Rape and the "Civilized" World

Awwww I liked that. Thanks Quinn.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Defender of the Defended

Not-All-Man: Defender of the Defended

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not-All-Man: Detail of cartoon by Matt Lubchansky​

Sometimes I think of Homer Simpson: "I kicked a giant mouse in the butt! Do I have to draw you a diagram?" And then there are times when the diagram might have words in it, so, you know, it still doesn't work. Still, though, Matt Lubchansky's viral sensation Not-All-Man marks yet another attempt to make a simple point that sympathetic minds will at least get a wry smile out of, but the intended audience can be more reliably wagered to miss:

It’s a sharp, damning satire of a familiar kind of bad-faith argument, the one where a male interlocutor redirects a discussion about sexism, misogyny, rape culture, or women’s rights to instead be about how none of that is his fault. And it struck a nerve.

† † †​

“Not all men” also differs from “what about the men?” and other classic derails because it acknowledges that rape, sexism, and misogyny are real issues — just not, you know, real issues that the speaker is involved with in any way. The “not all men” man, at least in some cases, agrees with you and is perfectly willing to talk about how terrible those other guys are, just as soon as we get done establishing that he himself would never be such a cad. It’s infuriating and unhelpful, but in a way it represents a weird kind of progress.

Lubchansky agreed that the shift from “but what about men’s problems” to “not all men are like that” paralleled his own gradual development into a decent human. Perhaps men arguing on the Internet (though not all men!) follow a developmental path that echoes an individual man growing a social conscience, which in a very simplified form goes something like this:

1. Sexism is a fake idea invented by feminists
2. Sexism happens, but the effect of “reverse sexism” on men is as bad or worse
3. Sexism happens, but the important part is that I personally am not sexist
4. Sexism happens, and I benefit from that whether or not I personally am sexist
5. Sexism happens, I benefit from it, I am unavoidably sexist sometimes because I was socialized that way, and if I want to be anti-sexist I have to be actively working against that socialization​

Is it possible “not all men” rose to prominence when the level of online discourse moved from stage 2 to stage 3?

The Not-All-Man hero and his minions are paralyzingly obsessed with protecting their own self-concept, to a degree that prevents them from engaging in sincere discussion. But this contrast — between “not all men” and earlier derailing tactics — suggests that maybe they also represent a small and subtle shift towards good-faith argumentation.

(Zimmerman)​

It's a big maybe.

Still, though, why not? This isn't quite plinking village idiots for sport, so ... right. We'll see how this goes.
____________________

Notes:

Zimmerman, Jess. "Not All Men: A Brief History of Every Dude's Favorite Argument". Time. April 28, 2014. Time.com. April 28, 2014. http://time.com/79357/not-all-men-a-brief-history-of-every-dudes-favorite-argument/

See Also:

Lubchansky, Matt. "Save Me". Please Listen to Me. April 10, 2014. Listen-ToMe.com. April 28, 2014. http://www.listen-tome.com/save-me/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When is a generalisation not a generalisation?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How "as a result"? This has never made sense to me. From reason alone, abstractly, one would think that having no experience raising children and presenting a lifetime of focus on something as narrow and shallow and limiting as most careers would disqualify men from being "in charge of everything", or being entrusted with important political and social functions in society at all.

By reason, logic, and ordinary or obvious biological imperative, the US Congress (or at least the House, which deals more with domestic stuff like budgets than war etc) should be mostly grandmothers - that's how elephants and wolves and hyenas and whales and wild horses and other highly intelligent as well as social large mammals set things up. Even chimpanzee and other large primate societies are governed largely by long lived and experienced females. That would seem to be the presumptive or apparent biological role of the long postreproductive lifespan of human females - built in by evolution.

Apparently some kind of sociologically based technology or circumstance of violence has interfered - recently? - with normal biological imperatives here.

