreed that the number of terrorists among the muslim population, like the number of rapists among the male population, taken as a percentage, is tiny.
The question, therefore, is whether it’s permisible, in decent society, to punish/treat badly/profile/harass/insult members of a certain group based on the bad behavior of other members of that group. I believe the answer is no, and that’s why I oppose ‘random’ traffic stops that seem to end up targeting black people, that’s why I oppose the profiling of Muslims, and that’s why I oppose this.
I believe that what you’re saying is that the percentage of terrorists/terrorist supporters among the middle eastern Muslim population is small enough that the rest of the group shouldn’t be profiled because of it, but that the percentage of rapists among the male population is large enough that the profiling of the rest of the group is justified.
I disagree. I think that that slope is too slippery to head down, and once we decide it’s okay to treat anyone like that, it just becomes a numbers game, and morality and decency head out the window.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 12:44 pm
Well, Myca, here’s a fucking clue for you. Try asking me.
Yeah, yeah, I’ve heard it before. Why don’t you ask me? Well, because once someone uses a few catchphrases, there’s no real need to wate any time. Robert, Daran, and Jaketk all used up their lifetime allotment of anti-feminist catchphrases quite a while ago. Wookie is on his/her/it’s way.
Here’s the simplified, even an anti-feminist should be able to get it version:
Rape is so normalized and so much a fact of male privilege that female rape of men/women/whatever is so rare as to be statistically irrelevant. Do men get raped? Yeah, by other men. Men rape. They rape in huge numbers–see Amp’s post on how many men are rapists—and then they face a cadre of sympathic police, judges and a public which is predisposed at blaming the victim. See Nick Kiddle’s posts on the subject.
If men who committed rape were blamed and tried and convicted and reviled by men who then supported feminists and didn’t—like Robert, for example, or any of the trolls who clog up feminist sites—–just try and argue and argue and argue but never for one fucking minute tried LISTENING —then we could not be said to live in a rape culture. But in fact we do have a rape culture. Rape is legitimized by a culture that keeps women intimiated by men for fear of rape, which to add to their intimidation, they know will be blamed on them. Society does this in a whole bunch of different ways. It accepts rape as an ordinary event in women’s lives, to the point that women get blamed when men rape them. Women don’t ‘get raped’—men rape them. Furthermore, ordianary men in college, ordinary men at work, ordinary men at school, and in the army, and everywhere rape women. Nevertheless women get told only to avoid rape by strangers, who don’t do that much raping. If a man rapes you, there’s a very good chance you’ll know him. That means that people will not believe you when you say you’ve been raped by a man. People don’t want to believe it’s so widespread and so normal—normal for men, that is.
As for ‘Muslims don’t bomb’ it’s very simple. Once someone tells you Allah told them to kill, they’ve stopped being a Muslim. It’s like those people that say that Islam requires women to veil. It doesn’t. Either they’re ignorant or they’re using it, but they’re not Muslims. Once they pick up a bomb, they stop being Muslims.
Next time you want me to clarify something, ask.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 12:58 pm
Fair enough. The “no true Scotsman” defense. In that case, I need you to understand that no men rape either. In my estimation, as soon as someone has comitted rape, he stops being a man.
See? No men rape.
This is nonsense, it’s word games, and it’s bullshit, and you know it. But, by all means, feel free to say whatever you like to feel more comfortable in your bigotry.
And here’s one back: next time you expect to be treated with an ounce of fucking courtesy, try treating the people around you with the same.
I tried taking you seriously. Don’t worry, I certainly won’t make that mistake again.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 1:01 pm
Ginmar, I don’t think you get to decide who’s a Muslim and who’s not. That aside, semantical sleight of hand doesn’t change Myca’s underlying point; Muslims get profiled because there are some terrorists who are Muslim (or “perceived as Muslim”, in the case that your absurd redefinition was accepted by anyone other than, well, you), and if we believe this to be unfair as a matter of principle, then the principle should hold for other groups as well.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
Hell, Myca, I was going to go after ginmar’s “logic”, but you’ve done far too good a job for me to jump in.
The talk about the Girl Scouts’ attitudes towards men is interesting. During the various lawsuits, etc., regarding the Boy Scouts’ membership policies, the GSUSA has been held up as a model of tolerance. But an examination of their operation seems to show that in fact they are more sexist and intolerant than the BSA is. I’ve seen numerous postings on Scouting lists that tell of GSUSA Councils that discourage men from participating, and GSUSA Troops that makes it very difficult for fathers to participate with their daughters. They don’t let men be “principal leader” of a GSUSA Troop (although that may have changed just recently), and unlike the BSA they have no programs for the opposite gender at all.
I wonder why this is. Is it an attempt to manage a perceived risk? Is it an attempt to show girls that women can be leaders in the absence of men? Do they think that there is an advantage for the girls to have activities in the absence of men?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 1:18 pm
“Women don’t ‘get raped’…men rape them.”
ginmar, do you see the usage of “get raped” as rhetoric that shifts the blame for the crime to the victim? Because if so, blaming the victim is nothing unique to rape. After all, people “get mugged”, “get robbed”, “get shot”, “are defrauded”, “get murdered”, “get abused”, etc., etc. It’s a description of something that happens to someone, it’s not a rhetorical device to blame the victim.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
You may also be interested in a recent study of school children that found the boys were more likely to be abused by their girlfriends than the reverse and the rate of being force in to having sex was about equal too! So here we have all these girls raping boys yet is there any help for them in it or any shelters for the abused men who wish to protect their children from abusive mothers? Nope, the men are expected to just put up with it and deal with it.
Citations, please.
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
Ampersand doesn’t appear to be here at the moment. If he was, then I suspect that he’d be suggesting that people cool it a little.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 1:48 pm
I’m made this point elsewhere, but it might be worth making again.
I’m not sure the fuss was strictly about the “seating of children on airplanes”. A man who was seated next to a child travelling alone was asked to change his seat, he complied and then spent the rest of the flight brooding over it and then complained. I’ve some sympathy. It’s just totally offensive to ask someone to move seats because you suspect if they were left in their seat then they might abuse a child.
I’ve no problem with airlines looking out for children travelling alone (which may be very intimidating for them even without the threat of child abuse). I’ve no problem with them moving the child. But there are discrete ways of doing things and there are ways which are totally crass and insensitive and are just asking for trouble.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
I pretty much agree with Bean when it comes to the airplane issue. It’s kind of a hassle, but not a big deal, and I can understand why they’re careful. Now, of course, it would be much better to deal with the problem while the tickets are being sold, of course, rather than waiting until everyone’s on the plane, going to some guy and saying “hey, you have to move so you don’t molest this kid.”
Regardless, it was more the issue of male childcare providers/teachers that was bothering me, as well as the underlying attitude that men are these awful, scary, child-molester monsters who will hurt anyone they get near.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
I think that another huge part of this is the idea that men are dangerous monsters, that perfectly normal male sexuality is creepy and scary, that all men are rapists and child molesters, etc. That’s something that I think the attitudes of the patriarchy reinforce, but I’ve mostly heard it articulated outright by folks like Ginmar, so I tend to think that both sides take a hit here.
My question is, is the idea that perfectly normal male sexuality is creepy and scary and abusive, or is the idea that creepy, scary, abusive sexual behaviour is normalized for men in this culture? Who is being asked to adapt here, and how?
Next time there’s a thread about rape, I had better not see any of the commenters currently complaining about “bigotry against men” picking apart the overly trusting behaviour of rape victims (why did she drink alcohol, why was she out at night alone, why did she trust a date or a male friend or a security guard).
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
Quentin0352:
IIRC the person most likely to non-sexually abuse a child is the child’s mother, while the person most likely to sexually abuse it is the mother’s male partner. The high risk from the mother would appear to be an artifact of its spending far more time with her than with other adults. (Children are more likely to suffer an accident in the home, than playing on the highway, but that doesn’t mean that highways are safer places for children.)
Studies without proper, verifiable citations have zero credibility.
My experience with MRA’s is that most of them appear to be lunatics. I hope that I’m wrong, and it’s just the empty vessels making a lot of noise.
I haven’t. I have, however, seen a lunatic MRA applauding the murder of women. I have seen other MRAs reluctant to condemn him. I know that not all MRAs are like that (I’m an MRA myself), but if these people are as representative as they appear to be, then the movement is in a truly sorry state.
Cite?
Woah, there.
See, this is what annoys me. Someone here comes across as a bit different, whether it be jaketk or in this case ginmar, and suddenly there’s an all-out no-holds-barred attack on them. Yeah, she’s pretty obnoxious, but that doesn’t make it right to misrepresent her, (She does not complain about threats more than anything else.)
Nor does anything, anything at all, excuse anyone threatening her. Yeah, I know you said ’cause’, not ‘excuse’, but the effect of your remark is to transfer responsibility from victimer to victim.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
I didn’t mean to imply that Quentin was mounting such an attack all by himself. I was referring to the general way this thread has gone, in particular how it has become personalised. Apologies to Quentin for making it look as though it was specifically him I was complaining about.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 2:25 pm This comment was written by Daran.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Oh bloody hell. I can’t even post what I intend to, let alone respond cogently. Ampersand, is there any way to implement a “delete your own post” button?
I said:
Didn’t I just take Quentin to task for exaggeration?
Bedtime for me, I think.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Men being discriminated against somewhere, cry me freaking river. Who cares, seriously. Men get everything, if women are getting a little bit of privilege somehow, I’m fucking ecstatic. And maybe if most men didn’t excuse rapers and victim blame as much they do, I’d feel okay about having my kids sitting next to some man I don’t know. I think its a great idea but of course when you rebel against men’s privilege to take up whatever space they want and molest who ever they want, they get pissed off. I’m sure this will change in seconds when enough outraged men complain, don’t worry men you’re being looked after. Your interests are pretty much the only interests that matter anyway, right.
This comment was written by anashi.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
A lottle of both, I think.
I absolutely agree that creepy, scary sexual behavior is normalized in our culture. My favorite (favorite?) example is how stalking is still viewed in many circles as basically sweet, romantic behavior. “Ooh, he followed you home and stood outside your window and sang to you to win your love? How sweeeeet!” Yeah, no, not so much.
On the other hand I also do think that actually normal male sexuality is viewed as creepy and scary. These are flip sides of the same coin. One enables the other. Normal, healthy things, are demonized while fucked up things are accepted.
Back in the feminism and anti-feminism thread, Polymath, Ismone, and Daran had an interesting exchange here, here, and here. Polymath is a male feminist, Ismone is a female feminist, and Daran is an MRA. Recognition of this phenomenon is an experience that cuts across genders and backgrounds, and it isn’t something that can be dismissed as the ravings of a MRA. I, too, grew up thinking that to be sexually attracted to a woman was somehow disrespectful. That to be a ‘good guy’ I needed to pretend that my sexuality wasn’t there. I didn’t say anything at the time of Polymath’s post, but I want to mention now how much I appreciate it and share his experience.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
Lottle? Interesting neolgism. I wonder what it means.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
Neither as the issue is not about male sexuality whatsoever. The perception is that all males are sex offenders and therefore a threat to children and untrustworthy. That is blatant discrimination, and is completely unacceptable in any other area. I do not understand the rationalization of it against men.
And technically you said the same thing in both statements, so you might want to rephrase one of them so that you have an opposing argument.
The message being sent by such acts is that no males are trustworthy. For the men who work with, father, or take care of children, this is a major concern. While some men abuse their position, as do many women, it is still unfair and improper to cast all males in such a light. Every experience is different, and if I asked my foster father about his experiences in dealing with female social workers, doctors, or child care service providers, I am certain he would say those are the women he would be least likely to trust. Most of the children he and his wife take in are high-risk foster children. Most of them have been shuffled through the system, abused, abandoned and are basically thrown at him and his wife because no one wishes to deal with them. The majority of the people handling these cases are women, and they have done some of the most careless work possible.
That said, it would be utterly ridiculous for anyone to suggest that because some women screw up and some women hold slanted views towards children, males, and their responsibilities that it would be fair to characterize all women who work in that field as bad, immoral, or threats to children.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
I’m more concerned with the day care case than the airplane case (although in the airplane case, a rule that children travelling alone need to be seated in the front row, where the flight attendants can see them, would probably suffice. That’s the rule some airlines use).
Anashi, either you’re against sexism or you’re not. If your view is “sexism against men is grand, but sexism against women is bad,” then that’s female supremicism, not equality.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
Men being discriminated against somewhere, cry me freaking river. Who cares, seriously. Men get everything, if women are getting a little bit of privilege somehow, I’m fucking ecstatic.
Do you recognize that if this is your philosophy, your feminism loses all moral standing? Feminism has gained moral standing by advocating for an egalitarian agenda of equitable conditions between the sexes. What you’re laying forth is simple identity group self-help politics; “get me more”.
Nothing wrong with that, but it has no claim on the consciences of anyone outside the group. If you don’t care that men are being discriminated against, then men don’t need to care about you being discriminated against.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 3:26 pm
Even taking your statement as granted, I doubt that it therefore follows that they did shoddy work because they’re women. Doesn’t Occam’s Razor seem to indicate that their half-assed work comes from the same source all of our half-assed work comes from, namely laziness and institutional inertia?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 3:50 pm
When men pretty much control the world, beat women in the street for not wearing what men deem appropriate, pour acid on them, etc., etc., you talking about female supremacy makes me laugh really hard. Women need to stop being nice about these things, and when they stop being nice men have problems with that. Wonder why. Most men don’t care that women are discriminated against. As you, yourself have shown on many occassions, Robert. Amp and Robert, you’re only interested in feminists that play nice, who are all about men getting more privilege. And don’t presume to tell me what kind of feminism I practice.
This comment was written by anashi.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 4:02 pm
Anashi, I don’t “presume to tell you what kind of feminism you practice”; I didn’t say anything about what kind of feminism you practice. I just said I think you’re morally wrong.
Saying that in a world where women get acid poured on them or get beaten in the street for dressing the wrong way, worrying about the problems of male child care workers seems petty, is fair enough. But you could say the same thing about worrying about a 15%-25% pay gap between men and women, or worrying about the small percentage of women in governing positions in the US, etc - in fact, about virtually all concerns of American feminists aside from rape and physical abuse. I disagree with the philosophy that says that only the worse injustices in the world are worth worrying about, and all other injustices are laughable.
Finally, I think your philosophy is bad for women. Sexism is a broad system, not a series of independent, unrelated injustices. You can’t overturn the system that says women must be caretakers if you don’t simultaniously overturn the system that says men can’t be caretakers.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
anashi, so I guess all men are evil in your opinion the way you are talking? Sure sounds that way with ginmar. Hint, most men DON’T rape and MOST men are not out to oppress women. What do we want, equal rights AND equal responsibility. If women want to be in the military, fine, just make them meet the same standards. To tell them they can meet a lower standard and be equal with men is NOT equality, it is special treatment. The same goes in most areas.
Now, as to those asking me to cite things, I’ll provide links to the mentioned items and also some interesting information on the general topic. BTW, if you think women don’t rape men then you can just skip my links and post since it won’t fit your world view. And a quick note Daran, I want not attacking ginmar but her attitude and language as well as her false assumptions. If she wants to go around screaming and cussing that is her choice but my pointing out that behavior tends to cause others to return it is not an attack to my knowledge. No different than telling someont that goes around punching people for fun that they will get punched back and shouldn’t complain.
Now for the links….
http://www.tampatrib.com/MGBW1T2U2HE.html
Interesting language they use in the rape section with “nearly” to increase the number used for women and “over” for men instead. Raw numbers would be 9 and 11 percent. Do you think all of those are homosexual rapes then and if so, then with those numbers being so high, using the logic I am seeing then ALL homosexuals are a serious rape risk and should be banned from sitting near other males, correct?
Now for the other request…
http://www.tampabays10.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=21598
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176375,00.html
Notice what her lawyer said? Now picture that excuse being used for a male!
Now I realize women spend more time with children than men but the numbers are MUCH higher and even taking that in to account it would be pretty close with women most likely being leaders. The following is just those who KILL their children but it is a good example.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm03/figure4_2.htm
Here is an interesting article I believe should be read by those interested in all of this.
Now, I can tell you from personal experience that a WOMEN claiming abuse is taken very seriously around here. I can also tell you that a MAN being stalked, threatened and abusing children is laughed at. I was investigated and cleared repeatedly on all kinds of claims by my ex-wife who was trying to have me jailed on false charges. Even with her own best friends, family, audio tape and the court’s own Children’s Advocate stating her claims were all false were not enough to get anything done. They STILL refuse to talk to any of us about the abuse of my children that we can prove and have requested repeatedly. Meanwhile the children are living in a crappy place that is trashed instead of a real home that is clean and has room for them and even after the death of one child they STILL refuse to even talk to me but they have investigated me time and time again at her request.
So yeah, please do tell me how men run things and how we have all the power. Sorry but watching my children be abused and KILLED by a psycho woman that has stalked and threatened me while I can’t even get a protective order or her charged and somehow I am the one with all the power and control because I am male?
I am all for equal rights but don’t tell me things like this and then I see 12 year old boys that were raped by female teaches having to pay child support to them, when abuse shelters refuse to help men who are abuse but help women who throw a punch and then get pissed he hits back and when courts force men to pay child support for children DNA proves are not theirs, then obviously saying men are in control of everything doesn’t apply. Special rights and equal rights are NOT the same thing and to ignore those problems while screaming at others for trying to address them isn’t going to help your cause any.
This comment was written by Quentin0352.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
Amp, I agree with you. I think that sexism is a major problem in virtually every country in the world, especially those that were colonized out of western Europe. I want equity between the sexes, not a reversed position of privilege.
That is I want men and women to have equal privilige in all things, and not a reversal of the current misogynistic structure. Inequality is bad for everyone, though you express this much better than I do.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
Myca, anybody who can’t see we live in a rape culture isn’t worth my time. That means you.
And as for Robert….I told him he wasn’t worth my time and he just keeps proving it.
RonF, give me a fuckin’ break already.
Oh, yeah, DAran, sweetie? Why, yes, I am patronizing your MRA ass. Cites? N o, don’t bother. Same shit MRA types always troll. Go read some of Amp’s posts on DV. Then fuck off. I’ve had it with coddling trolls.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 5:35 pm
What the christ. Here’s a little lesson, y’all.
Quentin0352: “Hint, most men DON’T rape and MOST men are not out to oppress women.”
Most men don’t kidnap strange women off the street and put their penises in orifices of her body without her permission. Many, MANY men continue to have sex with their girlfriends or wives after she has indicated that she has lost interest in the sexual encounter and doesn’t want to continue. That is rape, but they don’t know it is.
Most men don’t sit in conference rooms cackling and holding cigars and plotting the downfall of uppity women everywhere. Many, MANY men spend hours of every day refusing to acknowledge their privilege–the privilege they get from being the default gender, from having the name that is taken, from being the ones benefitted by the rape culture, from owning their sexuality, from owning the conversation, the business, the house–and that is the oppression of women, but they don’t know it is.
THEY DON’T KNOW IT IS.
You don’t have to be a CONSCIOUS sexist to be a rank, vile sexist.
This comment was written by Mary.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 6:56 pm
If we apply the same logic used in the instances of men left alone with children, technically it does not. Women make up the majority of the social workers, care providers, teachers, etc., and cause the majority of the mistakes, mishaps, abuse, deaths, and overall shoddy work. Based purely on the logic of frequency, we should assume it has something to do specifically with women, either as a result of cultural, social, and/or biological norms.
However, just like the statements made against men, this does not make much sense, though it is technically a logical conclusion. The reason for this is that such behavior is not mutually exclusive. Women are not the only ones who do shoddy social work and men are not the only ones who sexually abuse. Following Occam’s Razor, the best conclusion is that they both are elements within human nature, not a specific gender. The theory cannot be applied selectively as it would render it useless. It must be applied in the same fashion to all instances. Being such, one should conclude that male abuse and female abuse stem from the same source therein making both males and females untrustworthy. Of course, this would render it impossible to leave a child alone with an adult, so it appears people are favoring the instance that is already accepted, which leaves us in exactly the same position we started.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 7:02 pm
Mary:
How do we change this, because it isn’t beneficial for those with the privilege (men) to acknowlege the privilege. If they will not acknowlege the privilege then how do we erradicate sexism?
