Has anyone seen this Circulating on facebook yet?

oneiorosgrip · 2013-01-07T03:34:43+00:00

It is reasonable to argue that when you are aware of a risk factor, and you have available to you means or methods by which to reduce the risk, it is in your best interest to use them. That is the extent of the argument. The rest of the debate comes from feminist 'interpretation' which is nothing but deliberate misrepresentation of an opponent's intent.

Feminism's effort to make the dialogue about this argument (Don't teach women prevention/teach men how to behave) exists because they cannot debate the existing aspects of the discussion. They use this argument, not because men as a group have told women as a group that we have to look/act/travel a certain way to avoid rape but to corner their opponent into defending an idea that wasn't his to begin with (and the opponent here kind of fell for it.)

This is an argument which has become entirely ridiculous from the feminist perspective. Their campaign makes false assumptions.

Straw-Acquittal - This is feminism arguing against something which society didn't say: "Rape isn't rape if you didn't _____" (fill in the blank with preventative measure.) They've been arguing this for decades, as if rapists were being consistently exonerated strictly on victim-specific evidence; particularly, because of pre-encounter behavioral precautions the victim failed to take. What feminism is fighting here is not a reality, but a concept created during the movement's second wave to counter inquiries into accuser credibility in rape cases where there was a question of whether refusal occurred.
Begging the Question - Reserving the designation of rapist for only the male gender. "Teach men to not rape" ignores the very real equally heinous act of rape committed by females. It ignores male victims, as well, worded as if women were the only people ever subjected to the crime. This aspect of the campaign plays on society's habit of ignoring male victims. Female rapists can victimize either sex. One of the most ignored, denied, and misunderstood sex crimes is female rape of another female. (Link NSFW, Interview text relevant, but includes trailer for crime documentary which is graphic and violent.)
Straw-Rapist - the man with no sense of self-control, who commits rape because he doesn't know it's wrong. In the dialogue on stranger-rape, "Teach men not to rape" treats men as if it's natural for them to indiscriminately and randomly commit violent, invasive acts against others until they're taught otherwise. The campaign treats all men (and nobody else) as potential rapists because that's how feminists have been taught to think - rather than actually consider behavior on its own merits, they're led by the ideology of their movement to blanket-label.

While of late the party line seems to be focused on stranger rape, the campaign from which it is coming originated in controversy related to instances where there is a question of whether a sex act was consensual, or not, such as drunk sex, or in dating scenarios. In this context, the concept treats rape like it's an accident, not a human rights violation against the victim. The concept has been extended as a means of expanding the definition of rape to include circumstances which are not rape (like drunk sex,) diluting the meaning of the term from the deliberate act of contravening or ignoring the victim's right to refuse sexual contact that it is, to any act of sexual contact where the accuser may later state non-consent. Feminists want that meaning expanded and diluted in order to avail to women the power to use the potential for accusation to increase female control in dating and casual interactions, not to protect women from actually being raped.

Straw-Victim - the woman (and only women) with no personal agency, who wanders blithely through her life with no worry, and no reason, until disaster befalls her naive little self. She cannot think ahead, plan for any unwanted possibility, or ever assume that action she wants to take may contain risk. This poor dimwit is probably still waiting for that six-figure bank deposit from Nigeria, and that is not her fault, either. After all, since she cannot think for herself, and can't be expected to take any responsibility for her own actions.

In debating circumstances which are more controversial in terms of whether or not a sex act constitutes rape, feminists use a variation on the agency-lacking straw-victim wherein she is so emotionally weak and helpless that when faced with sexual advances, she is physically unable do anything but participate as if willing, and therefore should not be held responsible for facing the terrible challenge of refusing to participate by not demonstrating interest, indicating refusal with rejecting body language like "closed" posture, turning away, or pushing, or voicing a term of objection, "No. Stop. Don't."
The straw victim's purpose in that context is to create a hypothetical scenario in which a man may engage in sex with a partner who is averse to his actions, without knowing that she is averse, then later be labeled a rapist for his participation in that encounter; a means by which rape can be an accident, and a man can become guilty not because it's discovered that he did anything wrong, but because it's decided that he didn't do something right.

False Dichotomy - the idea that one must either assert the right to act as if no men are rapists, or be forced to assume that all men are rapists until taught otherwise. This ignores the possibility of recognizing that there are violent criminals (of both sexes) within a population which is mostly not violent or criminal.
Ignorance of criminal behavior - "Teach men not to rape" omits any understanding of the fact that violent criminal behavior is a function of choosing to ignore society's laws and tenets, not a function of being ignorant of them. Teaching people a lack of agency for both sides of any given violent crime as a method of crime-prevention does nothing but perpetuate naivety, and groom innocent people to become victims.