 

I have held this very view(instinctive/ intuition) for a long time and believe there well may have been some kind of genocide initially, additionally I believe the introduction of the Abrahamic God (The Big Three) is responsible for redefining or outright denying the existence of matriarchal societies that existed previously. Sounds like a great thread Iceaura!

 

¿A Reminder of What Is Important?

When it is a customary obligation. See Tedeschi, quoted in topic post:

When it comes to a woman's right to walk unharmed through a city street, our understanding takes a nose dive.

'Of course we're not rapists!' we say to ourselves. We condemn the pack-animal mentality in India. 'My mother is a woman!' It's as predictable as a 90's Demtel commercial. But then, we'll go home and watch The Footy Show or maybe Jersey Shore, both of which reduce women to empty vessels at best and objects of sexual derision at worst. Some of us may go to the pub - even joined by A Woman, because we're evolved - and they like to joke along too! It's all part of the fun! Lighten up! (Nice pins, by the way).

If, God forbid, a woman is attacked here in Australia, the inevitable questions about where and with whom she was before it happened convince me more than anything that we are embroiled in dangerous times. In 2012, our postcard playground is still smeared with this retrograde thinking. Jill Meagher, even in death, was maligned by the protectors of female chastity for daring to venture out by herself at night time.

In short, we just don't get it.

Yes, there are gradations of sexism. There's Al Qaeda on one side and a few loose smatterings of men on the other extreme. But, let's be honest, boys - most of us Nice Guys are in the middle and we're not budging. Because that would force us to question our own assumptions about our own masculinity and how it is impacted by the empowering of over one half of the global community.​

There is also an inchoate notion that generalizations offered in defense of rapists are also a good thing; the question of what to do in those moments is always morbid and wicked, and rarely delicious. See "Counterproposal: Don't dress like a slut" (Sciforums, 2008), especially the grenade bit at #119 in that thread. It was a little surprising to me to see the Not-All-Men and Devil's Advocates and philandronists keep generally silent in the face of such generalizations about men. But those generalizations help men get away with rape get righteously and properly laid, apparently, so that's okay ...

• #1878878/119: "again, rape is bad. but if you pull the pin out of a grenade, is it your fault or the grenade's when it blows up? when a man sees cleavage/legs/whatever, there's a lot of chemical reactions going on in his body. high heels arch the feet, simulating feet during orgasm. the stuff you're wearing is designed to expose and emphasise sexual features."​

... or something.

The obligations put upon women in the question of rape in society are such that functional generalizations about the dangers, complications, and other obstacles presented by men are necessary considerations. As Zimmerman noted (see #982):

It’s true that previous derailment favorites like “patriarchy hurts men too” were paraphrases in a way that “not all men” is not. The demand is the same — “please move me to the center of your discussion” — but “not all men” is, in many cases, straight from the horse’s mouth; even an amateur Reddit spelunker can turn up plenty of sulky or defensive uses of the phrase.

“Not all men” also differs from “what about the men?” and other classic derails because it acknowledges that rape, sexism, and misogyny are real issues — just not, you know, real issues that the speaker is involved with in any way. The “not all men” man, at least in some cases, agrees with you and is perfectly willing to talk about how terrible those other guys are, just as soon as we get done establishing that he himself would never be such a cad.​

And when it comes up, it's just a reminder of what's important to this or that person.

 

It is not.

 

The Obvious

Would be nice, I agree, but the evidence on record suggests you're either being contrarian for the hell of being contrarian, or else haven't been paying attention to the thread.

Or, perhaps, you would like to expand on your suggestion?

 

Wait... what? This sounds like the old tired saying that a man cannot/should not control himself if a woman is dressed provocatively and thus, by doing so, it is the womans fault... why do people still think that way?

 

Teckla and Ashes

Yeah, that's a hell of a thread. Brutal. Just ... fucking ... brutal.

Six years later, it persists as one of our potentially most iconic insanities.

 

Indeed... though I guess sociopathic and/or pathologically criminal tendencies would be a sign of someone who lacks the proper restraint?