As far as taking names, owning buisnesses, and homes, I know many women in my area that kept their name or didn’t marry. Women own local profitable buisnesses, and own their own homes. I do not allow anyone male or female to trample on me. I am a human being not a door mat.
I’m curious to know what dialogue I should engage in with the men around me in order to help them understand that they benefit from rape even though they aren’t rapists themselves. And I would like to open these dialogues without coming across as a misandrist or lunatic. I
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 7:02 pm
Just a side-note: this thread strikes me as rather odd. I am not entirely sure why, but something feels out of place, particularly since anashi’s first post. It’s not an ad hominem or anything. I am just unsure what to make of this thread and the discussion.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
Quentino, sweetie, fuck off. If I hate men, asshats like you are exactly the reason why. Think about it, dipshit. If you can’t ask so much as ask me to clarify what I mean then do you think you’re presenting the picture of someone who can be trusted to take ‘no’ for an answer? Good job. Thanks for making my case.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 7:15 pm
Daran,
Regarding the 12 year old boy and the teacher, I believe that he is referring to the Mary Kate Latourneau (sp) case. Though, I’m not sure that child support was ever awarded in the case, and I think the boy’s Grandmother took their first child while she served out her prison term. Of course, I could be wrong.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 7:20 pm
Radical feminism is “morally wrong,” Ampersand?
This comment was written by Lilith.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 8:09 pm
If you can’t ask so much as ask me to clarify what I mean…
Other people (myself included) have asked you to clarify what you mean on many, many threads here. Your response is universally profane, insulting, and non-responsive. Why should anyone assume they would get any other response from you?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 8:25 pm
Neither as the issue is not about male sexuality whatsoever. The perception is that all males are sex offenders and therefore a threat to children and untrustworthy. That is blatant discrimination, and is completely unacceptable in any other area. I do not understand the rationalization of it against men.
Well, neither do I. But you know what? Women deal with that all the time. When men rape women, the women frequently have to deal with people asking them why they allowed themselves to be vulnerable to men - by being alone with one, by getting drunk, by going to a house where men live, and so on.
Either men are generally dangerous or they aren’t. Either men can be expected to control themselves or they can’t. I do not accept these arguments that it’s “bigoted” not to want your children left alone with a men when you’ve spent your whole life being told that you cannot expect men to control themselves when they’re alone with you, and observing that you will be blamed if they “lose control” and hurt you.
And technically you said the same thing in both statements, so you might want to rephrase one of them so that you have an opposing argument.
I can tell the difference between saying that men are normally inclined to be abusive and saying that men are taught that being abusive is normal. If you can’t, that’s on you. See the comment re: stalking.
The message being sent by such acts is that no males are trustworthy.
The message being sent by blame-the-victim narratives is that no males are trustworthy. Many men (particularly MRAs) are quite happy to endorse that notion if it means they won’t be held accountable for their abusive behaviour; they then turn around and get shirty if they’re denied what they want by someone trying to avoid the abuse that they pretend they have to perpetrate.
Again, either men are trustworthy or they aren’t. If you want women to trust men, I do not want to see you complaining about a woman when she puts her trust in a man and gets raped for her trouble. I expect you to be in her corner, defending her and her right to trust men. That’s all I said.
Of course, you could simply argue that women and/or children generally lie about rape anyway, but if you make that argument you’re a straightforward misogynist and thus beyond argument.
While some men abuse their position, as do many women, it is still unfair and improper to cast all males in such a light.
Aww, that’s sweet. Some men and many women.
The majority of the people handling these cases are women, and they have done some of the most careless work possible.
The relevant question, as far as gender goes, is not “are there women who do badly?” but “have the male social workers done any better?”.
I missed the point where anyone stated that all women are competent and caring.
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
If we apply the same logic used in the instances of men left alone with children, technically it does not. Women make up the majority of the social workers, care providers, teachers, etc., and cause the majority of the mistakes, mishaps, abuse, deaths, and overall shoddy work. Based purely on the logic of frequency, we should assume it has something to do specifically with women, either as a result of cultural, social, and/or biological norms.
However, just like the statements made against men, this does not make much sense, though it is technically a logical conclusion.
Nice try. For the amount of time they spend with children, men sexually abuse children a lot more often. (Yes, before I get flamed, I realise that this is still a small number of men.)
Physical and emotional abuse are a different matter and yes, there is something closer to gender parity there (indeed, women may commit more of those kinds of abuse). But child molestation is not a gender-neutral crime any more than adult-on-adult rape is.
The question is not whether incompetence is widespread in a profession largely inhabited by women; that could be a function of the job and not the people who perform it. The question is whether, considering the percentage of social workers who are women, women are more likely to be incompetent.
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 9:26 pm
And here we have great examples, please note I have attempted to be polite, have brought sources showing my claims and though Amp says that this type of behavior is to be banned by anyone that is an MRA, it is obviously allowed and encouraged by someone that is a feminist. I never could understand how people could complain about being oppressed or anything else while having a double standard like I am seeing here. Saying men not stopping when a woman changes her mind in the middle of sex is rape, fine but I hate to tell the ladies here that men experinece that pretty frequently too so how broad of a definition do you wish to have? If she orgasms and then tells him to leave her alone. how much time does he have to stop before it is rape? What if he does the same, is he to be ridiculed as a “quick draw” or etc for orgasming be3fore she is done or is she a rapist?
Beyond that you will see I have cited my sources and backed what I said, none of them has been attacked or even disputed but instead somehow I am the one attacked and the unreasonable individual with some kind of a problem. Now if you are unable to attack my points or even address them and feel your only shot is to cuss and attack me then it says an awful lot about where the real problems are and it would explain why so many women refuse to call themselves feminists. But hey, your choice to see kids killed and to watch as women walk for abusing them.
I’m sure that if your child had died you would defend the father that killed the child as it seems is going on here after I have had to deal with my ex-wife killing a child. Strange part is all the talk about women being around the children more, yes she was but that was HER decision and not mine as she found no reason to even allow me the amount of time the court stated I should have, much less any extra time.
This comment was written by Quentin0352.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 9:26 pm
This is pissing me off.
This comment was written by What She Deserves.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 9:38 pm
“Radical feminism is “morally wrong,” Ampersand?”
It sounds like that’s what he’s saying. Honestly, I don’t really care what Amp believes about my morals. I guess he can take two paragraphs I wrote and decide from that what I believe. Wow, I wish I could do that. It must be some kind of super power or something.
This comment was written by anashi.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 9:41 pm
Mendy:
I not to sure how what in general would be the best way so I will just offer a personal thought,
Admittedly the phrase that “men benefit from rape” is not inaccurate, but does make me cringe somewhat; I am not entirely too sure why that is, but perhaps it sounds initially somewhat like an indictment.
If brought up in a conversation in manner like the following I would be more receptive…
“A major benefit of being a man is there a very significant less chance of being raped by a man.”
These benefits include.
1. The experience of rape itself
2. Altering your public life style because the fear of being raped e.g. changing how you interact with people and carry yourself during day to day life
3. (Plus other benefits, which I do not know)
Still I must admit from my perspective I still do not think of it in terms of being a benefit to man, but rather a disadvantage of being a women e.g.
“A major disadvantage that woman face is that they have much more chance of being raped by a man that men do.”
The reason is that I think of a benefit in general of possessing something e.g. my medical benefits. I do not see (whether I do or not) that I will lose anything, if there are fewer women being raped.
This comment was written by James Q.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 10:18 pm
I never could understand how people could complain about being oppressed or anything else while having a double standard like I am seeing here.
Yes, the fact that a woman was rude to you on the Internet is proof that misogyny doesn’t exist.
Saying men not stopping when a woman changes her mind in the middle of sex is rape, fine but I hate to tell the ladies here that men experinece that pretty frequently too so how broad of a definition do you wish to have?
And which men have you been talking to about this, exactly?
If she orgasms and then tells him to leave her alone. how much time does he have to stop before it is rape? What if he does the same, is he to be ridiculed as a “quick draw” or etc for orgasming be3fore she is done or is she a rapist?
Oh goody, we’re going to nitpick based on the assumption that women are lying harpies who will bring rape charges for any little thing.
Well, now I know what your real problem is.
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 11:01 pm
I don’t even know why things like this piss me off as much as they do. I don’t know whether amp feels pressure to show that he’s fair to the male contingent that frequents his blog or if he sincerely believes the things he does. Whenever men start talking about how oppressed they are a vein in my head starts pulsing…He calls it an injustice, I call it a stupid waste of my time…Sorry, if I don’t care about men not being able to change babies nappies or being able to rise above there low status in child care. What the fuck, I mean if you look at it, schools are really child care and guess who get to be the leaders there, men are principles mostly. But no we need to have men be in leadership positions everywhere or it must be some kind of injustice. Every time men take over jobs done by women those jobs are conferred a certain level of respect. Think of chefs and hairdressers, etc. Great now we can have this in childcare too, oh wait we already do. Whenever I see a man taking care of a child, women fawn over that man, like he’s some kind of special animal. Omg, what a guy. *puke* These are the things in my mind whenever I hear complaints like this. If women don’t want their kids taken care of by men, I consider this good sense for many reasons.
This comment was written by anashi.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 11:06 pm
“Men being discriminated against somewhere, cry me freaking river. Who cares, seriously. Men get everything, if women are getting a little bit of privilege somehow, I’m fucking ecstatic.” anashi
Everything? Where do I apply?
“And maybe if most men didn’t excuse rapers and victim blame as much they do, I’d feel okay about having my kids sitting next to some man I don’t know.” anashi
This comment was written by gwallan.Now you’re getting seriously naive. In my nearly fifty years I have NEVER heard anyone, male or female, defend rape. Apart, of course, from when the rapist is female.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2005 at 11:21 pm
re male victim of statutory rape and child support.
This comment was written by gwallan.here
Apparently a boy can legally be raped by a woman AND then raped by the CSA as well.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 12:47 am
In my nearly fifty years I have NEVER heard anyone, male or female, defend rape. Apart, of course, from when the rapist is female.
And the other poster is naïve?
I’ve read this before. Believe it or not, it doesn’t surprise me that you’ve never heard anyone say “gee, rape is great, I’m going to go out and rape somebody right now.”
Listen more carefully. Read a few verdicts. Do some research on the law and how it’s changed within your lifetime. Read some more of Menweb for crying out loud.
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 4:05 am
Ginmar:
The irony is, if I wasn’t fond of you, Ginmar, I would have banned you a long time ago.
Speaking of which, I think the new comments rule is going to be that anyone I think is degrading the conversation gets banned.
So if you’re rude but also sometimes say things I find very insightful and interesting, you’re probably safe.
On the other hand, if you’re polite on the surface but I think you treat other posters here with over-the-top passive-aggressive contempt, and you’re not interesting, then I’ll feel free to ban you. Ditto if you’re rude without being interesting. If you think either of these categories apply to you, and you’d rather not be banned, then please improve your behavior.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 4:24 am
JamesQ:
Thank you for the answer. One problem I have in discussing the rape culture is that personally I haven’t been raised to defer to men or to fear rape (either stranger rape or aquaitance rape), so I find it difficult to express that fear adequately.
I also think I agree with “advantage/disadvantage” versus privilege. But, I am still reading, thinking, and discussing these things with other people. To me privilege is something that is supported by unfair law. An example of this would be Jim Crowe laws which gave white’s privilege over people of color. There aren’t any laws that I am aware of that legally give males default privilege over women, but I could be wrong about that as well.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 5:29 am
“And the other poster is naïve?
This comment was written by gwallan.I’ve read this before. Believe it or not, it doesn’t surprise me that you’ve never heard anyone say “gee, rape is great, I’m going to go out and rape somebody right now.” Elinor
No. I won’t accept this. There are posters here saying that men benefit from rape and support it. This is not true.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 6:54 am
There aren’t any laws that I am aware of that legally give males default privilege over women, but I could be wrong about that as well. Mendy
This comment was written by gwallan.Yes I’d be very interested in some examples of this.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 7:01 am
Well then, Amp, when does Robert get tossed? Because I wouldn’t be rude if he weren’t so insincere about feminism. I’m sick of dealing with that mythical strawfeminist he believes in. He keeps pitching at her and I’m sick of it.
Robert, you quoting me demanding to be asked for clarification is just fucking rich. You’re not interested in feminism at all: You don’t listen, you don’t care, you j ust want to argue with that strawfeminist you believe in. Good bye. That’s it for me. You don’t exist.
I’m sure that if your child had died you would defend the father that killed the child as it seems is going on here after I have had to deal with my ex-wife killing a child.
Gee, a troll reading minds of those strawfeminists again! How amazing! Anybody stop to consider that this magical mind reading ability might be a byproduct of a rape culture? How about taking a stab at that? It’s really amazing how many MRAs have this ability.
Nothing I like better than some troll telling me what I’d do for some child I don’t even have if that imaginary kid got killed because the troll can read my mind and the future. For fuck’s sake, already.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 8:45 am
He was refering to this case.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 8:57 am
Elinor writes:
Two wrongs do not make a right. Enacting discrimination against males because there has been discrimination against females does nothing but worsen the situation.
That maybe be true, but that has nothing to do with assuming all men are pedophiles. I understand your hesitation to trust people. No one is obligated to trust anyone they do not want to. But there is a difference between a lack of trust, like not allowing my 13 year old cousin to remain alone with a strange woman, and discrimination, like accusing the woman of being a pedophile because of some other woman’s actions. The former is reasonable. The latter is nothing more than projection.
According to your logic, we should assume is it that women are more likely to be incompetent. You cannot have it both ways. If we are to assume that men are untrustworthy because of the frequency men commit sexual abuse, then the same logic must be applied to women.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 8:59 am
Why is that everytime a case where a women has sex with a schoolboy that’s splashed across the news, but if they reported every rape that happened to women they’d have to cover it 24/7, guess it just isn’t sensational enough to hold our attention. Men benefit from rape because they get to control women’s behavior with it. We get to stay at home because were to afraid to walk out at night. I get emails sent to me telling me how to avoid rape, when men don’t get any emails telling them not to rape. Its their problem not ours. Read any thread on rape and you’ll see men constantly blaming the victim, saying she should have done something to prevent it. Why don’t they condemn the raper and talk about ways men can stop rape? Because I believe they sympathize with him.
This comment was written by anashi.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 10:21 am
Never. This is my blog, not yours, and you don’t get to decide who gets tossed. Deal with it.
Take responsibility for your own actions. Robert doesn’t hold a gun to your head and force you to be rude; that’s a choice you make.
Look, treating the other posters with respect is supposed to be a condition of posting here. I like you, and I like your blog, but if you can’t deal with treating other posters with respect, then you’re making things worse here, from my perspective.
I deleted the last sentence of your post, which was just too much of a personal attack on another poster for me to stand.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 10:46 am
I’ve been thinking of the findings at two swedish childcare-centers in Sweden, Tittmyran and Björntomten. They started studying gender-roles among both staff and kids.
Unfortunately all I could find in english is a short paragraph in this text on pp 103-6.
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:DWBgaZ6SqJsJ:144.82.31.4/reports/WP12%2520innovative%2520developments%2520in%2520care%2520work%2520full.pdf+tittmyran++gender+OR+boys+OR+girls&hl=sv&lr=lang_en
It is slightly off-topic, but so is the discussion of all the ways men benefit from rape, and at least it concerns gender-roles in childcare.
This comment was written by B.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 12:25 pm
gwallan, I’m not interested in going back to square one with you. anashi is right about the tendency to blame the victim (she shouldn’t have done this, she shouldn’t have done that) and to regard rapists as good boys who made a mistake, got caught with a lying bitch, etc.
In my country a 24-year-old rapist was recently given a reduced sentence because he was a pillar of his community, and because the 89-pound 12-year-old he assaulted was intoxicated and had been sexually abused in the past. The judge decided that she was probably the sexual aggressor and he was a good boy who had made a mistake.
It’s everywhere and if you don’t see it, you aren’t paying attention. Read about the New Bedford gang rape case. That’s well within your lifetime. Read about the psychological theorizing around “seductive children,” the pedophile’s rights movement, the hatred spewed at the complainant in the Kobe Bryant case, the MRA manifestos blatantly calling for the decriminalization of simple rape.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Enacting discrimination against males because there has been discrimination against females does nothing but worsen the situation.
Okay. I understand how, in practice, this sets up a vicious circle. However, telling women that they will be blamed for men’s bad behaviour towards them and towards their children, but that nonetheless they should be willing to risk it, is not acceptable. If you want women to trust men, hectoring us about how unfair we are is not the way to go.
That maybe be true, but that has nothing to do with assuming all men are pedophiles. I understand your hesitation to trust people. No one is obligated to trust anyone they do not want to. But there is a difference between a lack of trust, like not allowing my 13 year old cousin to remain alone with a strange woman, and discrimination, like accusing the woman of being a pedophile because of some other woman’s actions.
Okay, now you’re splitting hairs, and also I don’t know where these “accusations of pedophilia” showed up in the narrative. You don’t trust the strange woman with your cousin because you think she might be a pedophile (among other things, perhaps), no? If parents showed up the door and said “I don’t want my child left with a man, but I won’t say why” would that make you happy?
Thought not.
According to your logic, we should assume is it that women are more likely to be incompetent. You cannot have it both ways. If we are to assume that men are untrustworthy because of the frequency men commit sexual abuse, then the same logic must be applied to women.
Okay, a lesson in eighth-grade science is clearly needed here: have you not heard of controlling for variables?
You’re refusing to do it, or to acknowledge that other people have done it. That makes your conclusions invalid.
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
the MRA manifestos blatantly calling for the decriminalization of simple rape
Cite?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
What I find most disturbing about this is that the airline rule of not seating men next to unacompanied children isn’t really likely to be a productive strategy in preventing abuse because it’s based on the false assumption that strange men are more likely to sexually abuse children than any one else, when in reality, it is known men who are the statistically most likely sexual abusers of children by a rather large margin.
This simply goes on to reflect the wider problem of ignoring the rape cutlure that exists in society where the sexual abuse of adult women, men, and children by men is endemic and yet the reality of this situation is ignored or contested while on the other hand the purpotrators of these crimes (individual men) are rarely or never held accountable by men in general. Perhaps this would be less of an issue if other men, who find the prevalence of rape in this society horrifying, did more to combat that rape culture than combating feminists who have the temerity to point out that it exists.
The other issue of men in childcare being descriminated against also flows directly from many assumptions embeded in the culture of patriarchy but I’m sure that most find it much easier to again attack the feminists who point out and attack those assumptions (thus addressing the root of that descrimination) rather than attacking the assumptions themselves.,
After all, the perceptions of men in childcare as wierd stem in large part from patriarchal beliefs about women’s work, and hence women and thus men in those roles as either feminized or predators because no normal man would be assumed to be willing to be feminized culturally by doing women’s work unless they had alterior motives.
Fighting those assumption about the ‘natures’ of men and women and women’s work and the absolute negative in this society for men to be ‘feminized’ by doing women’s work would necessarily address the assumption that men would never engage in childcare without alterior motives. Of course, that might be hard. Far easier to whine about feminists.
This comment was written by Lorenzo.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
What I find most disturbing about this is that the airline rule of not seating men next to unacompanied children isn’t really likely to be a productive strategy in preventing abuse because it’s based on the false assumption that strange men are more likely to sexually abuse children than any one else, when in reality, it is known men who are the statistically most likely sexual abusers of children by a rather large margin.
It’s not based on that assumption.
It’s based on the observed reality that someone will be sitting next to that child for the next 12+ hours. (This is New Zealand Air - looooooong flights.) That someone can be a male not known to the child, or a female not known to the child. The statistics are clear; males not known to the child are far more likely than females not known to the child to sexually abuse.
Uncle Joe may be the most likely suspect ex post facto in a child sexual abuse investigation, but Uncle Joe isn’t on the plane.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
I’m seeing an odd dichotomy here.
Some of the more obviously misogynist posters here (and no, I’m not pointing fingers at individuals) seem to be saying 1) (in this thread) that men are basically trustworthy and 2) (in other topics) that rape victims need to be more careful with their actions so as to avoid being raped. Although these aren’t actually ‘technically’ fundamentally opposed propositions, they come pretty close.