It is in the interest of addressing false allegations and the use of allegations as a weapon that MRAs have to confront feminist efforts like this one which deny the real, existing factors involved in the debate, and in the crime itself. Feminists do this in order to position themselves to impose their own conditions on the discussion, designed not to advocate for the protection of potential victims (of both sexes), but to create an image of men as violent-impulse-driven, unthinking animals who don't know to not commit heinous acts unless told; this campaign reduces the perception of male decision agency to a standard requiring female authority to direct male choices. And like rape, that reduction is also not an accident.

ToraZalinto · 2013-01-07T02:49:59+00:00

The only problem here is that there isn't any data, that I know of, that suggests a women who is dressed more provocatively is more likely to be raped. However this is the one feminists assert MRA's say to "blame the victim" when, if it comes up at all, the only thing that's usually said is "They shouldn't have been alone late at night" or some other obvious safety risk that could have been avoided.

Auldreekie · 2013-01-07T03:15:24+00:00

That little line of thinking presumes that you are incapable of control

No it doesn't, because I'm not a bloody rapist.

I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure most violent criminals have a problem with self-control.

jpaul3211 · 2013-01-07T04:12:59+00:00

Don't walk down that alley or you might get [xyz].

Don't walk on those train tracks or you might get run over by a train. Don't jaywalk or you might get run over by a car. Don't reduce your risk of getting hurt or you might get hurt.

They get so hung up on the rape word, as if no other violence at all could occur if a woman or a man were to "act in a certain way" or something, or were in a high-crime area. It boggles the mind.

Amunium · 2013-01-07T06:19:03+00:00

This argument is so pathetically stupid it depresses me every time I see it. Telling someone how they can avoid crime X does not mean that I am going to commit crime X if they don't take my advice. That leap in logic is unbelievably absurd.

That the advice is likely incorrect is completely irrelevant. Giving bad advice with good intentions is not a threat.

2013-01-07T12:53:49+00:00

The response there is likening wearing something around men in the culture to being in a dark alley where people with guns hang out, is that correct?

There isn't actually any evidence that wearing something creates a significant victim facilitation, in the west. There is evidence that most rapes happen around people known to the victim. The study on victim facilitation of murder victims found only 1 in 5 victims had high facilitation.

If above is true which is seems to be, lecturing women about not wearing x or going y to prevent their own rapes, is wrongheaded.

So both sides have it wrong.

Most murder victims in this study didn't significantly facilitate.

Hickey found that 13-15% of victims had high facilitation, 60-64% of victims had low facilitation and 23-25% of victims had a combination of high and low facilitation.[27] Hickey also noted that among serial killer victims after 1975, one in five victims placed themselves at risk either by hitchhiking, working as a prostitute or involving themselves in situations in which they often came into contact with strangers.[27] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimology#Victim_facilitation

Coinin · 2013-01-07T12:11:25+00:00

I've seen it a few times, and made the same argument. I'm equally pissed off by the "Feminism doesn't assume men are rapists, that's patriarchy" ones.

2013-01-07T12:45:34+00:00

Hmm. I find the whole line of thought infantile. I mean fine, wear what you want, do what you want, act how you want. But then don't be surprised if the 2% of population that is predatory use it as an opportunity to prey on you, and the other 98% avoid you because they don't know how to deal with the mixed signals.

2013-01-07T18:44:23+00:00

More feminist Inflammations.

Is There a cream for these inflammations???

colourhive · 2013-01-07T16:59:18+00:00

if you cross the street without looking both ways you may get hit by a car. You can minimise this risk by crossing at a crossing point or on a quieter road.

If you are hit by the car, it would be the driver's fault, but you could have prevented it by looking both ways.

That's my reasoning, DAE think its a poor analogy?

archaevist · 2013-01-07T14:50:12+00:00

rapists follow a certain profile

So... Black people?

Title	Has anyone seen this Circulating on facebook yet?
Author	ozymodeus
Upvotes	137
Comments	39
Date	January 6, 2013 9:37 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/162w36/has-anyone-seen-this-circulating-on-facebook-yet/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/has-anyone-seen-this-circulating-on-facebook-yet.1603451 https://theredarchive.com/post/1603451

Comments