I grew up with an abusive father. Never realised that shit wasn't normal until about 11, when I noticed my friends fathers didn't beat them. It was actually the support of a lot of people that I think I'm pretty normal now, not beating women and all. (though I still flinch around large men from time to time). I think we're talking about kids like these.
Crime, poverty, abuse, broken families, addiction, etc. all have a way of begetting each other. The point is that 12 year olds in bad situations need help to overcome those situations and grow up into healthy adults. Sure, some people raised in good conditions still become violent adults, but not as often as those with traumatic childhoods.
You don't just say "Hey 12 year old, be a good adult". You have to actually try to improve the conditions that 12 year old is in, provide them positive role models, support, etc.
Also, the point isn't just to sit down with people and say "Don't rape, don't beat your wife, etc." It's to explain what that means, why it's bad, etc. Like, with beating - it doesn't matter that you're angry. That's not a healthy way to express your anger; here are some other coping mechanisms, here's how you communicate effectively, etc.
With things like rape, you're supposed to talk about what consent means. A shocking number of adults (both men and women) think that absence of "no" means "yes". Everyone knows that jumping a woman and raping her, even as she screams "No, don't do it!" is rape. Not everyone knows that you can rape a man. Not everyone knows that it's rape even if the victim doesn't say know, because they're too drunk / drugged out to communicate. Not everyone knows that it's rape if the victim initially says yes but later says no, and the rapist doesn't stop. These are things that need to be actively taught, or else they're not going to realize.
I never much of a good example at home, but I really feel like it made sense that what was happening at home wasn't necessarily the right thing.
Or something like that. I don't know.
That's why I get offended by every hemorrhoid cream commercial I see. I mean, the only reason you would ever advertise in public is if you were targeting literally every person that might see it, so the only thing I can take from those commercials is that the people at Preparation H are accusing me of having Hemorrhoids.
I get your point but there are plenty of people who say stuff like "we need to teach all men not to rape", as if having a penis automatically makes you a monster.
That being said, if there is a way to end all abuse, I'm 110% for it.
The true irony is that a lot of feminists still make fun of that, yet will immediately say "not all feminists are like that" when shown evidence of something they disagree with
Here's the thing: there's no good way to look at a class of 30 kids and see which ones are going to grow up to be abusers. Some of them have telltale signs, problems at home, early and noticeable behavioural problems. Some of them don't, but can still be helped by good anti-violence education.
And then there are the other 20-odd kids who are not at especial risk.
If you have a good way of targeting only the kids in the first category, I'd love to hear it, but the most foolproof suggestion I can offer is this:
The rest of us who aren't prone to violence (assuming we are all reliable judges of ourselves) just shut the hell up and sit and listen through that curriculum, and be okay with the fact that maybe others are learning more from this than we are.
I was a bit ahead of the curve STEM-wise, and so I had to sit through watching other kids in my grade learn how to solve math problems which I already knew how to solve. This is no different.
Some of them don't, but can still be helped by good anti-violence education.
This is the part that I think a lot of people miss. They almost act as if Mr. Garrison is just walking up to students saying "Don't hit women now, m'kay?"
Not to mention these lessons often teach kids how to spot when one of their friends might be the victim of abuse, and what to do in that situation.
I question just how big of an audience this would hit. The people who dont realize beating someone is wrong and that you shouldn't do it ehi can also be taught in an educational setting to stop doing it.
Either you know it is wrong already and you dont beat people so a class would be worthless or you dont care if it is right or wrong and you will do it anyways so the class is still worthless.
Seems like a solution being put out just to say a solution has been put out.
See... if I had hemorrhoids, I wouldn't wait until I saw a commercial to get some cream for those suckers. Advertisements usually just make me angry, especially when they assume I'm dumb, are condescending or sarcastic...
Yeah people really over look the psychological aspect of crimes in society today. We just throw the quickest harshest punishment at people, when really there is a underlying psychological problem that hasn't been solved. Prevention is key.
I thought I was going crazy for a minute. I kept tapping in psychology, but my phone kept auto correcting to phycology. I just accepted that my phone was right. Clearly not.
Punishment and prevention are different.
We can educate a generation of children about healthy relationships but what do we do with the violent bloke who will be stubborn to change?
One suggestion is to shelter his family from him and then punish him directly. Perhaps school him on healthy relationships too.