The radical feminist view, however, far from being a ‘more coherent’ set of beliefs, seems to be precisely the opposite . . . 1) that men are horrible monsters who can’t be trusted, and 2) that acting with out of trust for men isn’t something we ought to be criticized for. Similarly, these two propositions seem to clash.
For me, I tend to disagree with all of the above, and I think it indicates the basic problem with treating individuals as members of a ‘class’ rather than as individuals. I can’t say either “men are trustworthy” or “men are not trustworthy” and have it approach anything even close to truth. Some men are trustworthy. Some men are not. Some men are trustworthy in some areas and not in others. Some men are trustworthy in some circumstances and not in others. The same is true of women.
When your philosophy teaches you that to treat an individual a certain way based not in who that individual is but on what ‘group’ he belongs to, that’s when, in my opinion, the philosophy becomes morally corrupt. My ex-girlfriend’s grandfather was a virulent racist . . . really, very offensive . . . but her family would justify it, by saying “well, you know, when he was younger, he got attacked and mugged by a group of black men.” That’s no justification. His anger and rage was understandable perhaps, but that didn’t make it right, and it didn’t make it ‘not racist.’
I’ve seem the same sort of thing here from topic to topic, over and over again, whether it’s an MRA posting about how women suck because his ex-wife fucked him over or a woman posting about how she can’t stand men because “male poster #5″ posted something she found offensive.
I’m not saying that class-based analyses are a bad thing, just that making judgements on the micro-scale based on macro-scale analysis is generally going to end badly. Macro-scale analysis is good for macro-scale questions.
Where does that leave us? Well, for me, I guess it means to try to work out any anger I have at members of a particular group by dealing with those specific members, rather than painting with a broad brush, and while not castigating myself for that anger, to realize that to direct it at unrelated folks (or to randomly include those folks in my anger because of their genital/melanin/political/religious configurations) is not just unfair, but actually counterproductive to my personal causes and goals.
I’d guess that I disagree with Robert (for example) on probably 85% of the political issues in the world, but there’s always that 15% chance that we won’t, so why alienate a possible ally?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
OK, just to help clear some thing sup here…
http://www.rasac.org/education/statistics.html#01 there are some statistics we see on the topic.
Now when talking about rape, I see there is a lack of answers to the questions. Just by claiming rape, then should that be enough to jail someone with no supporting evidence? What about those who have a history of making the claim under suspicious circumstances like the Bryant case? Lack I checked, if a woman has been violently raped like she claims, you don’t BRAG about it at parties for a few days and have sex with several others right after and then make the claim after a few days. Don’t you think that there might just be some cases where it is an attempt to get attention, money or other things and that supporting women that abuse the laws in this manner is hurting your case? After all, if men are being accused of rape constantly because she said stop after she orgasmed and he hadn’t but took 20 seconds more to finish, then your are really trying to broaden the definition of rape. At the same time if a man claims rape under the same definitions and it is done by a woman, then shouldn’t she be punished?
I also have not seen any MRA places saying rape laws should be eliminated or any of the many claims you keep making about MRS and FRA. Care to cite a few of them since I have yet to see any backing those claims you are making?
Oh, have any even bothered to check the links I gave as were requseted? I find it interesting that they were requested and suddenly those items were dropped. Then again I have been attacked pretty heavily just because I actually believe in equality between men and women.
This comment was written by Quentin0352.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Myca,
I think your post (#101) fairly states my own personal philosophy. But, there are macro-level questions when discussing issues like racism and sexism, etc.
And in the area of sexism, I am not sure what broad social actions can be taken to change things. Again, I am drawn to the idea of individuals working in their own spheres of influence to make those changes. I am doing it in the way I’m raising my children, and by not actively promoting the actions of sexism.
I’m very skeptical about instituting legislative action to alleviate individual attitudes. If anyone has any thoughts as to how to make the changes necessary I’m interested in hearing them.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
I just noticed this from Elinor and wanted to address it some…
Now men get to fear that they have sex that was consensual and then are accused of rape. I’ve had this happen to men and know others. She had consensual sex and then later didn’t like what happened for one reason or another. To get out of having people ask her why she slept with an ugly guy or several all at once what ever reason, she then says she was raped. Another one I see a fair amount of is how she was drunk so COULDN’T have consensual sex due to her being drunk and is not responsible for her decisions then. Now a drunk man that has what he THOUGHT was consensual sex but may have been a reluctant partner who really didn’t but gave in to pressure IS responsible for his behavior thought he was equally drunk as the female in the first case.
Another common case is in divorce where suddenly what was consensual sex is claimed to have been rape then and he is now an abuser who should be punished. It is nothing more in this case than a tactic in a divorce case and well known by her friends that is the truth but they don’t stand up and say so. Instead they go along to help her and he is hammered based entirely on a lie with no real evidence. It happens in divorce with claims of molesting too. You talk about how men have to stand up and not defend abusers and I don’t personally know anyone that actually does stand up for abusing women but at the same time I know men who have stood up and stopped an abusive man from hitting a woman only to have her attack him for doing so and also known plenty of cases where a woman attacked a man by sucker punching him and when he hit her back he was jailed and she went to a shelter for being abused.
If you want to make progress for equality and demand men stand up to stop these kinds of problems you talk about, then women must ALSO stand up, demand those women they know who abuse the laws be punished for doing so and also not try to apply a double standard unless you wish one applied against you as well. Correct?
This comment was written by Quentin0352.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 2:36 pm
Quentin:
I have. I just haven’t had time to compose any responses.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 2:36 pm
The MRA call for decriminalization of rape is point 37 on this list.
I realise all MRA manifestos are not the same, but the fact that this exists (alongside a number of propositions more common to MRAs), and the fact that MRAs from other groups tend to argue that most rape accusations are false, supports my statements.
Myca, I don’t believe radical feminists believe that men are inherently monstrous; however, radical feminists do generally believe that our society gives men permission to be monstrous. It’s very well to talk about relating to people as individuals, but essentially what you seem to be doing is demanding trust without much recourse if that trust turns out to be misplaced. Changing a culture is not a simple matter of chastising women for actually being as careful as, in other circumstances, we are ordered to be.
Frequently it appears to me that women are just supposed to know, automatically, which men are good and which men are bad. That isn’t realistic.
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
Now men get to fear that they have sex that was consensual and then are accused of rape. I’ve had this happen to men and know others. She had consensual sex and then later didn’t like what happened for one reason or another. To get out of having people ask her why she slept with an ugly guy or several all at once what ever reason, she then says she was raped.
See, there you go: defending rapists. Women are all liars, women are untrustworthy and hurt innocent men with false accusations. Rape isn’t real; perhaps it’s not rape unless it involved a weapon, a total stranger, and several witnesses…
It happens in divorce with claims of molesting too.
This is tedious. Go read Trish Wilson’s blog.
You talk about how men have to stand up and not defend abusers and I don’t personally know anyone that actually does stand up for abusing women
No, not unless the women claim they’ve been abused, and then you’re all about hurling vitriol at them.
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
Elinor:
How do we begin to change the culture of the United States? I’m wondering if it is best done through legislative measure (as in the ERA) or should it be handled through education and raising awareness?
Yes, our culture does seem to give men a pass for monstrous behavior. How do we change the attitudes that underpin this particular part of our culture? I don’t think that deconstructing gender is the only approach, as I favor complete equality of everyone regardless of an descriptor.
As far as a woman having to know whom is dangerous and who isn’t, society does send this mixed message. But then, children are taught the same thing — that they should know which adults are dangerous and which aren’t. And to me, that is victim-blaming in a nut shell.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 3:16 pm
Quentin0352, let me say first that I’m terribly sorry for your loss. There’s no bigger tragedy than the loss of a child; it happened to relatives of mine, and they were absolutely devastated. There’s no way I can relate to or understand the heartbreak you must feel, but you have my sympathy.
Nonetheless, you seem eager for debate. So I’m going to go ahead and debate your points, since that’s what you want. Please don’t take my debating you to mean that I’m not symathetic for your loss.
* * *
And as a moderator, despite my sympathy for your loss, I feel obliged to ask you to try and treat other people here with respect (which is more than just being polite on the surface).
* * *
Regarding the Florida survey, keep in mind being “physically hurt,” in this survey, could include anything from being brutally beaten up to being playfully faux-slapped. The questions for both dating violence and for rape are so brief and unspecific as to be useless, in my opinion.
Here is the COMPLETE section on dating violence and forced sex, from this survey:
There’s pretty much a consensus among social scientists who work in this area that multiple, specific questions lead to much more accurate results. I’ve almost never seen a worse survey instrument than this one.
The link shows that mothers kill their children twice as often as fathers (not counting cases where both parents acted together). But it doesn’t in any way take time spent with children into account, so it doesn’t support the claim you made above. Since nealry 80% of the children killed were three years old or under, and since a significant portion of American families are (and a disproportionate number of infanticides happen in) single-mother families, I think you’re dismissing the importance of the time-spent factor unjustifiably.
No, of course not.
Too many people have these weird narratives in their heads, entitled “what rape victims act like.” You say “last you checked”; where did you “check,” exactly?
The truth is, there are as many different ways of reacting to tramau as there are tramautized people. Plus, even if there were a “typical” way rape victims react, that still doesn’t tell us much about any individual case because atypical people can be raped, too.
No one should be found guilty of rape without evidence of rape. But by the same taken, no one should be found guilty (in a court or in the court of public opinion) of having made a fake rape charge without real evidence either. And sliming someone’s behavior in the press, and baseless claims that “last I checked, rape victims don’t act like X,” aren’t reasonable evidence.
If someone refuses to stop after a reasonable amount of time of their lover saying “stop! Get off! Stop!” then yeah, I think that’s rape. Regardless of what sex each person is. The truth is, people do this all the time - when your lover says “ow, that hurts, stop,” anyone who isn’t a total asshole stops. (When you’re having sex, if your lover’s hair gets caught or something and she says “Ow! Stop stop!,” do you keep going?)
However, you’re saying that men are constantly being accused of rape in this situation. By “accused,” what do you mean? Do you mean brought up on charges by the police, for example? And what evidence do you have to support your claim?
* * *
And yes, there are some female teachers who have committed statuatory rape. They get a lot of press because this is a “man bites dog” story. I don’t excuse what they did at all, but nor am I going to pretend that they represent a normal kind of rape in our society. Typically, regardless of the victim’s sex, rapists in our society are male.
* * *
Finally, I think you need to realize that things “you heard,” or anecdotes you relate, don’t really prove anything.
[Edited to remove a bit that was accidently pasted in here from a different post.]
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
You know, Amp, telling me I hvae a choice to be rude or not is kind of amusing. I don’t choose it; it’s the way I am when I’m confronted by male trolls who get to spout really offensive crap as long as they’re not overtly rude. They just go on and on and on, and if they’re civil, it’s acceptable. I think they should get a taste of their own medicine.
You call it airing other viewpoints. What it is, though, is just letting the MRAs talk shit about women. I don’t see how that’s civil at all.
No. I won’t accept this. There are posters here saying that men benefit from rape and support it. This is not true.
Gee, I guess that means that it’s not true. Some guy’s never seen it in existance, so that means it doesn’t exist. Just ignore those women.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 3:39 pm
Elinor:
No more so, than the fact that the SCUM Manifesto exists proves that feminists want to murder men.
The guy is a nutjob. If MRAs generally make everyone else look good, guys like him make MRAs generally look good.
No it isn’t, and I don’t think there’s any objection to women (or men) being wary of men (or women) they don’t know (or do know). The objection is to the blame being cast onto an entire gender.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
Should that read “I’ve had this happen to me? If so, could you clarify because it’s rather a significant typo if indeed that is what it was.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
I’ve wanted to avoid bringing in my personal assault experience, but it is applicable in the vein of “there is no typical reaction to rape or sexual assault”.
I was raped by a friend’s brother when I was sixteen. The only person that I confided in was my Mother who pushed me to go to the cops. I told her that the hassle and the bruhaha that would ensue wasn’t worth the two or three years probation he would likely get. I did get counseling and avoided that particular guy and his friends like that bubonic plague, but I didn’t attempt suicide, become depressed, cry, or other “normative” indicators for traumatic assault. Simply put, I went into deep denial.
Fast forward four or so years to my fist marriage. My husband sexually assaulted me in the guise of BDSM experimentation. When I called him on it, he said “But we were experimenting”. Our safe word was ardvark. How likely is it that someone would be screaming ardvark during intercourse?
Still my reaction was denial, and I showed no outward sign. Once again I went to counseling. I do not hate men as a gender. I wasn’t raised to fear rape by strangers or by my intimates. Maybe I should have been, but traumatic and horrible as those events were — I did nothing wrong. Those two men chose to ignore my protestations. In the first instance I did physically fight back, and managed to black both of his eyes and leave a bite impression on his chest.
Everyone deals with physical and emotional trauma in different ways. I am not an overtly emotional person, and so I didn’t show those “typical” emotional responses to my attacks. But, I was still a victim and I am a survivor none the less.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 4:17 pm
anashi writes:
if you have access to cable news, you would find that the vast majoirty of coverage is of women. even in the papers this holds true, so i am not entirely sure what news you are looking at. most of the time the person’s being discussed are blonde white females. you practically have to pull teeth to get the media to cover a kidnapped/murdered black child.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 4:33 pm
I’m talking specifically about rape not how many blonds are on tv. I agree that there needs to be better coverage of black people’s issues on tv and more black people in control of the news, and they need to stop focusing on murdered women. I think they cover these women all the time, because they want to instill fear into us. Its the same thing I was talking about with rape. Men want us scared out of our minds, so does the news. Besides these stories of murdered women when does the news ever seriously talk about women’s issues at all. We all know what’s behind the speeches where Bush talks about 9/11, why does he bring it up all the time. To scare us. Same thing with all these murders.
This comment was written by anashi.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 4:43 pm
Elinor writes:
This logic works both ways. It is equally unacceptable to blame men for women’s bad behavior towards them and towards their children. However, the logic is flawed because as it automatically assumes women/men are a threat. Change men to any minority and retest your statement. If it would be considered biased, then the logic itself is biased.
That is the reason the man was asked to move on the plane. It is also the reason men are restricted from physical contact with children when they work as teachers and care providers.
No, I do not trust strange women, or men, because I do not know them. I would hope that most parents would take the time to know the people they leave their children with. It is not only that a person my hurt the child, but also that something may happen (an accident, an emergency, anything) and that person would be responsible for the child. Trusting random people without knowing them is most unwise.
Yes, I have. Unfortunately, the variables do not work in your favor. Your reasoning is that men commit most sexual abuse therefore they are not to be trusted. Since women are responsible for the majority of all other forms of abuse and shoddy, abusive screw-ups in the system they are not to be trusted. No matter what variables you consider for women, the same system would have to be applied to men. And since there is no excuse for abusing or allowing a child to be abused, the results would end up entirely the same: neither group can be trusted.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
Mendy, I am sorry to hear about your abuse.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
Elinor, thank you for the link. I appreciate your responsiveness. What a dick.
Ginmar:
…telling me I hvae a choice to be rude or not is kind of amusing. I don’t choose it; it’s the way I am…
This is the same argument that anti-suffragists and their ilk used against women’s rights advocates in the very early days. Women are controlled by emotions; they can’t modulate their reactions to conform to their conscious choice; anybody who knows which buttons to push can cause a woman to have any desired reaction, because women are unthinking, illogical creatures - soft machines, really.
I have to think that, surely, you don’t really mean that. So, in accordance with your most recent instructions to people who don’t understand or can’t quite come to grips with something you’ve said, could you clarify? Are you really stating that you do not have the capacity to control your behavior? Or am I just misunderstanding something?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 6:50 pm
It’s not the same argument, because when she says “I don’t choose it; it’s the way I am…” she’s talking about herself, not about womankind as a whole. As I understand it.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 7:11 pm
OK. Conceptually the same argument; saying, through the lens of time, to William McKinley, “I don’t know about the other gals, but you got me pegged.”
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 7:21 pm
Jake:
Mendy, I am sorry to hear about your abuse.
Thank you. I really am fine with it now. I was using it to illustrate how there is not one “typical” reaction for sexual assault victims. By the logic used in the case quoted in the other thread, I would likely have been arrested and charged for filing a false report as well.
The law needs to be clarified as to what constitutes rape, and the idea that a victim is responsible for the attack needs to be removed from the equation altoghether.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 7:57 pm
How do we begin to change the culture of the United States? I’m wondering if it is best done through legislative measure (as in the ERA) or should it be handled through education and raising awareness?
I don’t know. I’m Canadian, myself, but the Tisdale rape case I referred to earlier indicates that we have these problems as well (although racism was a major factor in that judgment as well).
If it were me, I’m pretty sure I would trust my own child to a man at a daycare centre. I guess what frosts me about this discussion is the way women and feminists specifically are being slammed as “bigots” when we exercise the caution that we are so often told we must exercise if we are not to be blamed for our own victimization. We can’t win.
I think a lot of it is not legal; it’s cultural, and it requires that a lot of common notions about men, women, and sexuality be constantly challenged, ideally by men with other men.
jaketk:
the logic is flawed because as it automatically assumes women/men are a threat. Change men to any minority and retest your statement. If it would be considered biased, then the logic itself is biased.
I’m having a lot of trouble understanding your logic here. “Most rapists are men” is not the same statement as “most men are rapists.”
Daran, it does seem extreme to call for the decriminalization of rape, and yet in this very thread we have Quentino352 arguing that women routinely have fully consensual sexual relations with men and then charge them with rape. He may not be outright arguing that forced sex should not be legally considered rape unless demonstrable physical harm occurred, but he’s skating near that edge in my opinion.
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 8:06 pm
I guess what frosts me about this discussion is the way women and feminists specifically are being slammed as “bigots” when we exercise the caution that we are so often told we must exercise if we are not to be blamed for our own victimization.
I think this is a very fair point, and it is one area where I do see women getting hit for whatever they do. I come down on the “everyone should be paranoid and suspicious of everyone, all the time” side of things, but I hope that I am consistent about it.
Now excuse me, I hear someone coming down the stairs. It’s PROBABLY just the 3-year old with pretend cake for me, but I’d better have one hand on the grenade launcher just to be sure.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 8:09 pm
Elinor said on post # 106:
No, no, I think perhaps you misread my post, or I may have been unclear. I’m not demanding trust from anyone, nor am I chastising women for being careful. I’m just explaining how and why I try to combat my own tendencies towards group-based judgements.
To go back to my real-life example, I wouldn’t have found it unreasonable for my ex-girlfriends grandfather to (for example) avoid being alone with black people, or to cross to the other side of the street at night or something, but that’s different from either 1) saying that black people are inherently violent criminal savages or 2) justifying active discrimination against black people.
What I feel like I’ve been reading here, in regards to men, is a little of the first and a heaping helping of the second. It’s possible that my perception is wrong about the first, and I may just be oversensitive, but I’m pretty sure that the second is cut and dried.
This really upsets me for a few reasons. First, I consider myself a feminist, and it’s something I’ve put into action both through direct action and donations of time and money through the years. One of my very first memories is of my participation, at age 3 or 4, in a feminists for nuclear disarmament march in San Francisco. I’m not trying to wave around my feminist credentials, I’m just saying that it’s been a big part of my life, one I take seriously, and one I am emotionally attached to as part of my identity. I believe in feminism because full equality is the only morally right option, and injustice is unacceptable to me.
I also believe that the patriarchy hurts men too, but I’m also not one of those guys who invades a thread about rape survivors with a post on how men get raped too!!11!!1! Still, I do believe that ending the patriarchy will lead to a better, healthier world for everyone, men and women both. As a man, I don’t think the benefits are worth the cost . . . or, at least, I don’t think the benefits to be are worth the cost to me. I want to be free to choose who I am, not have it thrust upon me.
I believe that there’s a better world waiting on the other side.
Thus, when I read this thread, concerning what I think is one of the few legitimate cases of actual discrimination against men, something that has affected me personally, and, in fact, a good example of one of the ways in which the patriarchy does hurt men, and I see so many posters saying more or less, “yeah, well fuck those guys. I don’t care. They had it coming because they’re men.” Well . . . you can see how it would be pretty discouraging.
