Daring people? after the disgusting allegations that have been thrown my way?
And of course, the post where I did say that in full context was...
So, are we just repeating ourselves, then?
• This is an example of my point about history and narrative. Follow the bouncing ball, so to speak. The biggest indictment of "all men" comes from law enforcement and political advocacy giving women advice toward "preventing" rape. When women point out how ridiculous this is, to live on guard twenty-four seven, suspecting any man who comes near her, that is when the masculinists are suddenly offended, and start complaining, "#NotAllMen!"
Anyway, really:
"Not all men" means exactly that...NOT ALL MEN.
Why tell women? Why
tell Bells↑? Why not tell the law enforcers and moralists and religious supremacists?
Again: The biggest indictment of "all men" comes from law enforcement and political advocacy advising women how to "prevent" rape. But that's not who you're interested in telling. So, "Not all men", means exactly that, "not all men", but your priority is telling women, and not the people actually putting "all men", as such, on the line.
And since we're repeating ourselves, at this point we should reiterate the part about
six years ago↗, when I quoted a woman explaining that Infinite Prevention Advice empowers rape, so that it "isn't just controlling me while I'm actually being assaulted—it controls me 24/7 because it limits my behavior". The people who tell her to guard against all men? She's sick of them, too. But why would you tell her, instead of the people who advise she guard against all men?
Here's the
blog version↱:
You're getting ready for a night out, maybe dinner at the Met and, I don't know, you wouldn't attend the theatre on your own, would you? So, what, is she dragging you along for one of those chick things? Whatever. Perhaps you might ask her why she's wearing sweats and running shoes instead of, you know, a dress and heels like she wore the night you fell head over heels in lust with her legs. “Rape prevention”, she tells you. As you walk the couple blocks from your parking space to the restaurant, her phone rings, but she doesn't answer it. Maybe it's something important, but she doesn't bother with it. “Rape prevention”, she explains. And it really is a lovely dinner, except what's her problem, right? She comes back from the bathroom, stares pointedly across the table at you as she dips her fingertip into her drink and holds it there briefly. Then she looks at her fingernail and nods. “Rape prevention”, she explains. Because, let's face it, of all the possible rapists in the city, the odds favor the proposition that if it's her turn you will be the rapist.
Would it occur to you to wonder where she's getting all these "prevention" tips, or would you just be pissed off because #NotAllMen?
Again, the intersectionalism of the feminist historical narrative: Her way, she's sick of the expectation that she should guard against all men. Your way, it's apparently your job to complain at her about the expectations other people would burden her with. Because ... well, just because.
Moreover what does "not all men" have to do with false accusations? It's a
non sequitur, and really does, just crammed in there so bluntly, "I also find the 'Not all Men' meme as justified and factual", read like you're daring people. It's kind of like
Tim Wise↱ said of racism:
"If I call a casual drinker an alcoholic they don't go binging just to 'show me.'"
†
A not entirely irrelevant contextual note: I underestimated this thread from the outset. Pub style, had I been in the room when you dropped the alien-woman line, I might have boo-hissed, or just groaned, or, y'know, whatever. Board style, I was far too amused with an internal ironic note, and just figured the splinter would go wherever it went. Flip-side, I don't know why I'm surprised by its course.
Thing is, there are a range of discussions, seemingly interrelated, in which idyllic potentials are theoretic matters rarely if ever observed in effect. I thought about getting into this thread a couple days ago because of something else going on along the way, and of course things had already gone downhill; really, I don't know why I was surprised.
†
Over time, one standout aspect about discussions in which some men feel improperly accused of sexism is just how many of those men seem absolutely determined to affirm the sexism. In the other distraction, part of what stood out was a matter of priorities, which might seem a bit obscure for our moment, except the basic comparison works. I should not be surprised that someone eventually went down that other road; supremacism does have some archetypal traits. It's not quite a Godwin's Law thing, perhaps more about birds of common feather.
†
There is also this:
Let me say at this stage, that I now regret reacting to James' mentioning of the relevant joke even though fairly mildly with 'is it?" and "Lighten up". Of course then I get back his predicted allegation of harassing women, when the joke was not directed at anyone in particular. And then the disgusting language that followed in other posts.
I'm rather confident that many members are more concerned with that, then my off the cuff, "funny" not directed at anyone.
Those four sentences actually have the effect of further reinforcing the point.
Your mild response to James was as in the groove of the underlying chauvinism as you could get. The thing about the larger harassment question is that the various elements and episodes are not unrelated to the present question. And, yes, many people weathering the storms of chauvinistic courses find the circumstance disgusting. But it's also true the appeal ad populum is, in its own way, predictable.
That last is akin to the discussion about "cancel culture", or the Gay Fray. Some of us are dubious when advocates of canceling, constraining, silencing, and suppressing others according to aesthetics complain that they are being canceled, silenced, and suppressed when their advocacy against others is challenged. Indeed, there might be "many members", as such, "more concerned" with the backlash against sexism, but that trope is not simply roadworn, it has been exhausted to death, beaten while dead, and resurrected by arcane sorcery only to be beaten to death. It's not a workhorse, it's a stain on the macadam. To be clear: The idea that "many people" are "more concerned" with a critique they perceive as potentially disruptive to their own aesthetics is no more significant of justification than it is new.
If I have, in my own context, my own coin toss about the whole mess, like I said, it's an internalized irony, and if it proves to be important, circumstance will out. But inasmuch as the various elements and episodes driving accusations of sexism are not unrelated, we might consider those concerns that many people often have about critiques against supremacism. If this starts with a scrap of a dumbassed habit of societal praxis, that's all it ever really needed to be. Sometimes we pop off with a line, without thinking. It happens, and we can easily suggest it isn't the biggest deal in the world, but neither is it without its testament to priorities. And, sure, maybe yours felt to some readers like a little too much effort for the rhythm, or maybe some will feel like you've been jumped, but still: What happens
next can be just that important. Reinforcement of an old and familiar chauvinism should not win sympathy for its familiarity. The stations of your response are not unknown, much like someone else's distracting digression along the way should not surprise me.
Or, sometimes we just skip past disbelief that someone would follow that course, nodding to ourselves and saying, of course they would. No, it's not literally that they always do, but with your stance, sure, hindsight says of course you were going to stand on this hill; with someone else's disruption, yes, of course he's going to put on that supremacist pretense. Retrospection that one should not have been surprised a discussion went this way comes quickly.
____________________
Notes:
@timjacobwise. "Tired of people saying, 'Calling people racist (when they don't feel like 1) is what makes them racist.' Bullshit. If u use that as an excuse 4 being racist it's bc u already were one. If I call a casual drinker an alcoholic they don't go binging just to 'show me.' Own your shit". Twitter. 24 August 2019. Twitter.com. 20 December 2020. http://bit.ly/2NATYWS
bd. "A Cheeky Chickie Champloo". This Is. 11 November 2014. bdthisis.wordpress.com. 20 December 2020. https://wp.me/pUgG0-FY