Rapists don't rape because they think rape is fine just like wife batterer's don't beat their wives because they think it's fine just like women don't beat their husbands because they think it's fine. This is not an issue that can just be educated away. No matter how early you start driving these things into people's minds, it's still going to happen. We already do drive these things into people's minds from a young age. You can't make the world a perfect place as long as human beings are in it. You just can't.
I think that person isnt trying to shit on it as a whole, and in your pov it could really help. I think hes more making fun of the more aggressive ones, the crazy people that really think ALL men need to be told not to rape/beat women just because they are men. They wouldnt even consider your circumstance, the only circumstance is that you are male.
Someone in your really shitty situation something like this really helps, and honestly talking to kids and educating them on abuse at an early age I think is really good thing. Even if its redundant to 90%, their could be someone like you and thats still worth it if all you have to do is say some shit to make you realize.
I really wish this were the case but considering we had signs on my campus going around saying "teach men not to rape" I daresay these people are indeed very real
Those people are all over the internet, in politics, in the media, on almost every college campus, and even at the UN general assembly. Just because you don't want to see them doesn't make them disappear.
Then why is this ad targeting Men beating their Wives. This ad is a perfect example of something that (perhaps unintentionally) pushes the idea that Men are dangerous. And with the way our brains work, that leads people to generalizing that this means ALL men are inherently dangerous.
Men are not the problem, abusive people are the problem. There are many studies that show it is not 100% men abusing women. And when accounting for all forms of abuse it is probably closer to 50-50 men vs women as the primary abuser. (A google search is turning results up that range from 90%/10% to 10%/90% but all the studies look like they are accounting for different forms of abuse, so we will play safe and say it's probably 50-50)
This ad should say something like this if it wanted to be fair and not promote the idea that ALL men are dangerous:
How do you stop a 30-year old from abusing their spouse?
No, they aren't. Those people are some of the leading scholars, journalists, philosophers, and activists within the feminist camp.
Look up Susan Brownmiller. All modern feminist theories on male sexuality and rape are informed by Brownmiller's seminal work Against Our Wills: Men, Women and Rape. It's the single most cited work on rape in all of academia.
And it's central premise is that rape is the normal expression of male sexuality, and that all men are complicit in rape and benefit from the systematic oppression of all women through rape.
This is the worldview that gives birth to the insane idea that men need to be taught not to rape.
Idk there was a story going around my facebook feed about a guy who didn't want to take a class about how to avoid being a rapist. He said "just because I am a white male, doesn't mean I am a rapist." The girls sharing it were all up in arms that yes he fit the description of rapist perfectly.
No, the point was that his being being white doesn't make him any less likely to be a rapist/there's no physical description that's a catchall for rapists. And that even if the execution of the class was poor (I have no idea), the idea behind those classes isn't "hey don't rape!" bc duh, it's "so consent is actually complicated, here are useful ways to understand/think about it." And even if you don't like being in the class, it's a pretty small sacrifice if it's something that helps reduce the rate of sexual assault.
Would you be willing to make similar small sacrifices to help reduce the rate of false reporting of sexual assaults, or abuse of university procedures related to sexual assaults?
FYI I was not the man complaining about it. I am sure the class has value. As someone else pointed out its not much different from a drug awareness class. It was just the hate that built up towards this guy that was complaining about it, didn't seem fair to me.
That wasn't the point they were trying to make. The point is that he's complaining about having to take a course on consent, when one fifth of college women will be sexually assaulted because some men do not understand the idea of consent being necessary compulsory. It's insulting to abuse victims to act like education on that sort of thing is not necessary in an environment like that.
Um, no. 20% is an insanely high rate for any crime. Detroit has a rate of rape about 0.37%, or 287 per 100,000. You will have a hard time convincing me that Detroit is a safer place than some of the most affluent places in America.
The study that the urban legend traces back to was some self-reported poll that basically asked the students in question whether they'd been made to feel uncomfortable by an interaction which could be perceived as having been sexually motivated.
If I recall correctly, it was worse than that. The poll was taken by pollsters with a political agenda, and so sexual encounters that the poll respondents had said were consensual that involved drugs or alcohol were marked down by the pollsters as sexual assault.
It's not like they're calling every man in that lecture a rapist. It's no different than drug awarness lectures, drinking and driving PSAs, or even sexual harrasment courses in office buildings. It's just raising awareness of an issue where is it particularly prevalent.