I agree that Men are the only ones who can end rape, and I agree that men who do not rape can derive serious benefits from rape and women’s fear of rape. But, my question is, why should men even try to end rape? If the attitude from the other side is what I’ve been reading, if there’s no moral injunction against justifying injustice, if it’s okay to say “they had it coming because they’re men,” if it’s every person for him(or her)self, if it’s just “take what you can,” if there’s no better world waiting, why give up the benefits?
God, please remember that that’s not something I believe. I absolutely do believe that equality is a moral imperative, and luckily I know that the vast majority of feminists don’t have that “they had it coming” point of view, but I hope this explains why I’m so offended by those who do.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
Why is that everytime a case where a women has sex with a schoolboy that’s splashed across the news, but if they reported every rape that happened to women they’d have to cover it 24/7, guess it just isn’t sensational enough to hold our attention. anashi
Don’t do this. These are different crimes you are equating here.
Men benefit from rape because they get to control women’s behavior with it. anashi
To what end? I’m sorry but I’ve never had any interest in controlling anybody’s behaviour - male or female.
I get emails sent to me telling me how to avoid rape, when men don’t get any emails telling them not to rape. anashi
You get those emails because you asked to get them. I DON’T get emails telling me how to rape either!
Read any thread on rape and you’ll see men constantly blaming the victim, saying she should have done something to prevent it. anashi
As do many women. Your point?
Its their problem not ours.
This comment was written by gwallan.Why don’t they condemn the raper and talk about ways men can stop rape? Because I believe they sympathize with him.
This is what happens when you start from a premise that ALL men are responsible for ALL rape. If I could stop rape I’d do it in a flash. I really wish I could magically appear and whip off a culprit’s tonkers before he could do any damage. But I can’t. I can’t control the behavior of women, nor do I wish to. Likewise, as much as I would like to, I can’t control the behaviour of those few men who do rape.
Just for a moment try to consider the position for men here. We are conditioned to help and protect women. When non rapist men(the vast majority) hear this sort of stuff it’s simply frustrating. As much as they’d like to they can’t stop rape any more than women can.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 9:01 pm
My university sends those emails out, I’m not subscribing to some list that sends them to me. That’s my university’s oh so helpful way of telling me that I’m suppose to take all the responsibility on myself to stop rape from happening to me, nevermind that it should be men’s responsibility to not rape in the first place. But because they do I have to modify my behavior. If men suddenly couldn’t walk the street at night or if they weren’t able to drink however much they wanted, there’d be an outcry. You’re pretty much admitting defeat with your postm saying there is nothing you can do, but your not helpless you could come out against men who do rape, instead your wasting your time responding to me. I feel for you really, I feel helpless too sometimes, but there’s always something you can do. Volunteer at centers for battered and abused women, things like that. If more individual men came out against rapers instead of arguing that the problem isn’t disease in are culture, maybe I’d feel like there was hope for the species.
This comment was written by anashi.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 9:02 pm
OK I’ll start here..
Not exactly a big group of MRAs there that I saw and not exactly saying all rape laws should be repealed like you claimed. Care to try again with some calling for the repeal of *all* rape laws as you claimed?
Daran, you are correct on the typo, it sh0ould have read “me” not “men.” My ex accused me of raping her, molesting the children and everything else under the sun, all fully investigated and I had the fun of having been hauled away in cuffs, yelled at and threatened by police and the rest while the exact same abuse shelters that had refused to help me for months before and continued to refuse to investigate complaints of her abusing the kids provide her all the help they could with lawyers, shelter, money and all the rest. Considering I am a disabled Marine that was forced out of the service after a botched vasectomy causing nerve damage and sex is very painful for me so i avoid it, it isn’t very likely that I would be raping ANYONE. The only times I had sex were when SHE demanded it and even after I told her to seek other men for it since it is extremely painful for me, I STILL was put through it plenty of times. Of course my attempting to charge HER with rape gets laughed at and ignored. Meanwhile I had to spend a fortune to defend against her false accusations I raped her. Same with the children even though there were witnesses of her own family, friends and more willing to demonstrate she had attempted to coach our daughter in to the claims, I had other witnesses showing I was never alone in the situation claimed to have molested my daughter and even several psychologists and social workers saying it was obvious it never happened. My 8 year old daughter was TOLD by the local shelter that had refused me because I am male that I HAD molested her and she needed to protect herself from me.
Now it is obvious several here would applaud it happening to men saying it is deserved because some other other man is a horrible person. Yet if ANYONE going through that who is innocent is deserving because of their sex, then it must be realized that it can be reversed on them too.
Mendy, I think your case is a good example of what I have tried to explain here. Notice that we have had similar experiences yet I have been attacked for pointing out that men being attacked is excused but I don’t see ANYONE saying it is excusable to have you attacked like that. I have been saying NEITHER case if right and that BOTH should be prosecuted and also that those who make FALSE accusations should be prosecuted too.
Elinor, I avoid Trish Wilson’s blog since she defends a child abuser and a hit piece of lies that was on TV based purely on the gender of those involved. If you think she is great, maybe you should do some research on the show “Breaking the Silence” and what the investigations by the CPB found and what the legal papers found her guilty of doing to her children. The strange part is how she claims the father alienated the daughter from her while the exact same piece falsely claimed the American Psychological Association had found PAS was “junk science.” Bit of a contradiction in that.
Amp, I can bring plenty of studies showing women are just as likely to be abusive in a relationship as men with physical violence. We know that hitting your partner is anger is wrong but it works out as hitting a female partner is wrong but a male partner should just suck it up and take it “like a man” or he will be laughed at by the police and everyone else in most cases. This is changing some but on average it is still true in the US. It is one reason you see the statistics so skewed where 95% of domestic violence is done by men and etc, those are the conviction rates not report rates or even real rates. Now yes men are more likely to cause serious physical damage but if we use physical harm as the basis then we would need to release an awful lot of men in jail for battering their spouses because there was no serious physical harm, correct? Otherwise we are treating it with a double standard based on factors saying that gender is a determining factor in who we arrest instead of what the actual crime is.
I also note my earlier example of drinking, where a woman can drink too much, decide to have sex and then claim rape while a man who drank equally is told that drinking is not an excuse for his behavior and he is held liable for his actions. I am not claiming that anything close to all cases are like this but there are enough that happen to make society pause and wonder about it anymore and also if men are told we must be part of the solutions to stop this, then women must step up and help prosecute those women who abuse the laws for personal gain.
Now I understand all the publicity on women molesting children now seems to be upsetting many and they should keep things equal on that but then again for years when it was found women had molested a boy he was treated as being “lucky” and how she was just emotionally unstable in need of help instead of punishment. Just like when it comes to spousal abuse, if a hit is abuse, then when was the last time you saw a shelter that even allowed men or a poster showing an abusive spouse that was a woman? If we are for equality then we can’t have two standards on these things, a hit being ok for a woman and not a man, her raping a child being an emotional problem she needs help with but him raping a child meaning he is a danger to be condemnation on the rest of men and her drinking meaning she can’t consent to sex but his being responsible for it and liable for any child support in a child he will never be allowed to see and has no choices in being the father of or not being the father of.
Another interesting source though….
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/factoid/factoid.html
This comment was written by Quentin0352.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 9:04 pm
Argh, sorry for all the typos.
This comment was written by anashi.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 9:12 pm
What the christ. Here’s a little lesson, y’all.
Quentin0352: “Hint, most men DON’T rape and MOST men are not out to oppress women.”
Most men don’t kidnap strange women off the street and put their penises in orifices of her body without her permission. Mary
This is true.
Many, MANY men continue to have sex with their girlfriends or wives after she has indicated that she has lost interest in the sexual encounter and doesn’t want to continue. That is rape, but they don’t know it is. Mary
Many? I wonder, Mary, what you would call it when a woman “gets her rocks off” and then wants to stop. I’ve experienced this with every woman I’ve been with. Personally I wouldn’t call it rape even if it’s a bit selfish. However if you wish to make rape an issue of consent rather than force then I’m here to tell you that NO woman ever sought my consent. Does this mean that I’ve been raped EVERY time I’ve had sex?
Most men don’t sit in conference rooms cackling and holding cigars and plotting the downfall of uppity women everywhere.
So why treat us as though we do?
Many, MANY men spend hours of every day refusing to acknowledge their privilege”“the privilege they get from being the default gender, from having the name that is taken, from being the ones benefitted by the rape culture, from owning their sexuality, from owning the conversation, the business, the house”“and that is the oppression of women, but they don’t know it is.
This comment was written by gwallan.THEY DON’T KNOW IT IS.
You don’t have to be a CONSCIOUS sexist to be a rank, vile sexist. Mary
Straight out of the “all men are bastards” handbook. You have yet to show any instance where men are allowed to do something which women are not.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 9:30 pm
Anashi:
If your university is sending the offending emails, then I suggest a movement or letter writing campaign by the Women’s Studies department to put an end to the practice.
I don’t think the university is intending to further the rape culture, but to limit their legal liability in the rapes that do occur. But, I do think that action should be taken if you and other women find the emails offensive.
I’ve gotten them from my university along with emails about binge drinking, hazing, and other abhorrent behaviors. I delete the mails unread now.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 9:58 pm
Quentino wrote:
She claimed that they called “for the decriminalization of simple rape.” So your claim that she said “all rape” is not true.
“Simple rape” is a term that some people use to refer to rape in which the victim knows her rapist and no gun or other weapon was used; this is in contrast to rapes committed by strangers. (See the way this college lecture outline uses the term, for example). The person she linked to was, in effect, calling for simple rape to be made legal - just as she claimed.
Please name the “several” people here who have said that men deserve to be raped, falsely accused of rape, and false accused of molesting children? Who are they, and what exact direct quotes can you give from their posts to support your accusation?
And while we’re on the subject, who here has said that being attacked the way Mendy was attacked - that is, being raped - is excusible as long as the victim is male? Again, support your accusation with direct quotes.
I can tell you come from MRA forums where making up vicious lies about feminists is acceptable. Most MRA forums treat feminists as if we weren’t even humans. Newsflash: This isn’t one of those forums. You can’t get away with making up vicious lies here the way you’re used to.
You have a choice now: You can either support your above claims with direct quotes that convince me that all your above accusations are fully justified; or you can apologize to all of us for telling such vicious lies; or you can be banned from this blog. Your choice.
(Please be aware that I will not allow you to post again on “Alas” until you’ve responded to this post.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 10:46 pm
Many? I wonder, Mary, what you would call it when a woman “gets her rocks off” and then wants to stop. I’ve experienced this with every woman I’ve been with. Personally I wouldn’t call it rape even if it’s a bit selfish.
Where are you even getting the connection to rape here?
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 11:02 pm
My university sends those emails out, I’m not subscribing to some list that sends them to me. That’s my university’s oh so helpful way of telling me that I’m suppose to take all the responsibility on myself to stop rape from happening to me, nevermind that it should be men’s responsibility to not rape in the first place.
OK but you need to realise it’s often other women putting the frighteners on you regarding rape. And you can provide men with as much info as you like about rape but it doesn’t enhance their ability to do anything about it. Fact is you’re mostly preaching to the converted. There is nothing I can do about rape that you can’t do. Just like you I can’t recognise potential rapists.
But because they do I have to modify my behavior.
And that’s a real shame. I don’t want women to be afraid of me. I gain nothing from that. But I am not responsible for it either.
If men suddenly couldn’t walk the street at night or if they weren’t able to drink however much they wanted, there’d be an outcry.
Actually there are many places I won’t go and many behaviours I won’t indulge in for the very reason of my own safety. This is not exclusive to women. What I haven’t done is demand that innocent people change their behaviour to accommodate me.
You’re pretty much admitting defeat with your postm saying there is nothing you can do, but your not helpless you could come out against men who do rape, instead your wasting your time responding to me. I feel for you really, I feel helpless too sometimes, but there’s always something you can do. Volunteer at centers for battered and abused women, things like that.
I’ve tried this. I was rather aggressively informed that my help was neither needed nor welcome.
If more individual men came out against rapers instead of arguing that the problem isn’t disease in are culture, maybe I’d feel like there was hope for the species.
This comment was written by gwallan.There we have it. It’s a disease. All men are complicit. Therefore all men are diseased. QED
Listen I’m sorry if I sound a bit harsh and defeatist. I’m no MRA. The only time I’ve ever been active in gender politics was in the seventies when I was actively(front row in the marches,public speaking, you name it. By MRA standards a dead set “mangina”) involved with the womens libbers. I’m not looking for any kind of hobby badge here. There were discrimination and double standards and it offended my sense of fairness. That same sense of fairness is offended by my being held responsible for the actions of others.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 11:07 pm
And the other poster is naïve?
This comment was written by gwallan.I’ve read this before. Believe it or not, it doesn’t surprise me that you’ve never heard anyone say “gee, rape is great, I’m going to go out and rape somebody right now.”
Listen more carefully. Read a few verdicts. Do some research on the law and how it’s changed within your lifetime. Read some more of Menweb for crying out loud. Elinor
Yes, I’ve done all that. I stand by my statement.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 11:19 pm
gwallan, I’m not interested in going back to square one with you. anashi is right about the tendency to blame the victim (she shouldn’t have done this, she shouldn’t have done that) and to regard rapists as good boys who made a mistake, got caught with a lying bitch, etc. Elinor
This comment was written by gwallan.I’m sorry but blaming the victim is not what we’re discussing here. The “blame” we are talking about is that which as attached to ALL men - most of whom have done NOTHING wrong. Stop trying to divert from the issue at hand.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 11:31 pm
My ex-girlfriend’s grandfather was a virulent racist . . . really, very offensive . . . but her family would justify it, by saying “well, you know, when he was younger, he got attacked and mugged by a group of black men.” That’s no justification. His anger and rage was understandable perhaps, but that didn’t make it right, and it didn’t make it ‘not racist.’ Myca
This comment was written by gwallan.This is a brilliant observation, and so true. My parents are both obscenely hateful towards the Japanese even though neither have so much as met any of them. The common denominator is that they both grew up during the second world war.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2005 at 11:57 pm
Many? I wonder, Mary, what you would call it when a woman “gets her rocks off” and then wants to stop. I’ve experienced this with every woman I’ve been with. Personally I wouldn’t call it rape even if it’s a bit selfish.
This comment was written by gwallan.Where are you even getting the connection to rape here? Elinor
I’m not. You are. I said it wasn’t! I was just posing a question.
If a woman achieves satisfaction and immediately denies me the same what is this?
Alternatively if I’ve finished but she continues to her own satisfaction have I been raped?
Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 12:00 am
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall any black muggers of white people being given lighter sentences and/or excused for their behaviour because their victims should have known better than to be in their neighbourhood, or because the victim had freely given away money in the past, or because the judge believed the mugging was actually an act of philanthropy on the part of the victim and white people are just generally vindictive and can’t be trusted to tell the truth about that kind of thing, or because the muggers had plenty of money and didn’t need to mug anybody so they must not really have done it, or because being mugged is really not that big a deal and can make you feel pretty good if you relax and enjoy it, or because before we called this mugging, we called it fun.
You’re darn right that these perceptions of men are sexist. They absolutely are. But that sexism comes from several sources and it is not fair to expect women to change it all on their own.
I’m sorry but blaming the victim is not what we’re discussing here. The “blame” we are talking about is that which as attached to ALL men - most of whom have done NOTHING wrong. Stop trying to divert from the issue at hand.
The fact that women are socially and sometimes legally punished for not acting on these sexist assumptions is absolutely relevant to the issue at hand.
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 12:02 am
If a woman achieves satisfaction and immediately denies me the same what is this?
That has absolutely nothing to do with rape; why are you bringing it up at all?
Alternatively if I’ve finished but she continues to her own satisfaction have I been raped?
If you tell her to stop touching you and she doesn’t stop, then yes, it’s sexual assault.
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 12:14 am
Not very satisfying for you, I’d imagine.
It depends on whether she kept on going and refused to stop despite you telling her to stop. In other words, if she fucked you even though you told her you didn’t consent, then yes, that’s rape.
[Sorry, cross-posted with Elinor]
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 12:39 am
The fact that women are socially and sometimes legally punished for not acting on these sexist assumptions is absolutely relevant to the issue at hand. Elinor
This comment was written by gwallan.Just once!! Please just this once can we have a discussion about discrimination against men without it being turned into how all women are victimised.
I have cried four times in my adult life. The most recent was when I first heard about this airline seat debacle. I had my first sexual encounter with a woman when I was eight. I’m in counselling for this now. Just imagine for a moment how I feel being told that I can’t be trusted to sit next to a child in front of hundreds of witnesses.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 12:51 am
Quentin:
I’m going to assume you meant “I’ve had this happen to me”. I apologise if that isn’t what you meant.
Is this the person who falsely accused you?
This is a sadly all-to-common piece of MRA nonsense. The man, in your scenario is committing an offense against the woman if he has sex with her without her valid consent, and is therefore responsible for his actions, no matter how drunk he is. If she’s too drunk to consent, but yields anyway, then she’s not committing an offence against anyone.
However much you would like to portray this situation as symetrical, it isn’t. One person is the doer. The other is done to. That’s the difference.
I’m finding it very difficult to make sense of what you are saying here. One moment you appear to be talking in generalities, the next you seem to be speaking about a specific case you are familiar with. Can you be a bit clearer.
Something similar has happened to me, (he was grabbing rather than hitting her, and the ‘attack’ she made on me for trying to intervene was verbal.)
I’ve never heard of anyone being sucker-punched by a woman although I’ve been sucker-punched myself by a man. I do know one man who had a tooth punched out by his girlfriend (she admitted this), but I don’t know if it was a sucker-punch.
Did you witness these attacks? If not, has the woman admitted to you that she struck first?
I agree with everything in this paragraph except the last line. The idea that we should be equally shitty to each other is a really bad idea that both feminism and anti-feminism share. Double standards are bad. Two people applying double standards is doubly-bad. It’s better to set a good example and encourage others to follow.
With that in mind, how do you ‘know’ that it really is the women in the cases you mention - the ones you have personal experience of (but excluding your own false accusation) - who are the abusers? You’ve said nothing to indicated that you witnessed the alleged incidents. Are you just ‘believing the men’? If so, then how does this differ from ‘believing the women’?
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 1:06 am
That has absolutely nothing to do with rape; why are you bringing it up at all? Elinor
This comment was written by gwallan.Oh come on. I’ve already stated that I didn’t consider it rape. How many times do I need to repeat this? I think what I’m trying to get at here is that women can, and do, use men for sexual gratification without giving any consideration to their partner. And, yes, maybe sometimes this should be considered rape.
As long as you refuse to acknowledge that men have feelings, as long as you deny men a voice, as long as you hold innocent people responsible for the acts of others then you are just as sexist as any man has ever been.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 1:25 am
However much you would like to portray this situation as symetrical, it isn’t. One person is the doer. The other is done to. That’s the difference. Daran
This comment was written by gwallan.I love this. Sex is something that men “do” to women. It’s no wonder that male consent is meaningless.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 1:43 am
gwallan:
Is this irony, or are you serious?
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 1:45 am
Gwallan, in the specific example of a man raping a woman who has drunk so much that she’s unable to resist or consent, rape is something a man does to a woman. It doesn’t follow, however, that all sex is done by men to women.
It would be easy enough to give an example in which sex is done by a woman to a man - for instance, a woman raping a man. Sex is something two people do to each other; rape is something done by one person (usually always male) to another.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 1:59 am
I can see that. However, it’s worth considering that only a small number of feminist posters (at most two) have expressed that view; many more seem to agree that the daycare discrimination the post describes is objectionable.
To some extent, I think the fault is in my original post, because I conflated two issues (airline policy and daycare discrimination) that should have been kept separate. As Robert (non-feminist) and Bean (very feminist) have both pointed out, the airline policy may be justified. However, no one has argued that the daycare policy is justified.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 2:06 am
Me:
gwallan:
Not only is that a complete misrepresentation of what I said, it removes necessary context. I was talking about “this situation”. Let me remind you what “this situation” was.
Quentin:
Emphasis changed from the original.
I’m not saying that sex is something men do to women. I’m saying that rape is something that one person does to another person.
In Quentin’s hypothetical, the woman is explicitly described as being unconsenting. That makes the man a rapist in that scenario. Had the genders been reversed, the woman would have been the rapist.