 

You don't say... Quite the lark though, I had no idea who was who or what I had wondered into. Wow.

I'm still not sure about the whole predeterminism / determinism / destiny thing. I prefer to believe life is composed of both choice and chance. But hey, that's just my personal opinion. I'm happier that way...

 

For a great many reasons.

The prototype of relationships as portrayed in our media. Watch any drama and count how many equal, fairly happy relationships there are vs. the number of problem relationships. The number of people with exes, the number of times a man shakes his head and sadly says "no, my wife . . . ." the number of times a woman on a show complains about men. Such prototypes set people up to expect relationships to be rancorous and difficult, thus setting the stage for people to expect conflict. This has gotten worse in something of a vicious cycle - as more media portrays relationship prototypes this way, more people engage in them, thus setting the stage for more media portrayals of a subject familiar to many viewers.

The overarching prototype that men should be aggressive and women should decide who to "give in" to. Note that this has actually gotten BETTER with time. Consider "It's a Wonderful Life" - an iconic movie that most people consider a heartwarming family story from a simpler, more moral time. Note what George does to Mary just before he kisses her for the first time.

The societal premise that men are just going to be aggressive, and that women who do not successfully defend themselves are somehow impure. This leads not only to sexual violence, but to women who fear to come forward about sexual assault. Fortunately this is improving, albeit slowly.

The objectification of women prevalent not only in pornography and popular culture but even in children's toys. This tends to cause society to devalue their demands, such as the right to say "no" to sexual advances.

Because it's a very scary thing to contemplate, and it's easy to misplace that fear onto men who _can_ help themselves (i.e. the vast majority.)

 

Middle America and Rape Culture

Rape Culture: A Proud Tradition of 'Middle America'?

We probably wouldn't blame anyone for wondering something so vague as the proverbial "WTF?"

The superintendent of the eastern Ohio district where two high school football players were found guilty of rape in a high-profile case last year wiped computer hard drives, erased emails and lied to investigators about his knowledge of the allegations against the boys, newly released court documents say.

The filing Thursday came in the case against Steubenville superintendent Michael McVey, 51, who has pleaded not guilty to felony counts of tampering with evidence and obstructing justice, and misdemeanor counts of falsification and obstructing official business.

The charges stem from an investigation of McVey's actions after he learned of the allegations in 2012 made by a 16-year-old West Virginia girl against the two members of the storied Steubenville High football team, one of whom was the team's quarterback. The teens eventually were found guilty in juvenile court and were sent to youth detention centers and classified as sex offenders ....

.... McVey is accused of misleading authorities about the school's investigation into the rape allegations and concealing knowledge about rumors of sex and drinking at a teen party four months earlier.

The new filing alleges that he erased evidence that included emails and data on computer hard drives. McVey may have had someone wipe the hard drives for him, the document says.

McVey is on paid administrative leave. Calls seeking comment from his attorney Friday were not returned.

Three other people associated with the school and football team were charged along with McVey.

(Gillispie)​

It should also be noted that two of the other people arrested and charged in this latest batch are elementary school principals accused of failing to report suspected child abuse; those two have an out in exchange for training and community service requirements.

The remaining individual charged is a volunteer coach who pled no contest to hosting a party featuring teenage students and alcohol, resulting in a ten-day jail sentence.

To the one, this is certainly what rape culture looks like. To the other, it is also a spectacular example, one that stands prominently above the noise and bluster of ideas and presumptions that drive rape culture.

Just look at the priorities: Football? Yeah, compared to high school football, rape is just an annoying distraction.

To what degree is this sort of thing also a component of that legendary "Middle America" so proud of its "family values"?
____________________

Notes:

Gillispie, Mark. "Steubenville Schools Chief Accused Of Destroying Evidence In Rape Investigation". Associated Press. May 23, 2014. HuffingtonPost.com. May 24, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/23/michael-mcvey_n_5382894.html