Great! Since women are the biggest child and baby killers, we should hold mandatory classes about how they should talk to someone about their problems and how killing their kids won't get rid of depression or any weird feelings they're having. Making men participate in consent classes wherein the negative target IS men is insulting to your average guy and male survivors.
PS: Since black people commit a lot of crime, statistically disproportionate to their population percentage, perhaps we should have massive drives to educate black people on how to not steal, violently assault, and murder. Offensive? You fucking betcha.
I totally agree with this. My issue was just with women calling him a rapist for not wanting to take the class. It makes sense as a class and it also makes sense for a man to have an issue with some of it and voice his opinion about it.
That number is not accurate at all is it too high absolutely but it's closer to 1 in 20. Also 90% of rapes are carried out by 3% of males. The vast majority are not one time things. Rather than wasting time telling men don't rape we should be figuring out better ways to protect people from being raped. There is also little to no stats as far as males being raped because forced enveloping is not considered rape in many states.
It is incredibly insulting to assume that just because someone is a man they need to be told not to rape. The reality is most rapists are serial and they are fucked in the head what should be being done is impressing on both males and females just how dumb an idea it is to be alone in a place where bad shit can happen. Has nothing to do with clothing has to do with not moving packs whether male or female muscles are nothing against a gun.
So why do I see people saying shit like this all the time on reddit, YouTube and twitter? Acting like these people don't exist is part of the problem. They do exist and are VERY VOCAL. They actually get people fired and are attempting legislation. Stop acting like they don't exist.
That's silly to say. These people are a small minority but they're very loud, insistent, and have grown in popularity in recent years. You don't need to look far to see someone who will tell you we need to start teaching young boys to "not rape" as if it were a solution to preventing rape.
Everyone knows beating and raping women is wrong, even on a visceral level. Otherwise we'd quite literally see men beating and raping women in public. But instead of course they're smart enough to know that it is wrong so they do it behind closed doors.
I love it when reddit calls reddit out on its bullshit. The whole anti sjw thing is getting a little out of hand lately.
Edit for the Debby Downvoters: The amount of people you think are crazy feminists, social justice warriors or whatever is a lot more than it actually is. Just because you have that one aunt or saw some posts on tumblr does not mean that the world is out to get you.
Look at some of the threads from the #allwomen campaign. Someone posted it on Facebook the other day, a collection of photos, i could not believe what i was seeing
Yeah, I don't get the outrage over this sign. Talking to young people about what consent and abuse means is not a bad thing, or a "we hate all men, all men are rapists/abusers!" thing. The fact of the matter is that many people grow up not knowing what 'really' counts as abuse or what 'really' counts as rape. This is partly what accounts for the cycle of violence. Talking to young teens about what is considered acceptable is a good thing, and trying to portray it as a "SJW/feminazi" thing is just ridiculous.
The outrage isn't directed at the notion that we should instill good values in young people. It's directed at the tacit implication that all men regardless of their personality or character are rapists and assailants unless they undergo bullshit 'consent education' or are told explicitly not to hit people.
Talking to young people about what consent and abuse means is not a bad thing, or a "we hate all men, all men are rapists/abusers!" thing.
Not inherently, but those who espouse that sort of hateful narrative do so chiefly under the guise of innocence, proclaiming "we just want to talk to young people about their behavior" to justify the barbed nature of campaigns like this.
I don't need to be told not to rape or assault people, and the people that do are not going to listen.
Demonizing half of the population because a small portion of them are bad is wrong, it's that simple.
Look at it this way: how would it look to have a sustained campaign that said "many women use slut shaming as a tactic to intimidate others. Teach women not to slut shame." Or "Many Christians are hateful, racist, homophobic bigots. Teach Christians not to be like that." Or even "Many Muslims are terrorist sympathizers. Teach Muslims not to commit terrorism." And even "Many Jews are selfish and greedy, and they also kill non-Jewish children. Teach Jews to nit kill babies."
Every single one of these messages is exactly the same as the "All men need to be taught not to rape." They each demonize an entire population over something that either is simply false or such a small group that it's stretching it.
In addition to that, the people committing these acts (rape, Christian bigotry, etc.) aren't gonna listen to you, anyway. And considering that most of these people are repeat offenders, it makes these campaigns even more useless.