You have a point that society in general doesn’t take male consent seriously enough, but don’t try to pin that charge on my by misrepresenting and contextomising my words.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 2:13 am
Correction: Having reread Quentin’s hypothetical, I see the sex of the unconsenting person isn’t stated explicitely. My point still stands.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 3:26 am
Is this irony, or are you serious? Daran
This comment was written by gwallan.Yes I am serious. Your point?
Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 5:20 am
Mendy:
I defiantly agree that the fear of getting raped is not a universal experience for women, such as in your case, Mendy (if anyone knows some information in this area I would be interested in learning/knowing). I am curious, assuming your okay to answer, if not fear, what about rape or rape culture, which I admit I do not have a good understanding of, do you find particularly concerned about e.g. maybe indifference in attitudes toward rape, just the nature of the crime, etc?
I defiantly agree that Jim Crowe laws are an example of privileged. I would classify this as an explicit/tangible privilege. I also think believe in hidden/intangible privilege for example a sale person bending or break rules for customers based upon race or let say a professor adding an average of three percent extra to white students in a class. In contrast, I would regard a teacher marking students lower based upon race as discrimination. Finally, I believe that your last sentence about laws is in regard to western cultures.
This comment was written by James Q.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 5:38 am
JohnQ:
I am very concerned in the indifference some people show towards rape, and how that attitude is furthered by both the media and accepted comments. Victim blaming and the lack of convictions for sexual assualts and rapes bother me. And the nature of the crime, in and of itself, is enough to make my skin crawl. (Please forgive me if that doesn’t make any sense. I’ve hosted a slumber party this evening and haven’t have much sleep.)
I was speaking specifically of the United States, because that is the country I am most intimately familiar with. In other parts of the world, the middle east for example, laws are written that do overtly privilige men at the expense of women. The same thing exists in Latin America and South America, as well as parts of Africa.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 6:34 am
A serious question. Is there case law on this? Is in implicit in the legal definition of rape? If you consent and then change your mind does the previous consent not count so far as the law is concerned?
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 6:53 am
So, Amp, I just want to be clear on this. Robert will never get banned. Ever. Or to use your word, “Never.”
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 7:17 am
Quentino, by bashing Trish Wilson the way you did you’ve pretty clearly outed yourself as one of the very people she’s writing about, or at the very leat in sympathy with them. Good job.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 7:46 am
gwallan:
My point was that I couldn’t tell whether you were being ironic or serious, and I thought it better to ask than guess.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 8:24 am
gwallan: “Straight out of the ‘all men are bastards’ handbook. You have yet to show any instance where men are allowed to do something which women are not.”
Are you serious? OK, are you now, or have you ever been a woman? Have you ever been kept in at night when your brother was allowed to go out, because “well, he’s a boy, and you might get in trouble”? Ever been passed up for a job in favor of a less-qualified man? Ever been mercilessly talked over in every conversation involving members of the opposite sex? Been groped in a bar? Been told that your law school professors only call on you “because you have tits”? Been broken up with because you kept wanting your SO to understand where you were coming from as a feminist, but secretly you were just “angry all the time”? Been in a conversation where men judge a rape victim’s clothing or behavior but not the man’s decision to shove his penis in her vagina against her will? Because all those things have happened to the women posting here. Hell, most of those things have happened to me alone.
Don’t make the mistake of confusing “legal” equality with REAL equality. As long as men are allowed/encouraged by their peers to treat in the manner described above, they’ll be “allowed” to do a fuckton of things women aren’t.
This comment was written by Mary.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 8:55 am
Just once!! Please just this once can we have a discussion about discrimination against men without it being turned into how all women are victimised.
Not in this circumstance we can’t. Sorry.
Oh come on. I’ve already stated that I didn’t consider it rape. How many times do I need to repeat this?
You brought it up. You must have had a reason for bringing it up.
I think what I’m trying to get at here is that women can, and do, use men for sexual gratification without giving any consideration to their partner. And, yes, maybe sometimes this should be considered rape.
There’s a difference between being a bad lay and being a rapist. Nobody owes anybody else an orgasm, ever. I’m sorry if you’ve had partners who wouldn’t get you off, but refusing to perform sex acts is not a crime and if you think it should be then I’m really at a loss for words.
As long as you refuse to acknowledge that men have feelings, as long as you deny men a voice, as long as you hold innocent people responsible for the acts of others then you are just as sexist as any man has ever been.
Behold the Holy Trinity of straw men!
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 9:07 am
Elinor (Comment 106):
Ampersand:
I’d like to see Elinor support her claims with quotes, (which, in the “defending rapists” part would appear to require her to prove that men he is defending are rapists), or otherwise apologise for her vicious lies.
I appreciate that you can’t be everywhere or respond to everything, but you seem to be very quick to jump on MRAs. Quentin certainly needs to raise his game, to argue his case more cogently and less offensively, but that’s generally (if not universally) true on both sides. But we’re not going to achieve that by summarily banning people.
Yes, I know it’s your blog and your choice.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 9:11 am
I agree with this statement, and I find the last sentence particulary interesting. And my question becomes, how do we as a society tackle the idea of stereotype? I don’t believe that it can be achieved through legislative mandate, or that it is necessarily best handled in that way. And since the law isn’t the best venue for correcting these deep seated assumptions about gender roles, how do we begin to change them?
I am curious, because from what I’ve seen and heard in my personal life are individual sexist attitudes held by vary people. And those attitudes are often enforced by members of both genders. Other than simply calling someone out over every statement uttered, how do we as feminists work to enact changes to bring about equality for women?
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 9:22 am
Daran:
I’m not Elinor, but the part “vicious lies” compels me to point out several things:
It was comment 107, and it was in response to Quentino352, when he claimed that men have consensual sex and then are accused of rape. I agree that Elinor jumped to conclusions there, and certainly false accusations do exist, but when Quentin claims that he knows many cases of consensual sex where woman cried rape later on, I wondered, like Elinor, how can he know when he wasn’t there (certainly he was there in his own case). Both Quentin and Elinor are making statements of belief, not reason, when talking about cases where they were not involved themselves (when claiming to know whether sex was consensual or not).
I’m still thinking about a response to the original post about bigotry in child-care (which was IMHO very fair-minded), it seems that the discussion has turned weird, and off-topic (”men vs. women”).
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 9:32 am
I believe there is in the case where a man continues after a woman has withdrawn consent. I couldn’t cite it though, nor can I recall which jurisdiction it applies to, no whether it was applicable given a different combination of genders.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 9:50 am
107, yes. My mistake.
I wonder that too, unlike Elinor who has decided that they are rapists.
Both Quentin are Elinor are showing their biases, but given that these anecdotes come from Quentin’s life and not Elinor’s, it is he, not she, who is best positioned to make a judgement, his bias notwithstanding.
We should also bear in mind that Quentin is not able to defend himself at this time.
Indeed. If this had been a thread about some injustice or offence against women, we non-feminist men would be being accused of derailing it.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 11:16 am
felt like more, and those two posters have been quite vocal, and, even in the post you reference, I said “luckily I know that the vast majority of feminists don’t have that “they had it coming” point of view.” Anyhow, yeah, you’re right, it’s only two.
My main point, anyway, was that if you believe that only men can end rape, and if you believe that both rapist and non-rapist men derive benefits from the practice of rape, then saying shilt like that is actually counterproductive and (imo) anti-feminist.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 11:20 am
Guh. I forgot to close the blockquote tag on my last post. I suck, sorry. Here’s the correct post.
Having read back over the posts, I agree completely. In my somehat sheepish defense then, it certainly felt like more, and those two posters have been quite vocal, and, even in the post you reference, I said “luckily I know that the vast majority of feminists don’t have that “they had it coming” point of view.” Anyhow, yeah, you’re right, it’s only two.
My main point, anyway, was that if you believe that only men can end rape, and if you believe that both rapist and non-rapist men derive benefits from the practice of rape, then saying shit like that is actually counterproductive and (imo) anti-feminist.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
I actually think that the bias against men as caregiver needs to be addressed, to change the gender culture of the US. One of the important reasons for this, is that it might change the attitudes of the boys. They might learn that the sterotypical manhood ideal is not something that everyone should strive for, and that women and men can work on equal footing.
Also, it might teach both the boys and the girls that men are not slaves to their lusts, and that there is no excuse for behaving like they are. This can perhaps change the culture of blaming the victims.
Of course, this is not the only measures needed to change the US gender culture, but it is a start. And put together with other measures, it might actually succeed, though probably not for decades. Changing such things are unfortunately long term proposals.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
A few points regarding moderation:
1) Quentin has now been banned from posting on “Alas,” so probably people should stop replying to his posts. Sorry for any difficulties this creates.
2) Elinor, Daran has a good point. It was over-the-top and unfair of you to accuse Quentin of defending rapists. I’m not banning you or anything, but please try not to make such extreme and horrible accusations unless they’re really, really well backed up by evidence.
3) Yes, I have a double standard in moderation; feminists get more slack than non-feminists.
4) At the same time, I’ve several times refused to ban polite non-feminists despite a few “Alas” readers urging me to do so. So although I have a double-standard, it’s nonetheless true that a non- or anti- feminist who is civil and whose posts don’t drip with passive-aggressive contempt for feminists, will not be banned.
5) Ginmar writes: So, Amp, I just want to be clear on this. Robert will never get banned. Ever. Or to use your word, “Never.”
Assuming that Robert continues posting in more-or-less the typical way he’s been posting so far, I will never ban him. Ever. That is correct.
6) I don’t want to divert this thread further, so my plan is to write up some tentative moderation guidelines sometime in the next few days, and make them a separate post. So please, if you want to comment on this stuff, do me a favor and hold off a couple of days. Thanks.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 3:08 pm
The previous consent definitely doesn’t count in California (based on a court ruling) or in Illinois (where they passed a law based on the California case).
Previous posts on “Alas” regarding the California case and Illinois law can be read here, here, here and here. :-)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 6:40 pm
My point was that I couldn’t tell whether you were being ironic or serious, and I thought it better to ask than guess. Daran
This comment was written by gwallan.OK sorry. I’m too used to being disbelieved, or worse, told what a lucky little boy I must have been.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 6:55 pm
Well, given that Quentin, Jaketk, and Wookie are all SYG trolls it’s nice to see one of them go.
What it comes down to me is this, and it’s really simple: ultil men stop being the vast majority of child molesters and until men actually ostracize the rapists and child molesters, it’s premature to say the least to complain about discrimination. I mean, if you really want to protect kids, you won’t go looking for gay guys: You’ll go looking for somebody in the family and they’ll identify as straight. Men need to be fighting this battle instead of whining about those evil feminists—whom they never quote correctly, probably because they don’t listen. The fact that the SYG losers spend so much time trolling indicates that they’re not doing anything about child molesting and wife beating or anything but whatever it is toy they didn’t get.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 6:59 pm
“whose posts don’t drip with passive-aggressive contempt for feminists”
I think your drip detector might need some recalibration.
This comment was written by Sheena.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 7:48 pm
Ginmar:
How do I urge my husband to begin to fight misogyny? I believe that men need to take an active role in reversing these beliefs, stereotypes, and societal norms. My question is how do they do this in their daily lives? How do I as a woman do this in my daily life?
I already call people on their sexist remarks (this goes for all forms of discrimination). I work with my university’s volunteer counseling center (peer counseling), and I donate both time and money to my local battered women’s and children’s shelter.
I can’t begin to understand how to change the pervasive stereotypes in mainstream media, beyond my own choice to not purchase or veiw these things.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 8:33 pm
bean writes:
(discrimination)
i think rosa parks would probably have disagreed.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 8:43 pm
Shit, a whole 175 posts before MRAs made inappropriate to civil rights leaders; someone’s slipping.
This comment was written by Sheena.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
It’s discrimination if it’s done on the basis of race or sex.
Nor on a bus, but everyone would recognise a “blacks sit at the back” policy as discrimination.
The difference, of course, is that it is a corporate policy, rather than a personal decision. But I agree that no accusation is implied. If I insist on using a condom with a new sexual partner (a personal decision) that doesn’t mean I think they’re diseased. If I thought that, I would have sex with them at all. Nor does requiring everyone to pass through security checks (a governmental policy) imply that everyone is being accused of being a security threat.
And if the passengers complain about having to sit near a black person?
But we’re not talking about the general likelihood of a man or a woman sexually abusing a child. We’re talking about the likelihood of their doing so on a plane. That risk would appear to be vanishingly small, and has to be set against the corrosive effect of profiling on society.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 10:25 pm
But only 107 posts before feminists assumed that men were rapists the basis of a bare allegation with no supporting evidence; someone isn’t.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 11:34 pm
What does “SYG” stand for?
You must be joking!
Nobody in our society is more vilified that someone who has the label “child molester” attached to them. Even adult murderers don’t get as much shit. Rapists come in at a close third.
I’m actually one of very few people who won’t ostracise these people, for three reasons. I believe in the inherent worth of people, regardless of what they have done. Also I believe that by engaging them, you reduce the risk of recidivism in particular and their level of general harmfulness. The last part I base on my own experience. When I was at the lowest ebb in my life, I was so inward looking that I was oblivious to the distress that I was causing others. I was never overtly abusive; I was just a crap person to be around.
Finally, I believe that the only way to understand the causes of abuse is to speak frankly with abusers.
“Engaging these people” doesn’t mean condoning, denying or trivialising what they have done.
I have no idea what proportion of abusers identify as gay. According to the statistics, between one in ten and one in three abusers is female. If the latter figure is close to the mark, then a majority are men, but not a “vast majority”.
However, “the majority of abusers are men” is different from “men are the majority of abusers”. Most men are not abusers, and mounting a witchhunt against men is not going to protect children from abuse. Rather it will make half of them victims of a witchhunt when they grow up.
The way to protect children is not to go looking for straight men. It’s to go looking for abusive people, and the put into place structures and systems that make it hard to abuse and easy to detect.
Never? That’s a strong claim, and one you’ll find hard to justify. Yes, feminists are often misquoted or quoted out of context in such a way as to make them look bad. That’s dishonest and objectionable. A particularly disreputable technique is to misattribute the words of a critic of a particular feminist to the feminist in question.
But feminists are hardly guilt-free themselves when it comes to quoting.
Now you have a choice. You can reply to the substance of this comment, then we could perhaps have a worthwhile conversation. Alternatively you could ignore it and not respond. Finally you could respond with your usual insults, or otherwise in a way which indicates you’ve paid no attention to what I’ve said. In that case I will cheerfully ignore you.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 11:52 pm
Uhmmm… No it’s not. What you presumably mean to say is that it is different from “the majority of men are abusers”, which is something no one claims. Some claims that all men benifits from the abuse carried out by other men, which is a claim I find problematic - I would agree that all men benifits from the descrimination carried out by some men, but that is not the same, in my opinion.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 11:52 pm
I shared a house with a male childcare worker for several years and, frankly, watching him at work was a privilege. He was just astonishing in his skill and the level of care and attention he lavished on his charges. But I also know that he was hedged around with rules and safeguards so that there was never any opportunity for him to be accused of child abuse. The rules were often ridiculous but as much for his protection as that of the kids. There was always talk of child abuse around him, not for anything that he did but simply because he was a man and people assumed that
because he was doing ‘women’s work’ that he must be in it for access to the children. After all, why else would he do that unless he was a paedophile?
It annoys me to hear that kind of thing but it’s really not surprising. While ever women are seen as being complicit in their own rapes and blamed for them men will be able to argue that they can’t control their own sexual urges and aren’t responsible for them. If women aren’t safe from marauding, sex-crazed men then children (who can’t defend themselves in any way) are even more vulnerable. Ironically, it’s feminists who claim that men are responsible and can control their sexual whims and therefore it’s discriminatory to exclude them from childcaring.
If the conservatives are right then men should never be allowed anywhere around children, it would be child abuse waiting to happen.
They cannot have their cake and eat it too.
This comment was written by seranvali.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 11:53 pm
I am not “you people”. I am a singular person.
The only comparison I was making was that in both cases “you are not guaranteed a particular seat”. I say that this is irrelevant to the question of whether the practice is discrimination or not. What say you?
I didn’t say it was. I introduced the comparison for the sole purpose of refuting the “you are not guaranteed a particular seat” argument.
If you wish to invent strawmen arguments to laugh at, instead of addressing the points I actually made, then that is up to you.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 11:59 pm
Daran wrote:
Nope, both of those statements are correct, and actually mean the same thing.
I think what you meant was to say that “the majority of abusers are men” is different from “the majority of men are abusers.” Which is true, and I agree.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 12:25 am
Me:
Kristjan Wager:
Myca:
I meant what I wrote. The verb “to be” is not the same as “equals”. In the language of mathematics, it is not an equivalence relation. In particular, it is not symmetric. “Cats are animals” is universally true. “Animals are cats” is false in general.
In English, when a plural, such as “men” without any quantifier, (such as “some”, “many”, “the majority of”, etc.), appears as the subject of a verb, it tends to mean either “all men” or “men in general”. Thus the sentence
A majority of abusers are men.
attributes the property of being “men” to “a majority of abusers”, which is correct. On the other hand:
Men are a majority of abusers.
attributes the property of being “a majority of abusers” to “all men” or “men in general” which is incorrect under both interpretations.
It’s not my intent here to be a linguistic pedant. My objection is to prejudicial language. Feminists sometimes object with good cause to passive voice constructions such as “Women are raped.”, as being prejudicial even though there can be no grammatical objection to the formulation.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 12:35 am
Given the flood of passive-aggressive (and agresssive-agressive) contempt expressed by some feminists against MRAs, I think that feminists should be content with Ampersand giving them “more slack”.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 1:48 am
Not addressed to me, but I’ll take it on anyway.
Mary:
No, but had my grades been slightly less than they were, I would have been passed up for a university place in favour of a less-qualified woman.
Every conversation?
It happens to me, but not every conversation.
Yes.
I don’t believe being broken up is is a violation of your rights.
Yes, also in conversations where women have judged rape victims clothing etc.
It would not be hard to come up with a list of things that typically happen to men, or which only happen to men.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 5:02 am
Very interesting. Another example of why, while gender balance in politics, engineering, top levels of business etc is very acheivable, it will never, ever, ever be possible to get gender balance in the some of the “caring” careers that are traditionally female.
This comment was written by gpower.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 8:22 am
Maybe I missed this observation somewhere, but I have also seen studies that say that many pedophiles are attracted to the “helping” professions, so that makes extra precautions and vigilance necessary. I know that even working in an agency with a Head Start program, even though I do paperwork in a different part of the building, I had to have my record checked for past child abuse violations, and I’m a boring middle-aged mom. I can see how innocent men get tired of being hassled, just because they honestly enjoy working with children for the most honorable of reasons. But honestly, despite all the precautions we take, you still hear of scandals and abuses at schools, etc. Vanity Fair has a recent article on sex abuse at some hoity toity prep school, St. Paul’s. So I don’t have a lot of sympathy for folks who get their egos bent out of shape because of common sense precautions. If having two people in the room means a child is not molested, then good. Your discomfort and annoyance are a small price to pay.
In terms of the airline scenario, the man the child would be sitting to would be a fairly random member of the population, except for being somewhat higher income on average. I would think the risk would be lower, as you wouldn’t have potential or actual pedophiles who are actively pursuing the chance to sit next to a child on an airplane. Still, if I had a child that had to fly unaccompanied for some reason, I would much rather that he or she sit up front where he or she could be properly supervised. For the same reason, some airlines have separate waiting areas for children waiting for a connecting flight, and are escorted to the next plane. Seems sensible to me. Again, if I, as a woman, were told that an unaccompanied child assigned to the seat next to me needed to be moved for security reasons, I would hardily applaud the fact that the airlines were taking a proactive approach to child security, and not waiting for a disaster to happen.
This comment was written by silverside.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 8:44 am
What’s being objected to by me isn’t particular precautions, but that (as the article I quoted from makes clear) the precautions are applied in a discriminatory way, against male care providers in particular.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 9:06 am
Right, Ampersand. Exactly right.
I am 100% in favor of (with no reservations at all) extensive background checks on each and every child care worker in the known universe. Safety is good.