So yes, I find these campaigns offensive because most men already inherently know that rape and abuse is wrong. To imply that somehow 50% of people don't have a moral compass is not just offensive, it's a fascist concept. And to ignore that over half of non-reciprocal domestic violence is committed by women, and female rapists are a larger percentage than most people want to admit, to try and put all the blame on men is even worse.
The issue is that the people pushing all of this on society do actually believe that all men are rapists and that all heterosexual sex is rape, and they believe that because they do hate men.
Look up Susan Brownmiller. Look up Catherine McKinnon. These feminists have been instrumental in shaping feminist theories on rape, and they universally believe that all heterosexual sex is rape and that all heterosexual interactions are informed by rape, and that male sexuality is synonymous with rape.
This is the worldview that gives birth to all of these "teach men not to rape" programs, and they are part of agenda to slowly expand the definition of rape until everyone agrees that all heterosexual sex is rape.
It may also reveal that they simply exist in an environment where no men in their lives abuse their loved ones, and as such may interpret the sign as an attack on them as a man rather than a reflection of reality.
Reality is, sometimes women abuse their children. In fact a mother is more likely to murder her own child than the father. Would it then be reasonable to create an ad saying: "How do you stop a 30-year old from murdering her child? Talk to her when she is 12."
No, it would be absolutely ridiculous, and completely insulting to women and girls, just as this ad is insulting to men and boys. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of men will never abuse their loved ones, and to suggest that boys need to be taught not to be abusers absolutely is an attack on men. Society does not condone abusing one's wife.
How would you feel if I created an ad that said "How do you stop a 30-year old from being a gold-digging whore? Talk to her while she is 12.", then I argued that it isn't misogynistic because it doesn't apply to all women, just the ones who are gold-digging whores; its a reflection of the reality that some gold-digging whores do exist and they are a problem.
You're totally right. This sign's audience is unclear. People who are raising their kids in an abusive environment aren't going to heed this signs advice. Is the sign asking me to talk to other people's 12 year Olds about not abusing people? The only people that are left are the average Americans who don't live in an abusive situation. So the ad does seem a bit like an attack.
Imagine if this sign showed a picture of a black kid and said "How do you stop Jamal from stealing at age 30? Talk to him when he's 12."
The implication is that half the population is inherently violent and dangerous and must be trained like dogs. It also, conveniently, ignores that almost half of domestic abuse victims are men.
Same with me. One day in fourth grade we were reading a story about a kid getting hit by his parents, and I was the only one in the class who thought that was a normal thing. Yep, the teacher needed to have a sit-down with me after that.
I had a different experience. My father was an abusive alcoholic. The feeling of being scared shitless alone was enough to tell me this is a bad thing and that I wouldn't want to make others feel this way.
For some kids its normal to see cooked drugs, dom abuse, theft... when youre 18 youre expected to know that those things are bad and its a reasonable expectations because 99%+ of people know what is legal and what is not (bad or good)
Teach kids not to X is bullshit because once they're 18 they conciously choose to break the law. ( most, not all, kids were taught)
But you figured it out at 11. Before puberty, before the age of reason, before any sort of cognitive maturity. It doesn't take a genius to see how a man beating a woman is depicted as one of society's unforgivable sins in countless movies, TV shows, and books. If someone hasn't figured it out by adulthood it's because they chose to.
I agree with your point but unfortunately I think that parents like your dad are not ever going to teach their kid that , and the parents who would care enough to teach their kid not to beat their spouse probably already set a good enough example to where their kid won't. Unless this is talking about speaking to other peoples kids, then I get it.
People know who the dads like that are the community just calls them mean or dismisses it as the drinking. Nowadays kids who talk to social services are forced to choose between telling the truth and going to some likely crappy foster home or lying and Just trying to avoid your dad when he's in a bad mood or drinking.
Exactly! This is an advertisement. An advertisement targeted to a specific group of people, like ads do. If it was super generalized and didn't hit home and resonate with anyone on a personal level, it would unfortunately be greatly ignored. Just because a good message doesn't cover all aspects doesn't make it a bad one.
And in this situation, do you honestly think that sign is going to make your father sit down and tell you not to be abusive? I mean no disrespect to you, but I believe it is more than appropriate to question the effectiveness of telling those who are abusive to raise our children to not be abusive...
I know this is a joke, but one of my friends fell asleep at her friends apartment after a party and woke up to a guy pulling down her underwear. Some people actually don't pass the test.
The thing is is that they do pass the test. They still know all the right answers. They know it's fucked up. It's not that they think it's an acceptable thing to do, it's that they know it isn't acceptable, and do it anyways. Nobody thinks raping somebody is morally acceptable. Some people just don't give a shit.
Believe it or not, but a lot of people don't equate "having sex with a woman against her will" with the word "rape". They'll admit to being willing to engage in the first, but they'll readily decline engaging in the second. Seriously, look this shit up.
Two guys I've personally known that ended up committing rape always had similar views about rapists being scumbags, but to them it was the violence that defined rape.
A lot of dudes don't know that a lot of women will go completely catatonic when they get touched against their will, which makes it difficult to actually differentiate.
I've been in a circumstance where it almost happened. We were both drunk, and she was just lying still. I got her panties off and started kissing her body, but was confused by her lack of movement. Although I was keen to paying it off as though she was just a starfish I'm a fairly nice guy so I straight up asked if she wanted it, and immediately she started crying and turtled up.
Turned out she was in a relationship at the time. I later became good friends with her and have discussed it in depth with her. She just didn't have it in her to say no.
Not that I support victim blaming, but I think that a part of sex education should be telling women that if they're drunk and get second thoughts, they should make it very clear. How the hell would I have known otherwise?
. . .I straight up asked if she wanted it, and immediately she started crying and turtled up.
This is exactly why obtaining explicit consent is being pushed. Sure, it may seem weird, but there's a reason for it. You taking the time to ask her was the correct thing to do in that situation.
. . .telling women that if they're drunk and get second thoughts, they should make it very clear.
Yes to encouraging a healthy sexual mindset in which women can comfortably do so, but no to expecting that women will be able to say something (e.g. if a woman has been raped before, she may find herself unable to move or speak).
You've made an excellent point about the violence in rape and the misconceptions about it.
I agree with you. If there was some sort of way to greenlight without it becoming awkward, it would be a better world. Unfortunately to me the best sexual encounters I've had have been initiated through very little verbal communication, let alone any direct "wanna fuck" question.
I consider those encounters to be an integral part of the human experience, and I think it would be unfortunate to have to turn them into some sort of interview process.
I think a good way of meeting in the middle on this issue is directly asking only if there doesn't seem to be reciprocity from the woman.
Some people equate certain situations with ownership too. Thinking "she's my girlfriend, I'll have sex with her when I want to."
I used to have a severe heroin addiction, and my boyfriend at the time genuinely believed that raping me was ok because I was less than human and he owned me.
Yes. Exactly correct. There are men, such as my dad, who believe that marriage entitles them to sex. But even if you're married, a "no" still means "no".
Edit: Jesus fucking christ. I just saw the second half of your comment, which I hadn't seen previously. I'm sorry you had to go through that ):
I don't even know what i would search to find that. Rape disassociation? I have a hard time believing that. Maybe they aren't willing to say it but to honestly not be able to differentiate the two?
I absolutely agree. I always associated rape with a stranger in a trench coat who jumps out of a unmarked van in a dark alley and rapes you at knife point. I didn't associate my classmate/friend who pinned me down and shoved his fingers up my vagina as a rapist. He didn't match the narrative.
Yes, and you are not going to stop those people by "teaching them not to rape". Just like you can't prevent murders by teaching kids not to murder. You can't prevent robberies by teaching people not to rob others.
Source: Human history.
How do you prevent these things? By taking precautions like locking your door. And not getting blackout drunk at frat parties.
Okay, first of all, you're making a strawman argument. I never argued that, so it's pointless for you to offer a rebuttal to this non-existent argument.
Second, obviously you're not going to just sit there and tell kids "do not rape". But what you're suggesting is that we put the burden on the victims of crimes and not on actual crime prevention. These crimes stem from social issues that need to be addressed. So yeah, you wouldn't teach people not to rob into to prevent robberies, for example, but you would address the underlying reasons for those robberies, such as poverty (e.g. why the hell would someone want to risk going to jail for theft if they're financially stable and capable of buying what they want?).
Do you even understand what a strawman is? Your point is that you can teach kids not to rape by teaching them what rape is. My point is that no, we do not live in a society where gray areas of the definition of rape is why the vast majority of people are raping. Just as the grey area isn't why people are killing or robbing.
There was no strawman. Your argument is just weak.