I am also very much in favor of (with only slight reservations) the two-person rule. I can see how in practice, it would be a hassle, but I think that the safety benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
I just think that background checks/2-person rule for men and automatic trust for women is bad for men, bad for women, bad for feminism, and bad for the world, in that it tends to reinforce exactly the same stereotypes we want to explode.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 10:07 am
i have to take a contrarian viewpoint here. as documented above, 70 to 90 percent of sex offenders are men; male pedophiles often take jobs that will place them in daily physical contact with children; i, too, would be suspicious, at least at first, of a man working at a daycare center. there may never have been a documented case of child sex abuse on a plane, but there surely have been in daycare centers, after-school programs, etc.
for the record, if i had a son / daughter, i would also be wary, at least at first, of their boy / girl scout leader, little league coach, camp counselors, etc. it’s got nothing to do with bigotry against gay men, and everything to do with bigotry against pedophiles, as well as the information i have regarding where they often show up.
This comment was written by beth.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 10:23 am
Beth, I think the point that I and others have been making here is that the number of child molesters and pedophiles among the general male populations is extremely small, and that although security precautions are good, there’s nothing to be lost from applying those security precautions across the board regardless of gender, while there’s quite a lot to be lost from applying security precautions in such a way that we tell all men that they can’t be trusted around children.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 10:35 am
Although it’s probably true that the large majority of child molesters are male, I don’t think this should make a difference in practice, because the overwhelming majority of men are not child molesters.
Look, let’s suppose (I’m pulling these numbers out of thin air, just for the sake of argument) that 99.9991% of men and 99.9999% of women are not child molesters. The logical inference to take from that is not “I should treat men and women differently.” When dealing with an individual child care worker, the odds of them being a molester are for practical purposes the same regardless of their sex.
This is the second time that someone has mentioned that it’s documented that pedophiles take jobs that bring them into contact with children. You also mention that there are documented cases of pedophiles using childcare positions to abuse chlidren. Could you provide links or citations to some of this documentation, please?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 11:39 am
Elinor said:
And Amp reiterated:
Citations please, and preferably, ones that elucidate what context the assault occurred in. Similarly to your analysis of DV, we need to know, e.g., whether the assault occurred when the woman/man was alone with the child or in the company of others, (their partners, et a.). Also, if you or anyone else could provide us with stats of male/female rates for sexual assault on airplanes, in classrooms, daycare centers, etc., that would be very helpful with determining whether or not men indeed are more prone than women to assault in those contexts.
However, IMO the “time-spent” factor sounds like excuse-making for domestic violence/child homicide by women. Amp, what is your motivation for raising this issue?
Elinor also wrote:
I know what you’re getting at here, i.e, that judges routinely do this to female plaintiffs in rape cases, but I don’t believe that this is common or even occurs at all (statistically speaking) any more. Citations to reliable, legitimate, preferably peer-reviewed sources please.
Elinor also wrote:
Same request as above: Please, citations to legitimate, reliable sources that demonstrate that this is a real, significant problem currently.
Amp wrote:
It happens Amp ““ in fact, it happened to me. A female instructor of mine in school got me drunk as hell and then took me home and we had sex. I felt really bad about it the next day, regretted it tremendously, etc. It has all the characteristics of “date rape:” Imbalance of power, alcohol leading to inability to give meaningful consent, etc., yet I’ve never had one single feminist (or woman for that matter) ever acknowledge that I was raped. The typical response is either “you really wanted it, even if you don’t admit it now” or “you just got lucky.” In fact, I did not consider myself lucky then, nor do I now, but I also don’t feel that I was raped. What really happened was that I screwed up, got too drunk and made some bad decisions. Just like most of these cases of so-called “date rape” that I hear of. End of story.
Mary wrote:
No. Have you ever been a man?
No.
Yes, many times. It’s called “affirmative action,” or derisively the “glass elevator” when it’s applied to men.
Yes. So what?
Yup, by both women and men. And from my experience, the (gay) men were a lot more considerate when I made it clear that I wasn’t interested.
No, my tits are too small. However, I have been told many times that I’m only successful because of “male privilege.” I’ve also known women who got wildly inflated grades for screwing their instructors.
I’ve been broken up with because my SO didn’t understand me, so I guess I can say “yes” to this one.
No, however, right here on this blog one can witness the steadfast resistance of some to acknowledging men’s very real and comparable human experiences.
Mendy writes:
Mendy, you start out fine but then fall right back into it: Why “bring about equality for women” only? You admit there’s sexism against men ““ and by extension, some inequalities that men endure - so why should we only be concerned about equality for women? Your statement taken in its entirety sounds, well, sexist to me.
Bean wrote:
Bean, I believe the comment was regarding the policy of the airlines (e.g., Quantas, NZ Air, etc.), not the individual case that brought those policies to light. Therefore, the comment addresses a policy that targets a whole group of people based not on any personal behavior, but rather, on a characteristic for which they are not responsible (e.g., race, sex, etc.). So IMO, the comparison is arugably valid.
Daran, “SYG” is a reference to StandYourGround.com, a men’s rights blog where I am a member. But the characterizations of our membership that you read here are not at all accurate, at least not for most. Just like folks such as ginmar seem to not be characteristic of many here.
Finally, I couldn’t agree more with Amp and Myca: Sensible precautions are good. However, profiling of people based on the behavior of a microscopically small subset of that population is something that we all should see as bad for feminism, MRAs, and society at large. I believe it was MLK who said “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” and I believe that he was correct on that score (and many others).
This comment was written by Mr. Bad.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 12:08 pm
so there is no issue with being asked to move, regardless of the reason, right?
interesting strawman. now you’ve got me laughing. you said asking a person to move is not discrimination. do you wish to retract your statement now?
go back and read the article. it was made clear that the policy is only applied to males, and it has nothing to do with a person’s “guaranteed” seat, but rather the perception that all males are potential sex offenders. that is blatant discrimination, whether you find someone calling issue to it humorous or not.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 12:14 pm
Here’s one link I found on the occupations of pedophiles: , which also has a few things to say about incest and rape. I remember the workbook and the instructor in my child abuse prevention training class also said that pedophiles sought out occupations or volunteer positions, but I don’t have e-copies of my notes or of the workbook. I’ll see if there’s a bibliography (but probably not soon - the end-of-year crunch is on).
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
as would most men if they were not the only ones subjected to being moved. if it is a matter of security, then it should be applied across the board to both women and men.
This comment was written by jaketk.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 12:35 pm
Lee - Am I missing something in that link? Here’s the most relevant bit I found there:
That’s not really evidence of anything; it’s just speculation.
And as far as speculation goes, I’m not sure that childcare worker really would be that attractive a job for pedophiles, because child care workers 1) are constantly under suspicion and 2) are rarely alone in a room with just one child for an extended period of time. Constrast that with being a priest, which (until recently) put one beyond suspicion and provided a lot of chances to be alone with a sole child.
Of course, that too is speculation.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
Mr Big, you asked me to support this statement: “…nealry 80% of the children killed were three years old or under.” Here’s the support for that. And to support my statement that there are disproportionate number of single mothers among families in which an infant is murdered by a parent. This study from the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology supports that statement.
Actually, Quenton brought the issue up, not me.
Regarding female rape of men, it does indeed happen - I wouldn’t have brought the example up if I didn’t think it happened. However, I’m not sure that what you describe is really the same as “date rape” as I use the term. You write “Imbalance of power, alcohol leading to inability to give meaningful consent, etc…. What really happened was that I screwed up, got too drunk and made some bad decisions.”
But for purposes of what is legally rape, drunken consent is still consent, as long as the person consenting isn’t a minor having sex with an adult. A woman who gets drunk and makes a bad decision to have sex with someone she wouldn’t have sex with sober hasn’t been raped. Do you mean that you didn’t consent at all, or that you consented but don’t consider it real consent because you were drunk? If the former, then I for one would consider it rape. But from the way you phrased it, it sounds like the latter.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 1:03 pm
Ack! I meant, they seek out occupations or volunteer positions where they have frequent and easy access to children.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
Whoops! I see that Mr. Bad, shortly before posting here, wrote:
Clearly, he’s here to troll, not to have a sincere discussion. Banned.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
Amp, I was referring to this passage:
“they actively seek out OPPORTUNITIES TO BE AROUND CHILDREN in their preferred age range. It is not uncommon for a pedophile to be a teacher, coach, youth director at church, YMCA, boy scout leader, day care worker, babysitter, child psychologist, child photographer, or in some other way be in trusted and daily contact with children. Occasionally, they stalk their victims no matter where it takes them. “
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
Lee, thanks for clarifying that - sorry I missed it on my first skim of the article.
I’m still a little dubious; the link doesn’t seem to say where this article comes from, what the author’s qualifications are, and the particular bit you quote isn’t supported by a citation in the article.
However, I don’t mean to send you on a wild goose chase; I realize that you have other calls on your time!
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
Amp - I chose that particular link partly because it comes with a bibliography. I believe it is the text of a lecture that this particular professor (Tom O’Connor, associate professor of Justice Studies at North Carolina Wesleyan Univ.) gives in a freshman-level class, but I can double-check that. I also chose it because the text echoes what I remember from my child abuse prevention class. This isn’t my area of expertise, so I apologize if this wasn’t the best site to prove my point with.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
Sorry - it’s the text of a lecture he gives in his Forensic Psychology class.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 2:37 pm
Oh, and here is a link to something something somewhat more solid. Check out page 41 or thereabouts.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 2:50 pm
Elinor, Daran has a good point. It was over-the-top and unfair of you to accuse Quentin of defending rapists. I’m not banning you or anything, but please try not to make such extreme and horrible accusations unless they’re really, really well backed up by evidence.
I apologise. I think what I was trying to say is that very few people defend rapists by saying “he raped her and that’s okay”; usually they simply assume that plaintiffs, all plaintiffs, are liars. Certainly, though, I wouldn’t want to live in a society in which people automatically assumed rape accusations were true, any more than I like living in one wherein large numbers of people automatically assume they’re false, so I do apologise for that comment.
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
I’m sure its been mentioned in this mountains of posting. But just in case: the problem here isn’t systematic discrimination against men. Its rampant and bizarre lega bullshit. As a safety policy, the airline thing is inane, and discriminatory (though as I said, I dont view discrimination against men as comparable to discrimination against women in this culture)
The policy is bad for men, sure. But more to the point, the policy is bad for children, boys and girls. It supports a rape culture in which even thouse of us women and children who aren’t raped are taught to fear rape and view all men as rapists. As a kid, i liked to talk to adults–even strangers–in situations like airplanes, camp, etc. I learned a lot that way and developed self confidence. I think I would be wore off if I had wandered the world perpetually afraid of being attacked by adult men. I dont think my lack of fear made me more vulnerable to rape.
Meanwhile, i think the risk of rape on an airplane is as low or lower than in many other normal situations. Therefore the risk doesnt justify the discrimination.
This comment was written by curiousgyrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
A female instructor of mine in school got me drunk as hell and then took me home and we had sex. I felt really bad about it the next day, regretted it tremendously, etc. It has all the characteristics of “date rape:” Imbalance of power, alcohol leading to inability to give meaningful consent, etc., yet I’ve never had one single feminist (or woman for that matter) ever acknowledge that I was raped. The typical response is either “you really wanted it, even if you don’t admit it now” or “you just got lucky.” In fact, I did not consider myself lucky then, nor do I now, but I also don’t feel that I was raped. What really happened was that I screwed up, got too drunk and made some bad decisions. Just like most of these cases of so-called “date rape” that I hear of. End of story.
But why should that be the end of the story? You don’t feel that you were raped - fine, but why must everybody else feel that way? And how do you know that every story of drunken, unwanted sex is comparable to yours?
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
When it comes to seating on an airplane, I do not believe being asked to change seats is “discrimination.” As Robert pointed out, you are not guaranteed a particular seat on an airplane. bean
This comment was written by gwallan.It IS discrimination because their rules specifically refer to men. There is nothing subtle about it. When employers are less inclined to employ women because they MIGHT get pregnant thats discrimination too.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
I’m not talking about the MRA groups that promote the myths about DV and rape bean
This comment was written by gwallan.MRAs aren’t alone in this.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 6:20 pm
Are you serious? Mary
Yes
OK, are you now, or have you ever been a woman? Mary
No. Ever been a man? Ever had a sexual relationship with a woman? There are things YOU don’t understand too.
Have you ever been kept in at night when your brother was allowed to go out, because “well, he’s a boy, and you might get in trouble”? Mary
No, but neither were my sisters. They did get more pocket money because they were girls. Come to think of it my brother was restricted because he was a naughty boy and HE might get into trouble.
Ever been passed up for a job in favor of a less- qualified man? Mary
Yes. I’ve also been passed over twice because of affirmative action rules. In one of these instances I did about a third of the job while the appointee got the extra pay. And no, I’m not angry about it. Certainly I was a bit miffed but I had plenty of other opportunities AND I agreed with AI in principle.
Ever been mercilessly talked over in every conversation involving members of the opposite sex? Mary
Shit yeah. Women do this FAR more than men.
Been groped in a bar? Mary
Yes. On one occasion a squirrel grip by a woman who thought she was being cute and didn’t even care that it hurt - in public too. Imagine if I did that to a woman.
Been told that your law school professors only call on you “because you have tits”? Mary
No. And I would berate anyone who said it in my presence. However I’m being told right now by you and others that I benefit from rape and am therefore complicit.
Been broken up with because you kept wanting your SO to understand where you were coming from as a feminist, but secretly you were just “angry all the time”? Mary
Strangely yes.
Been in a conversation where men judge a rape victim’s clothing or behavior but not the man’s decision to shove his penis in her vagina against her will? Mary
Yes, and equally by women. Blaming the victim is NOT gender specific.
Because all those things have happened to the women posting here. Hell, most of those things have happened to me alone. Mary
And we could go tit for tat forever. Thing is that if you go looking for discrimination or oppression you’ll always find it. Particularly if you are expecting to.
Don’t make the mistake of confusing “legal” equality with REAL equality. As long as men are allowed/encouraged by their peers to treat in the manner described above, they’ll be “allowed” to do a fuckton of things women aren’t. Mary
This comment was written by gwallan.So now we have “legal” and REAL equality. I seem to recall somebody saying something about feminism always moving the goalposts. And wasn’t it Mao who said we need to stay in a constant state of revolution.
Once you take away the legal structures equality is what you make for yourself. You can’t expect it to be handed to you on a platter. There is nothing I, or anyone else, can do to make you “feel” more equal - particularly if you insist on constantly changing the rules. Only you can do that.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 6:39 pm
Just once!! Please just this once can we have a discussion about discrimination against men without it being turned into how all women are victimised.
Not in this circumstance we can’t. Sorry. Elinor
Not in ANY circumstance apparently.
Oh come on. I’ve already stated that I didn’t consider it rape. How many times do I need to repeat this?
You brought it up. You must have had a reason for bringing it up.Elinor
Actually I allowed myself to be sidetracked.
I think what I’m trying to get at here is that women can, and do, use men for sexual gratification without giving any consideration to their partner. And, yes, maybe sometimes this should be considered rape.
There’s a difference between being a bad lay and being a rapist. Nobody owes anybody else an orgasm, ever. I’m sorry if you’ve had partners who wouldn’t get you off, but refusing to perform sex acts is not a crime and if you think it should be then I’m really at a loss for words.Elinor
Actually I didn’t write much of that very well. I agree with you here. It’s really a topic for a different discussion. I got stuck here after mentioning having been raped by a woman when I was a kid. That was only relevant because I find it ironic that now I’m being told it’s me who can’t be trusted with kids. I will make the point though that women can rape(particularly if you accept current definitions) and generally they are oblivious to that fact.
As long as you refuse to acknowledge that men have feelings, as long as you deny men a voice, as long as you hold innocent people responsible for the acts of others then you are just as sexist as any man has ever been.
This comment was written by gwallan.Behold the Holy Trinity of straw men!Elinor
In other words, “shut up”. I think you prove my point.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 6:58 pm
I believe there is in the case where a man continues after a woman has withdrawn consent. I couldn’t cite it though, nor can I recall which jurisdiction it applies to, no whether it was applicable given a different combination of genders. Daran
This comment was written by gwallan.This occured in western Australia. He’s been dubbed the “30 second rapist”.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1987/46.html
Apparently he was set up so it’s not a good example but the fact is he WAS convicted and served time.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 7:52 pm
What it comes down to me is this, and it’s really simple: ultil men stop being the vast majority of child molesters and until men actually ostracize the rapists and child molesters, it’s premature to say the least to complain about discrimination. ginmar
Define “vast majority”. There’s very little research on predatory behaviour by women. What little I’ve seen puts sexual abuse of children by women at anywhere between 10% and 30% of all cases. The sexual assault counsellors I’m working with say that 30% is conservative.
There are cases of innocent men dying because they were mistaken for somebody on a sex offenders register. If you want us to believe that men dont ostracise sex offenders you’re living in a different universe to the rest of us.
I mean, if you really want to protect kids, you won’t go looking for gay guys: You’ll go looking for somebody in the family and they’ll identify as straight. ginmar
Actually you need to look at mum’s new boyfriend. He’s the most likely culprit.
Men need to be fighting this battle instead of whining about those evil feminists…whom they never quote correctly, probably because they don’t listen. The fact that the SYG losers spend so much time trolling indicates that they’re not doing anything about child molesting and wife beating or anything but whatever it is toy they didn’t get. ginmar
This comment was written by gwallan.Why should I spend all my time campagning against men raping women when I have significant problems from being raped by a woman? Where are the feminists agitating against sexual abuse by women? Why can I get counselling because my mother was raped but not because I was? Why is it that I was a “lucky little boy”, particularly according to women, because I “got some” when I was eight? You tell me.
Basically our culture is not prepared to accept that women can transgress. Therefore we assume that it’s only men who can’t be trusted. Anyone who believes that feminism hasn’t played a part in this isn’t being honest with themselves.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 8:44 pm
Certainly, though, I wouldn’t want to live in a society in which people automatically assumed rape accusations were true….. Elinor
You already do. Typical media coverage already refers to plaintiffs as “victims” and defendants as “rapists” prior to any guilt being established.
…any more than I like living in one wherein large numbers of people automatically assume they’re false, so I do apologise for that comment. Elinor
This comment was written by gwallan.It’s such a fine line we tread isn’t it. In order to ensure that innocent people aren’t punished unfairly we have to err on the side of caution. Adopting a little bit of scepticism to ensure this does not constitute a belief that all accusations are false. And it doesn’t help when feminists make up rape stories to make political points. This does their cause no good at all.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 8:51 pm
gwallen:
Exactly which feminists are you talking about here? I don’t know any woman that has made up a rape story for political gain. In fact, I don’t know anyone that has made up a rape story at all.
Now before you jump on me, I will say that false accusations do happen. But, I wouldn’t call a woman that does that a feminist any more than I call a man that abuses a woman one. Nice diversionary tactic though.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 9:31 pm
And it doesn’t help when feminists make up rape stories to make political points. This does their cause no good at all.
This comment was written by gwallan.Exactly which feminists are you talking about here? I don’t know any woman that has made up a rape story for political gain. In fact, I don’t know anyone that has made up a rape story at all.
Now before you jump on me, I will say that false accusations do happen. But, I wouldn’t call a woman that does that a feminist any more than I call a man that abuses a woman one. Nice diversionary tactic though. Mendy
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153969,00.html
From the article:
It was a nightmare for every female student and faculty/staff at Rollins. They were afraid to go to the bathroom or walk on campus alone after dusk….The incident prompted a candlelight vigil on campus in support of the alleged victim [then unnamed]
There have been at least two examples in Australia which I can’t find refs for.
There’s also this:
…men falsely accused of rape can benefit from the experience. Upon reflection, they may come to understand what they must have done to upset the woman. As for the distress caused men by false accusations, she reveals “it is not a pain I would necessarily have spared them.” Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students ““ Catherine Comin
“it is not a pain I would necessarily have spared them.” How gracious of her.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 10:14 pm
Fox: the news source of record.
This comment was written by Sheena.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 10:25 pm
Fox: the news source of record.