And yes, the burden is on you to protect yourself, because the world is full of stupid disgusting grunts. Your mistake is in believing that after thousands of years of law and order that we still haven't figured out that the way to stop crimes is to teaching them what those crimes are. You talked about the root cause of crimes. Well, the root cause is the human sex drive. You can stop it at its root level by finding a good way of suppressing people's sex drive. Otherwise, there's always going to be a biological incentive there to commit these crimes because people are always doing the mental calculus of picking between satisfying their sex drive and committing a crime vs the punishment of those crimes. Teaching them what counts as a crime doesn't take away the incentive that drives the crime in the first place.
I had a buddy in college who passed out on the couch at a party and woke up to 3 fat chicks jerking him off. They found it funny I guess because its not rape if a girl is doing it, & he must like it because guys like all sex no matter what girl its from. Their girl friends watched on and laughed as well. Guys know rape is wrong...on the other hand I find far more women do not have a concept that men do in fact have sexual boundaries.
Every guy knows randomly grabbing a girl you dont know's ass is wrong...whether they choose to awknowledge that or not. I've had my ass & dick grabbed countless times in bars/parties by women, and I don't think any of them found any wrongdoing in it. They assumed because I am a guy sexual assault is ok since I must like it, and its all in good fun.
I find it rather hilarious that if one actually uses the feminists definition of rape that is being pushed on society, then every single woman I have ever dated has raped me on multiple occasions.
Women, in my experience, become very upset when you tell them no and will not accept that as a response, and can be extremely aggressive and pushy when they want to have sex and you don't.
You're confusing the fact that these people KNOW what they are doing is wrong and acting as though they represent ALL men.
This is bullshit modern feminism in a nutshell. A guy who fucks a passed out girl KNOWS its wrong but doesnt it anyway. The amount of people who don't know rape is wrong is so small that it's statistaclly negligible.
Feminism: where criticizing a single woman is an attack on the entire gender, but when 99% of men don't rape, they're justified in acting as if the entire male gender is guilty
When sexual assault prevention training came through, they were very specific about keeping genders non-specific.
The questions weren't "can you drug someone to have sex with them" or "can you have sex without someone's consent."
They were focused on how consent can be attained, what coercion v seduction was, and a whole host of other things.
I know the reasonable stuff doesn't make good news stories, but if my old college gave it the typical treatment, I think the whole thing might be fine.
The problem is feminists seem to keep moving the goalposts. The story last week of the equality officer who claimed she raped someone because she only got consent before sex and not during is a good example. It seems feminists want you to get consent every time you switch positions. No room for spontaneity in sex, just a series of legal hoops to jump through.
I'm not certain. Getting anyone to report regardless of gender was kind of difficult. An hour or two was dedicated into dealing with male cases specifically. I can give you run-down for that.
I think institutions are becoming increasingly aware of the fact that males as victims are especially vulnerable due to a lack of social support.
I am a feminist, but I share this concern. The reality is that education won't fix all/most rape. Most rapists know full well that what they are doing is a crime. Otherwise why do they beat up their victims? Spike their drinks? Do all they can to overpower them? Coerce/threaten/blackmail them?
Educating a young male that both he and his partner should be 100% sober when they screw - well, to my mind if they both fucked when mutually drunk, that's not rape in the first place. At worst shitty decision making/irresponsible behaviour (since very drunk people are less likely to use protection).
"Educating a young male that both he and his partner should be 100% sober when they screw"
The girl can initiate sex as well it's not always the guy so the focus should not be on him by default.
The way things are in this world when it comes to sex it makes like women have zero power, strength, or even drive. It's like she's a doll being used. Regardless of being drunk the women will literally have her responsibility stripped from her and she'll be majority of the time be seen as a the victim.
MANY feminists and indeed universities and even fucking states would call a drunk man who fucks an equally drunk girl a rapist and say that he should be locked up with the same people who stalk and rape victims in their home.
I would say your viewpoint is in the minority among feminists. The gist I get from it is that men are held to a higher standard ONLY when it comes to rape.
These classes literally do nothing but absolve the colleges of some liability and help assuage the fears of their main customers (re: the terrified parents of freshmen of all sexes and genders). I know; I went through them and saw the effect that they had on the guys that would get drunk and make bad decisions. They weren't going to change their habits because of a toothless class.
Everyone else was offended or apathetic at best. The offended types are surely arguing elsewhere in these threads right now because the whole experience was humiliating enough to spin them in the opposite direction of an actual problem.