This comment was written by gwallan.Sheena: shooting the messenger.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 11:11 pm
Oddly enough I agree with Jake. I think that the assumption that causes the wierd reaction that people have to the idea of men caring for kids is based on the idea that male sexuality is inherantly predatory, rather than on an assumption that the men in question are gay. I’m sure that some people do think that men who go into childcare (or any other traditionally female occupation) are gay, but I don’t think that’s the primary reason for the strange fear that people have about men caring for kids.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.The interesting thing here is, this is a very culture-specific assumption. Our culture seems to believe that men should not be physically affectionate with kids in general, and view such displays of affection with suspicion. In other parts of the world that I’ve lived in (the Middle East, Asia, North Africa) men are habitually much more physically demonstrative with kids. As a kid in Libya, my Dad’s Libyan friends and co-workers used to pick me up, throw me in the air so that they could catch me, cuddle me on their laps etc all the time, and nobody thought twice about it.
I also wonder how much of this is due to America’s tendency to go into periodic spasms of panic (the Summer of the Shark! Satanic Child Abuse cults at daycare!) that in no way reflect reality. Maybe it’s just a symptom of our culture’s continual refusal to deal with the fact that if children are going to be sexually abused, chances are that the abusers will be their own relatives. Maybe the anxiety about male childcare workers, teachers etc is a way to displace our cultural discomfort with that fact and our apparent inability to do anything to actually remedy the current situation.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 11:15 pm
“There have been at least two examples in Australia which I can’t find refs for.”
Try harder.
Or try this: http://www.yahoo.com.au
This comment was written by Sheena.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 11:56 pm
From Daran :
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.“I absolutely agree that creepy, scary sexual behavior is normalized in our culture. My favorite (favorite?) example is how stalking is still viewed in many circles as basically sweet, romantic behavior. “Ooh, he followed you home and stood outside your window and sang to you to win your love? How sweeeeet!” Yeah, no, not so much. ”
This is a big pet peeve of mine. Any time you see someone going on about how “Say Anything” is just SO romantic, it’s time to run. The stalking = romantic theme is pretty pervasive in our culture, and I habitually see behavior depicted as romantic that would give me the creeps. Persistence is a virtue when it comes to looking for a job, or learning to play a musical instrument. When it comes to romance, however, “persistence” looks an awful lot like harrassment to me.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 12:38 am
Elinor - scary, scary link. For those who couldn’t be bothered to follow it, here’s the part she was referring to.
37. End the criminalization of normal male sexual behavior. Repeal all
> laws making male sexuality, exposure, penetration, etc., into a criminal
> act unless there is demonstrable physical harm to a victim. Release and
> pardon all men who have been arrested for “statutory rape,” “date rape,”
> “spousal rape,” “pornography,” “soliciting a prostitute,” and other
> weasel worded versions thereof. A woman’s hurt feelings does not turn a
> man into a criminal.
So rape is OK as long as it doesn’t leave any scars? Charming. And they wonder why we think they’re misogynists.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Also, did anyone else notice the part about repealing the drug laws for men (not people in general, just men). Anyone want to explain to me how they justify that?
Note : I actually do think that many of our drug laws should be substantially relaxed. The police and the justice system have better things to do than worry about some kids who smoke pot, and hardcore junkies are really far more dangerous to themselves than to anyone else. I’d be all for decriminilisation for users with easily-accesible treatment programs and needle exchanges readily avaliable to control the spread of disease (which our current policies are doing nothing at all to address). However, why is it OK for men to take drugs but apparently not OK for women?
Also, just FYI, this “no kids sitting next to men” policy is a fairly new thing. I flew as an unnacompanied minor frequently from about age 10-18, and sat next to men and women at about equal rates. What did used to happen was that the staff would come and check in with the kids on a regular basis, to make sure that they were behaving and keep them entertained as well as to keep them safe. That seems to me to be the smartest way to handle the situation, have the airline staff continually check up on the kids to make sure that they’re OK.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 12:47 am
When it comes to romance, however, “persistence” looks an awful lot like harrassment to me.
I don’t know. You’re describing romantic persistence as intrinsically harassing, but doesn’t it depend on the pursued person’s reaction/feelings?
Say Jake asks Mary out and she says “gosh, thanks for the invitation, but I don’t know if that’s such a great idea” and three days later he asks her out again and she says “look, I’m flattered but I’m also really not interested - you have to stop asking me out” (or just “stop asking me out”), and he then stops and treats her with cordial friendliness (or whatever their relationship was before the asking) - what’s the harm? He put in a couple of at-bats, struck out, and returned to the bench. If he doesn’t stop at this point then I would opine he’s crossed a line. (Some people might extend the baseball metaphor and give an otherwise polite suitor three strikes.)
A lot of the time, the first time someone is asked out there is a no, but not an emphatic no. Sometimes it’s explicitly an inviting no, as in “gee, I really can’t right now because I am so swamped for finals…but maybe we could do something in January when things aren’t so crazy!”. Other times it’s much more of a judgment call. A fair proportion of those first nos are second-time yeses - not least because there are women who do value persistence as a character trait in a potential romantic match. My wife is such a person.
I recall in 7th grade there was a girl who was romantically interested in me, without reciprocation on my part. Gosh, she was rude and pushy about it. In her defense, we were both very young and socially awkward. Perhaps as a beneficial result I am less likely to engage in that kind of aggressive overture, because I remember that it didn’t feel good. I know women who feel the same way.
(Sorry about the thread derailing, but I figure at 225 comments, we’re pretty much out in open water here.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 1:07 am
“There have been at least two examples in Australia which I can’t find refs for.”
This comment was written by gwallan.Try harder. Sheena
Why?
You’ve been presented with a NOW chapter president falsely claiming rape. You’ve been presented with a feminist claiming that men “benefit” from being falsely accused.
I wish I knew what your agenda is here. I really hope you’re not defending these people. Honestly, for anybody who is serious about doing something about rape these women are an embarassment.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 1:37 am
Robert - two polite instances of “would you like to go out to dinner?” isn’t what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the cases where someone is told “I’m not interested” from the get-go and yet they somehow manage to interpret that as the not-interested person just being coy. That and the cases of “I broke up with you two years ago, and now I’m about to get married to someone else, so why are you still drunk-dialling me at 3 am to tell me how you think that we’re destined to be together?”. That’s often portrayed as the guy in question being a hopeless romantic, whereas in fact it’s just creepy and kind of pathetic.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Why do people use the term “hopeless romantic” as if it was a good and admirable thing anyway?
OK, derailment over.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 2:14 am
Could you use post numbers to remind me where these things were presented? Thanks.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 2:57 am
220
This comment was written by gwallan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 3:07 am
BritGirlSF:
I didn’t say that.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 3:27 am
You said “feminists.” plural, as in “feminists make up rape stories.” But your one example is of a single feminist who was accused but not convicted. Even if Nall is guilty (and if she is, then what she did was disgusting and reprehensible), it hardly represents a norm for feminists.
And what that college administrator said was indeed inexcusable and loathsome. But, again, hardly typical.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 3:46 am
Gwallan:
If the messenger has a record of bias and distortion like Fox News, then it deserves to be shot. Since there is a real story here, there was nothing to stop you from quoting a reputable source.
A cursory search didn’t turn up any references to Desiree Nall being convicted. Presumably the case is still pending. That would make her an alleged false reporter.
Your claim “You’ve been presented with a NOW chapter president falsely claiming rape” therefore doesn’t stand, since all we have is an allegation to that effect. Mendy’s original remark “I don’t know any woman that has made up a rape story for political gain” still stands, though if “know” is construed as “know of”, then it is now surely tottering.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 3:55 am
I’m not convinced that she did say these things. I’ve not seen an unabridged version of the Time Magazine article. The quote comes in several different versions, presumably representing different edits of the same article. All are from antifeminist sources, while the journalist who wrote the article also appears to be negative towards his interview subjects. Much of the most reprehensible sentiments expressed were not direct quotes, but the journalist’s own words.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 4:09 am
That definitely isn’t the same ruling I read, though it may be a different ruling the same case. Can you substantiate the claim that he was “set up”?
Calling him the “30 second rapist” is deceptive, because it implied that he continued for only 30 seconds after being told to stop. However, if you read the judgement, 30 seconds was the time within which it was ruled that he must come to understand that she was no longer consenting. It was because he continued for longer that he was convicted.
Without commenting further on that case, I agree that 30 seconds is more than enough time for someone to stop in the face of a clear withdrawl of consent.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 6:48 am
In the context of this discussion, I now think the movie “The Graduate” is extremely creepy.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 11:23 am
Lee–I came to that conclusion a long time ago, and I haven’t even seen the movie.
This comment was written by Imagynne.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 11:49 am
Imagynne - They showed it on a local cable channel last week, and I absolutely hated it. It was never my favorite movie (I haven’t seen it in 15 years), but this time I really thought it was too weird.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
“Honestly, for anybody who is serious about doing something about rape these women are an embarassment”
Compared to the embarrassment posed by a man who forces his penis into a woman’s body?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 12:48 pm
“…men falsely accused of rape can benefit from the experience. Upon reflection, they may come to understand what they must have done to upset the woman. As for the distress caused men by false accusations, she reveals “it is not a pain I would necessarily have spared them.” Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students ““ Catherine Comin
“it is not a pain I would necessarily have spared them.” How gracious of her. ”
In regards to this and to the premise of the thread, I ask: why are men immune to the socializing aspects of rape? Is rape only a tool to be used against women and children, shaping their socialization in what gets passed off as a normative experience? A man was asked to leave his airline seat; other men face workplace difficulties. And? How is that worse than women whose freedom to move around in public spaces is curtailed by threats of rape and by being female in a rape culture? How is that different or more shocking than women who can’t ride public transit, for fear of rape, to their 2nd or 3rd shift jobs and so therefore must pay for child support so they can work the 1st shift? How is that different than women being denied roles in military combat b/c they might be raped.
Give me a break guys. Buck up a little and change the culture. Is your freedom curtailed by rape? Good. Then you should understand us just that much better.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
Q Grrl:
In the context within which gwallan made his remark, yes.
A comparible situation would be where a prominant MRA was alleged or proven to have forced his penis into a woman’s body.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 12:52 pm
… I’m wondering how many of the guys out there that would claim this treatment as discrimination still wank off to porn. I mean, do you really think you can objectify women and children and *not* have any of it come back at you?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
Daran: you miss my point. The small fraction of women who make false rape claims pales next to the number of men who actually rape. Why should I be embarrassed about a woman that makes a false claim — unless you’re saying that b/c one woman lied, all women are liars. Is this what you mean to imply?
A comparable situation for you to think about is this: women get raped by men everyday. Once in a while a woman files a false rape charge. Deal with it.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
So, in other words, “our problems are much worse than yours, so we needn’t discuss the validity of your concerns until our perceived problems are solved first.”
Have I got that right?
This comment was written by Scarbo.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
Q Grrl:
I think you miss mine.
I am unaware of any data at all addressing the question of how many women make false rape claims. (by which I mean any claim, not necessarily a police report, by a woman that a rape happened, where none did.) Rather, when women are surveyed, it appears that they are assumed to be 100% honest, which seems unjustifiable given the following:
There is some evidence (Kanin, etc.) that roughly half of all rape reports made by women to to police are false. I consider this it to be pitifully weak, and therefore inconclusive, but I know of no evidence at all to contradict it.
If you do, and you can cite, then I would be very interested.
Of course not, and it’s getting a bit tiresome to have this thrown at me when I have addressed the point on many occasions, for example here. (It’s a long post, read the second half), and I have within this very thread reminded people not to presume the woman concerned guilty unless and until she’s convicted. A correct statement of what I believe is that some women who claim to have been raped are lying, and I don’t know what the proportion is.
You have no reason to be embarrassed at a false rape report merely because you are the same sex as the false reporter. You have cause to be embarrassed if both you and she are supporters of a movement which preaches that “women don’t lie about rape”.
Aside from the fact that you have no basis for claiming that false rape charges are filed “once in a while”, Your language is prejudicial. You attribute rapes to “men”, which implies collective action, but false charges to “a women” as an individual.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 3:04 pm
Rape in this culture is a collective action; that’s why you guys get to complain about having to switch airplane seats. No? If rape were not so pervasive and collective vis-a-vis complicity, men wouldn’t be so suspect.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
QGrrl:
I can see this as another way of saying that we live in a rape culture, or as a way of saying that all men are complicit in the act of rape whether or not they rape.
I’m not sure I agree with your statement. Complicity implies a partnership. And in most partnerships “all parties” are aware of the activities of the partnership. I don’t see my husband as being complicit in rape. I can accept his male privilege, but he doesn’t condone rape nor is he complicit in its perpetration.
But then again, I’m one of the odd women that was not socialized to fear men, rape, or the other things that most women in the US have been.
I don’t have a problem with someone, man or woman, being asked to switch seats in a plane. I would have problems if they were asked to switch sections, so that the unescorted child could have all of first class to theirselves for example. But, essentially this is less about phobias about men and more about financial liablility for the airlines. In all honesty though, I don’t think I would allow my children to fly unescorted until they were old enough to fend for themselves. But, that’s just me.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
Gwallan, your ‘evidence’ amounts to anecdotes and self pity. studies tell you this and studies tell you that. Which ones? Where?
women when I have significant problems from being raped by a woman?
Why do I have to give a fuck about you anyway? You don’t like women. You hate feminists. You’ll go run and whine to your SYG buddies. Why don’t they take care of you? I’m not your mother. Neither is any other feminist. Men like you haven’t done shit for women and in fact actively try and keep us down.
Where are the feminists agitating against sexual abuse by women?
You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. You know, when OJ actually catches the real killers, I’ll get right on that.
Why can I get counselling because my mother was raped but not because I was?
Because your fellow male trolls don’t want to help you? Because you want the people who have no power and all the repsonsiblity to help you? Because you think you’re first amongst victims? Because you think being a male victim makes you more special than a woman victim?
Why is it that I was a “lucky little boy”, particularly according to women, because I “got some” when I was eight? You tell me.
I can’t tell you shit because frankly, your behavior and attitude have not demonstrated any honesty at all. You act like you hate women. I don’t owe you anything. WAnt help? Go get those MRAs to help you. After all, they’re the ones on your side, aren’t they? Aren’t they the ones who are sincerely trying to help male victims? Well, where are they now?
Basically our culture is not prepared to accept that women can transgress.
This is just complete and utter bullshit. Tell that to Andrea Yates. Tell that to any woman who’s gotten nailed for what her hubbie did to her kids. Hell, look at you. You’re blaming all women for whatever happened to you and you don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. Let a woman hint at the collective responsibility of men for the actions of men—whcih they condone—and she’s a ball busting bitch.
Therefore we assume that it’s only men who can’t be trusted.
Bullshit. Men rape. Men rape in huge numbers all across the planet. You haven’t displayed any knowledge or awareness of that. IN fact, you give the impression it doesn’t matter to you. Only you matters to you. You’re special, aren’t you?
Anyone who believes that feminism hasn’t played a part in this isn’t being honest with themselves.
I’m proud of it. Before feminsm, men raped everyone and got away with it. Now some of them get caught. Cry me a fuckin’ river. Better yet go to your little buddies at SYG and tell more lies about feminists.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 4:40 pm
Childcare and gender stereotypes
As the previous post indicates, Alfie’s playschool teacher is male. He is an outstanding caregiver, and Alfie absolutely adores him. Yet many people express surprise when they learn that our child has a male caregiver. Alas, a blog has a good post on…
This comment was written by Red Harvest.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
bigotry against men in childcare“. It’s all based on a recent new story in New Zealand about a man who was seated next to a child on a plane. The child was travelling alone, so the airline asked the man to change his seat, because their policy is to not allow men to sit next to
This comment was written by » Career advice, jobhunting tips, and work hacks from childcare.wurk.net..Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 9:29 pm
In response to comment 249 (Ginmar. I won’t quote any of it)
This has to be the most repellent post I’ve seen on Alas. :-(((
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 9:38 pm
I’m not convinced that you’re in any way odd, but regardless of that, in what way does your lack of fear have any bearing upon whether your husband in particular or non-raping men in general are “complicit”?
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 9:58 pm
No it is not. Men did not get together and decide to rape women. Rapists do not consult with men in general about whether to commit rape. Being male is not a voluntary act.
This is nothing but an excuse for feminists to blame all men for what most men do not do.
Feminism, on the other hand, is a collective action. Membership is voluntary and when you announce to the world that you are a feminist, you are in essence endorsing all that feminism has to say.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 10:10 pm
Q Grrl:
This is nothing to do with wanking off to porn.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 10:13 pm
“Feminism, on the other hand, is a collective action. Membership is voluntary and when you announce to the world that you are a feminist, you are in essence endorsing all that feminism has to say. ”
Psst, there are different branches & schools of thought within feminism. Pass it on.
This comment was written by Sheena.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 10:39 pm
Yes I know. That doesn’t contradict what I just said.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 10:48 pm
Just what part of “endorsing all” is not contradicted by “different branches & schools of thought”?
This comment was written by Sheena.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 10:49 pm
To me, if you say “when you announce to the world that you are a feminist, you are in essence endorsing all that feminism has to say,” that means endorsing everything all branches of feminism say. But that’s nonsense, because some of the particulars are contrary.
Cathy Young is a self-identified feminist; if I say “I’m a feminist,” does that mean I endorse all Cathy Young says?
I’m not trying to be thick or obnoxious; I honestly don’t understand what it is you’re trying to say, Daran.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 10:54 pm
You put it better than I did. And even more intriguingly, if Cathy Young calls herself a feminist, does that mean she endorses everything you say?
This comment was written by Sheena.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 10:57 pm
I think that everyone who calls themself a “feminist” agrees to a certain core set of beliefs. That core set is pretty darn small, and it isn’t particularly objectionable even to hardened reactionaries like me - thus, it’s also pretty bloody useless. “Women ought to get the same or similar opportunities as men”, that sort of thing.
All the interesting stuff happens out on the periphery of that core - and the stuff on the periphery is where there are huge disagreements, Daran. Occasionally you get a near-consensus on something new - but even then you’ve always got outliers saying “but…”
It really isn’t workable to paint Ampersand with an Alsis-soaked brush. Plus, it would take days to get it off, and then he wouldn’t ink new Herevilles for my entertainment.
Not that he does anyway.
Feminist bastard.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 12:29 am
God, I’m either getting more conservative or Robert is getting more liberal or we’ve both gone insane, because I agreed with everything he wrote there. Nice summing up, Robert.
Especially the part about Amp being a big slacker who needs to ink more Herevilles for us.
:-D
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 2:25 am
Oops - the statement I attributed to Daran actually came from Myce or Mendy (which I should have known from the content). Sorry.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 2:58 am
Myca:
You’re not insane. I’ve wondered about the same thing.
Daran:
I missed the fact that Quentin was already banned. I haven’t read all the comments at the time. To get back on what we were discussing:
First of all, don’t mind my pedantic corrections.
Second:
I’d rather descibe myself as supportive to feminism (the terms are too much of a mixed baggage. By a broad definition I certainly am a feminist) . And I think the accusations about derailment usually don’t come out of blue, usually there is a derailment. Just like there was a derailment here.
Now, about the original article: I also think this is about the negative perceptions about male sexuality. Anashi pointed out that men who take care of children get huge praise from women. I think this is true for some men. If a high-status man, or a married man, willingly ‘lowers’ himself to doing women’s work for a while, certainly he is going to get huge praise for being so unselfish. But this is simply untrue for men, who have low status or are single. Indeed, men who aren’t that are sometimes viewed as being creeps if they express a view of liking children. I know that I’ve gotten (perhaps because I’m single) dirty looks when I have confessed that the few times I’ve spent with children have been generally surprisingly pleasant experiences (perhaps the looks were because I tend to be introverted and thus people would find it hard to believe that I could tolerate children, and thus my motives are suspect), and outright scowl when I told I was impressed by the maturity of a certain 5 year old girl. The context of me being impressed was the fact the said girl had defeated me on “find the pairs” -card game, which isn’t a small feat (I never lose on purpose and am quite good at the said game. And no, it wasn’t just luck). Of course, I don’t think my rights were violated by dirty looks. But it made me wonder.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 3:19 am
Clarification: I don’t think there should be seperate men’s work and women’s work. I meant that there is a pervasive view that says otherwise, and usually it is “women’s work” that is devalued, despite the fact that much of it is quite important for society.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 3:41 am
Daran Writes: This has to be the most repellent post I’ve seen on Alas. :-(((
Then you’ve missed an awful lot of comments, including one from a man who wanted to assure himself that it wasn’t rape if he just pinned his girlfriend down and went ahead with having sex when she changed her mind at the last minute.
If you want to argue that any part of Ginmar’s post was especially repellent, you’re going to need to quote it and make your case: broadly claiming that all of it was repellant to you
- including such plain statements of fact as “Men rape. Men rape in huge numbers all across the planet.” or (in response to your profoundly ignorant claim that Basically our culture is not prepared to accept that women can transgress.): This is just complete and utter bullshit. Tell that to Andrea Yates. Tell that to any woman who’s gotten nailed for what her hubbie did to her kids. -
then you’re saying something about yourself, not about Ginmar: you’re saying it’s repellent to you to have it plainly stated that men commit more and worse crimes of violence than women do, including rape, but that women get blamed more if they do commit a crime of violence. If you’re saying that the whole of Ginmar’s comment is indistinguishably repellent to you, you’re only saying that you hate having to read ugly facts about men.
No it is not. Men did not get together and decide to rape women. Rapists do not consult with men in general about whether to commit rape.
And this is plain nonsense. Yes, men do get together and decide to rape women: and yes, the culture that we both live in is a pro-rape culture: is one in which men get to rape and get away with it, because rape is perceived, by collective mechanisms such as jokes and dirty stories, such as verdicts that acquit a man of rape under most circumstances, as a sexual act that women want.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 3:43 am
Robert: That core set is pretty darn small, and it isn’t particularly objectionable even to hardened reactionaries like me - thus, it’s also pretty bloody useless. “Women ought to get the same or similar opportunities as men”, that sort of thing.
Actually, we generally find that when these core set of principles are carried out in reality, sexist bigots (who frequently refer to themselves as “hardened reactionaries”, I suppose because it sounds nicer to themselves to think of themselves as “conservative” rather than just plain anti-women) who may indeed have expressed a general belief in the principle that women ought to have the same/similiar opportunities as men, actually recoil in horror and spend a lot of time arguing why it’s not fair.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 4:06 am
Darran:
My own lack of fear doesn’t speak at all to the idea of all men being “complicit” in rape. It was a secondary thought outside the main idea of the previous paragraph.
I can accept that we live in a culture that is supportive of rape through its media and certian societal norms, but societal norms do not make all men “complicit” in all rapes. Because, I’ve heard many women make jokes about “He’ll meet Bubba in prison” and certain other kinds of jokes that maintain and reinforce rape culture, as well. ( I hope that makes sense. I’m still working on my first cup of coffee.)
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 4:16 am
Jesu and Ginmar, please cool it down a little.
Daran, if you don’t want to try rebutting Ginmar’s comments, then please don’t comment on them at all. A general “this is repulsive” comment, without any content, is not useful.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 4:20 am
Elinor accused you - correctly - of making straw man arguments.
In no way does “you’re making a straw man argument” mean “shut up.”
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 5:13 am
Ampersand said:
I think the problem isn’t with “male caregivers” in general, I think it is with “single men who are not parents” as caregivers.
Single men, or men without children of their own, aren’t supposed to want to be around children unless there is something wrong with them. Married men, or single fathers, who spend time with children or who choose careers that involve children are from what I have seen generally regarded as “good guys”. They are praised for their efforts, they get bonus points for doing the same things women do all the time. It is men who do not have children of their own who are suspect when they show any interest in being around kids. The general feeling I get from hearing folks talk is that if single men/non fathers really liked kids [in a non predatory way], they would get married, have kids of their own. That they don’t is considered evidence that they “like” kids in a bad way. On the other hand, single women and women who are not mothers are encouraged to spend time with children, to take up careers in childcare. The reasoning is that it is “good practice” for when they decide to have kids of their own. It is a really odd double standard. If it is “good practice” for possible future mothers, why isn’t it “good practice” for possible future fathers? I would think that if two people have kids, it would be in the best interest of the children if both parties had experience being around and taking care of children.
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 5:38 am
No it is not. Men did not get together and decide to rape women.
Christ, do you live under rock, or what? Yes, in fact they do. Gang rape on campus is a serious phenomina and it’s all about rich white boys planning to rape women. Peggy Reeves Sanday is an anthropologist who’s studied gang rape for decades. Go read her. You now have no excuse for your ignorance.
Rapists do not consult with men in general about whether to commit rape. Being male is not a voluntary act.
Like, OMG, you just hate me because I’m a man! U said all men are rapists!
Men rape. Other men excuse it. Other men, like you, find it so disgusting to even talk about that when a mere woman dares to throw it in your face that men rape, you make excuses. Your ignorance, at this point, amounts to lying about women. So many men make excuses for rape, for the men who rape, that few men get convicted of it. That’s consulting after the fact.
This is nothing but an excuse for feminists to blame all men for what most men do not do.
Yeah, most men don’t rape? Really? How do you know this, O Expert on Women’s Lives? Yeah, well, so many men–like you, for example—are in denial about rape that you let rapists get away with it. Then you bitch at feminsts for getting angry about ignorance.
Feminism, on the other hand, is a collective action. Membership is voluntary and when you announce to the world that you are a feminist, you are in essence endorsing all that feminism has to say.
Yeah, men don’t get together–say, the whiners at SYG, or whatever—and plan to troll. Men don’t swarm feminist sites and say the same fucking thing over and over again. Oh, no. But feminists all march in lockstep.
I got news for you, babe. There’s lots of different kinds of feminists out there. I just happen to the kind that refuses to take lying shit from trolls.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 7:10 am
Contextomy undone:
ginmar:
Me:
ginmar:
Jesurgislac:
You are both committing a fallacy of amphiboly. In ginmar’s remark at top, “collective action” can only refer to a collective of men in general. It can not refer to groups of men committing gang-rape, since this is not true for “rape” in general which includes all rapes, not just gang-rapes.
My reply, which used “men” in the sense of “men in general” is clearly responsive to ginmar’s comment. However both of your responses are only true if “men” means “groups of men”. I agree that when groups of men (or indeed any group of people: read this post and weep) commit rape then this is collective action by the members of those groups.
However this does not contradict my remarks, or support ginmar’s original claim.
Me (repeating a little to preserve context):
ginmar (from now on):
I assume you are not accusing me (Daran) of hating you (ginmar) because you are a man, or suggesting that I (Daran) said all men are rapists. Rather the rhetorical content of the above is that you are claiming that this is my interpretation of your position. (When rhetoric gets this involved, it becomes very hard to respond to.)
You have not said (to my recollection) that all men are rapists. You attribute collective responsibility for rape to men in general, i.e., to all men. I understand the difference between “all men are rapists” and “all men are responsible for rape”. I don’t agree with either proposition.
I don’t know whether you hate me because I’m a man. Your post 249 appears to express hatred at gwallan because he’s a man. You don’t appear to love me.
Amphiboly.
I”ve made no excuses for rape. None at all. I blame rapists for rape, and I hold people responsible for what they do and say, and for what they refrain from doing or saying. What I do not do, unlike you, is blame anyone for rape solely on the basis of how the genetic dice fell in their particular case.
I suggest that there are in fact two reasons why so few men are convicted of rape. One is that it may be the case that a substantial proportion of rape complaints are false. I’m necessarily tentative about that because the evidence (Kanin etc.) is insufficient to sustain a firmer statement. On the other hand, there is no evidence at all, that I’m aware of, to suggest that false rape reports are rare. The belief that they are seems to be entirely a matter of faith.
The second reason is that there is no forensic test for consent. Consequently it is difficult for genuine complainants to make the necessary showing of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
If you claim otherwise, then I suggest that the burden of proof is on you.
[snip content-free ad hom]
As far as I can see on man planned to troll, and got cought, but yes, men’s right’s activism as a movement is a collective action, so my remarks apply equally to those who subscribe to it. I don’t.
You’re pretty repetitive yourself.
I didn’t say that either.
[remaining ad hom] snipped.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 7:22 am
I saw your comment before your edit. Thank you for recognising that I have not been ‘heated’.
With respect, sometimes a point by point refutation misses the point. ginmar’s remarks were pure hate-speech and should be called as such. Indeed if you substituted “blacks” for “men” and “whites” for “women” the result - both the argument and the rhetoric - would not seem out of place in alt.flame.niggers.
Nevertheless, I will address Jesurgislac’s apology point by point, which I hope will suffice.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 7:34 am
Ginmar:
Again, please try to take the tone of contempt down several notches. If you can’t stand the norms of posting here, then don’t post here.
I agree that “most men don’t rape.”
Mary Koss’ study found that about 5% of men have committed rape (although most of that 5% don’t consider what they did to be rape). Although 5% is a lot of men, that still leaves 95% who have not committed rape. (I discussed this further in this post.)
Also, most studies (including Koss’) seem to find that about 10-15% of women are raped at some point in their lives. It would be difficult to comprehend this finding if over 50% of men are rapists.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 7:36 am
I blame rapists for rape, and I hold people responsible for what they do and say, and for what they refrain from doing or saying.
But you don’t want to be held responsible for your argument that it’s “only a matter of faith” that women willing to testify in court that a man raped them aren’t mostly lying? You don’t want to be blamed for claiming that women are more likely to lie than men are to rape?
Amp, when you let poisonous little women-haters like this comment freely on your blog, don’t tell women who respond in the same vein to him to “cool it”.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 7:47 am
Jesu, you’re not responding in the same vein - you’re escalating. For instance, Daran has never called you or any other poster here “a poisonous little women-hater,” nor any similar personal insult.
Look, don’t post here if you can’t stand my rules. I like and respect you, but this is my website, and I’m not convinced that it’s unreasonable of me to ask posters to attack the arguments, rather than attacking the other posters.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 7:57 am
However, unless it’s the case that blacks are to whites as men are to women, I don’t think that’s a meaningful comparison. All it really proves is that changing the words changes the meaning.
(I realize that “what if this were about blacks” is a common rhetorical technique used by people on all sides of these debates. But just because it’s common doesn’t make it good.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 8:16 am
Well it is, isn’t it? Feel free to post your evidence if you claim otherwise.
No I don’t, because I have never made such a claim. What I tentatively claim is that women make false rape reports to the police about as often as they do true ones. The claim is tentative because the evidence is insufficient to support a firmer claim. But it is at least an evidence-based claim.
It’s not even what I believe. What I believe is that I don’t know what proportion of rape claims are false. The evidence is insufficient to form a belief.
I have also pointed out that the integrity of survey data depends upon the assumption that survey subjects invariably or at least overwhelmingly tell the truth. That seems to me to be an inherently unlikely proposition, but this doesn’t mean I claim that any particular percentage are false. certainly any attempt to extrapolate from an already dubious “about as often” of the self-selecting population of rape reporters into a random sample of survey subjects would be ridiculous.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 8:41 am
Daran, I think that the claim that “women make false rape reports to the police about as often as they do true ones.” Is sufficiently extraordinary so as to require extraordinary evidence.
Mainly, it contradicts my common sense. Of course, all sorts of things happen that go against my common sense, (the earth circles around the sun?!? Pshhh! Please, I can see the sun moving. Try again.) but I usually need some pretty solid evidence before I believe them either.
In this case it beggars my credulity to think that a full half of the rape cases reported are reported falsely (and maliciously, through lies). I understand that this isn’t a claim you’re actually making, and that you simply believe that we really don’t know what percentage of rape accusations are false, but you’ve made reference a few times to there being some evidence for the ‘half the time’ claim, so I’d like to take a look at it. I mean, some evidence is better than none, right?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 8:45 am
Daran: No I don’t, because I have never made such a claim.
What I tentatively claim is that women make false rape reports to the police about as often as they do true ones.
So, as a matter of faith, you want to believe that women lie about rape at least as often as they tell the truth? Got any actual evidence for this, or is it just something you so desperately want to believe, rather than the evidence in front of you that men commit rape far more often than they’re convicted for it? And part of the reason is that so many men, like you, want to believe that when men have sex with women without their consent, it’s not really rape, because the women who say they didn’t consent are probably lying.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 8:49 am
Ampersand:
What it proves is that changing the words changes how you feel about them. You recognise hate-speech directed at blacks - you get an emotional jolt, at least I do, same as I get one when you read hate-speech directed at women. Yet for some reason, you don’t get such a jolt when it’s directed at men, while I do.
Doesn’t make it bad either. The arguments are essentially the same, the rhetoric is the same, the counterarguments that I’ve been making are the same, and the counter-counterarguments - the strawmen and ad-homs that are being directed at me - are essentially the same.
So what’s the difference?
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 9:05 am
So, Amp, I guess those 5% rapists just exist in a vacuum.
Daran, you said it all when you said you believe that women are just as likely to falsely as accurately report rape.
I’ve had it with the fucking trolls and half-assed feminism. You don’t me to be pissed off? Try rising above the luke warm defense, and the troll coddling. I’m done.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 9:23 am
You’ve been implying that men know rapists and give them a pass.
I don’t know any rapists. Perhaps I should start asking my male friends, “Hey, are you a rapist?”
Just want to be sure I know how to do my part.
This comment was written by Scarbo.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 9:25 am
Straw man. I don’t believe that, and I never said anything of the sort.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 9:28 am
If something in the range of the 5% figure is correct, then it’s extremely unlikely that you don’t know any rapists. A more accurate statement is that you probably know rapists, but you don’t know that they’re rapists.
I don’t appreciate your mocking tone, by the way. If you can’t manage to address other posters respectfully, then please leave.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 9:43 am
Me:
Jesurgislac:
This is getting boring. I’ll happily defend my arguments, but if you insist on setting up strawmen, I’ll leave you to fight them by yourself. I said “about as often” not “at least as often”. Evidence for this is here (PDF). Yes the sample is pitifully small, and yes it is unrepresentative. That’s why I keep on saying “tentative”. You, by contrast have no evidence at all to contradict it. Please prove me wrong.
The evidence in front of me consists of Justice Department statistics on the number of rape convictions and survey data concerning the number of people claiming to have been raped. I say that the former should be reliable, but that the integrity of the latter depends upon the assumption that respondant are overwhelmingly honest. Do you disagree? If so, please explain either how this is not an assumption, or how the data can be reliable if substantial numbers are not telling the truth. The third alternative, I suppose, is to hurl abuse and strawmen at me.
A strawman, an ad-hom, and pretty damned offensive to boot.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 9:51 am
One in 20. That’s a shocking figure. And when I think of how many men I know, through work and church, it’s a startling number of potential rapists.
But I have no idea how I would find out who is and who isn’t. So what would you suggest I do with that statistic?
This comment was written by Scarbo.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 9:59 am
Daran, my view of complicity is somewhat like this: I had bad cramps last night and sat on the sofa watching Law & Order: SVU. The entire episode was dedicated to the story of a rapist and his release from prison and his subsequent attempt to rape a teenage girl. It even involved a heavy element of male complicity through the role of the undercover cop who was his new “buddy.”
This is primetime entertainment in the USA. This is what complicity looks like. This is turning a crime against women into entertainment, possibly to be ingested along with your beer or popcorn.
Complicity also looks like this: when men feel comfortable in their outrage at being inconvenienced vis-a-vis the fallout from the rape culture that they can call certain actions discriminatory. Very often these same men do not 1) understand the concept of male privilege 2) argue vehemently that we do not live in a rape culture 3) that feminists claim all men are rapists and 4) think that what women term “fear of rape” is a fear that reduces women to hysteria, when in fact it is the type of fear that causes women to make decisions on a daily basis, that when men have to make those same decisions, men get to call it discrimination. That is complicity.
Complicity also looks like this: access to porn as a protected free speech right while calling the fallout from objectifying women and children discrimination.
The issue is not so clear cut as to say that *some* men rape and *some* men abuse/rape children. The issue for me is that a huge banner can roll across a blog that announces: Bigotry Against Men in Childcare. The irony is too full for me to swallow. That statement alone can be interpreted to mean: women have a legit right to complain about men who rape and abuse, but if they take concrete action… well that’s just being unfair to men and constitutes discriminatory practices. That is the complicity, right there, of men in our rape culture. Men might tentatively agree we live in a rape culture, but the truth comes out when women make choices that would safegaurd themselves or children against male predatory practices. And then men will also say, “but not all men do this.” Which is really such a weak thing to say. You’re asking women to ignore everything they see, experience, know or intuit and trust men blindly (completely contrary to thousands of years of cold hard fact), just so that men don’t feel insulted or discriminated against. You’re basically holding your desire for a clear conscience as a greater need then women establishing boundaries that work for them. And then you blame the feminists on top of that — because they are the women that are most obviously agitating that you conscience is a pittance compared to women’s safety, be that mental, physical, or emotional.
My favorite bumpersticker years ago was “Silence is the voice of complicity.” When men can claim injury from rape society but not recognize their role in its maintenance, then what we have is complicity.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 10:08 am
Myca:
Upon what do you base this “common sense” view?
Let’s start with your “common sense” view. How many rape reports have you personally verified to be true? How many have you verified to be false? Do you think this is a sufficiently representative sample to draw any common sense conclusions about the frequency of false rape reports? If not, then upon what do you base this common sense view on?
My guess is that is based upon nothing more than having been told it, time and time again: That is, after all, how we know 99.99% of everything. Is matter made up of atoms? Yep. Have either of us verified this for ourselves? Probably not. I know I haven’t.
But what if that “fact” were bogus? What if, it were merely echoed and reechoed within feminist sources, but turned out to be based on nothing substantial whatsoever? This paper (PDF) documents how the 2% myth propagated from a single unsubstantiated source.
About half the time. 41% in the Police dataset, 50% in the other University dataset mention in the footnote. See my reply to Jesurgislac for the URL.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 10:25 am
Daran, the FBI beleives that about 8% of rape reports to police are false, according to this article (although I’m unclear if “false,” in this context, means deliberate lies or if it’s including “unfounded” rapes, which may include real rapes without any supporting evidence).
I think that’s evidence in support of Jesu’s position.
Q Grrl and Bean, excellent, excellent posts. Thank you.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 10:41 am
Here are some suggestions.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 10:59 am
Is it common to subject people filing charges to polygraph tests? Does that happen to alleged mugging victims? I’d never heard of this practice before.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 11:01 am
And the sample isn’t just _small_. It’s disturbing. If only 109 rapes are reported over a period of _nine years_, then there are probably rapes going unreported.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 11:38 am
I work in childcare. I don’t provide it, but I arrange it. What you need to understand is that our primary concern is making sure these people’s loved ones are cared for, and they need to feel comfortable. I’ve yet to encounter any parent who doesn’t freak out completely over the possibility of a male care giver. And who are we to force them to have someone in their home, caring for their child, when they do not feel safe having that person care for their child?
Homophobia isn’t the reason. The reason is that the overwhelming majority of child molesters and rapists are male. This is an undisputable fact. To expect people to ignore that, particularly when it comes to their loved ones, is completely unreasonable.
This comment was written by oracleofdoom.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 12:08 pm
>>I’ve yet to encounter any parent who doesn’t freak out completely over the possibility of a male care giver. And who are we to force them to have someone in their home, caring for their child, when they do not feel safe having that person care for their child?>>
Setting everything else aside for the moment….Who are you? You’re an employer. That means that the comfort of your clients is not the only factor.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 12:26 pm
I didn’t say I was an employer. I said I arrange for care. I’m in fact not an employer, and yes, the comfort of my clients IS the most important factor.
This comment was written by oracleofdoom.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 1:01 pm
>>I didn’t say I was an employer. I said I arrange for care. I’m in fact not an employer, and yes, the comfort of my clients IS the most important factor. >>
Yes, you arrange for care by contacting care providers and telling them about opportunities to provide their services in exchange for a paycheck. You obtain jobs for people. You have an ethical responsibility not to discriminate. _That_ is an important factor. Moreover, “Don’t blame me! Blame my clients!” is not a valid justification.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 1:30 pm
Piny, it sounds like oracle is a broker, not an employer. It’s perhaps a narrow difference, but oracle doesn’t give anybody jobs - the clients give people the job. He/she is an information source. The ethical responsibility of non-discrimination, whatever that may be, falls on the people employing the day care, not their agent.
This comment was written by