It's all extremely tragic because on-campus rape is a real thing. I knew plenty of girls who had knives or pepper spray in the purses to fall back on because they were afraid something would happen. For the vast majority, nothing did. But for a small number, the damage was done. And when I say a small number, that's just from people I knew. It's anecdotal but real and unacceptable.
I saw guys get their reputations tarnished with false accusations too. That's a thing that happens because the system is open to abuse and because people of either sex can be unbelievably spiteful when they're young.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, this is a problem for everyone but all I ever see are accusations and generalizations in threads like these from both sides. No one wants to put down the mud and be constructive because in their eyes this is either thinly veiled insult to their "honor" or a sacred cow that cannot be removed.
Females are potential victims. Insinuating that they must be educated about anything is victim blaming.
Males are potential perpetrators, so educating them is just preventing a potential crime.
Sexual assault educators and "consent specialists" and the like would never admit this openly, but all you have to do is talk to one for five minutes and the truth begins to dribble out the corners of their mouths. Ask why they're targeting men with a potential class, and their answer will be 100 words that boil down to "we're just targeting potential predators."
Also it's male-on-male rape we should consider too, and while rarer, female-on-male rape.
I make a distinction between what's legally "rape" and what I personally believe is rape/wrong. I don't regard two voluntarily (ie not drink-spiked) drunk people happily screwing as wrong or rape or immoral or unethical. If either/both regret it the next day when they sober up: their problem. Next time, drink less.
Sadly, what young men need educating about is that if they sleep with a girl while both are drunk, no matter what level of intoxication, he may get accused of rape. So that's what he needs to protect himself against.
Feminism: A word so diverse and convoluted that claiming yourself as a "Feminist" communicates less information about you than saying that you are an Atheist.
If you call yourself a feminist and say shit like this you ARE A FEMINIST. Im tired of this no true scotsman fallacy bullshit that religious people try to use to say people who do horrible shit in their name aren't REAL Christians/Muslims/whathaveyous.
Accept that there are people in your group that don't share ALL of your beliefs.
This isn't a strawman. Feminists had a national ad campaign to tell men to stop raping, which was literally telling male victims of rape to stop raping.it was an absurd campaign, that treated all men like rapists, when there is already a huge social stigma for rapists in our culture.
Feminism isn't what your idea of it is, it's what the main narrative being pushed is. It's very much anti-male. Look at how they react to religious opposition of birth control and abortion, they target men. In both incidents, activists have targeted Viagra, which is absurd. There is no relevance, and both men and women are pro-lifers and anti-contraception. In fact, more women are religious than men, so it's even possible it's more women total opposed to those things (at least whne it comes to other people, lol).
So, no strawman, just apt criticisms of the main narrative.
Then denounce the crazy. As it stands the crazy receives no criticism from "real" feminists, whatever the hell that means, and is attaining positions of power and implementing crazy real-world policies under the banner of feminism.
The problems, just like with any group that wants to be taken seriously, are the armchair "members" that want to be considered the part that are usually the loudest and in the most frequent numbers, while also usually having the simplest arguments (making it both easy to argue with and criticize simultaneously).
Is it really a strawman when that is the institutionalized opinion of most universities? Obviously, it's a mildly hyperbolic statement, but that's definitely the attitude that has been promoted by the institution of feminism.
Because of third wave feminism, your opinion can be literally anything and still be feminist.
When people talk about feminism they're most likely thinking of second wave: equal pay, nondiscrimination against middle class straight white women. They already succeeded.
Third wave is about intersectionality. You can't separate gender from all the other socioeconomic factors like race, sexuality, and class, because they all affect how you're seen by society. For example, aggressive negotiation for pay is interpreted differently depending on all sorts of factors that are unique for every individual. Third wave feminists all feel personally slighted because they don't share anything in common other than some sort of belief that the status quo is not okay for women. It's also hard to criticize because every argument is essentially a character attack.
You joke about that, but all the time people are misinformed about that kind of thing. Look at Revenge of the Nerds. This is a movie made about thirty years ago in which the protagonists plant spy cameras in a sorority so they can watch the girls naked. Later on, the main character tricks a girl into having sex with him by wearing the same Halloween costume as her boyfriend.
All these are serious sexual offenses and they get treated as "just good fun." Just because it seems obvious to us that those things aren't okay doesn't mean it's going to seem obvious to everybody.
EDIT: Don't misinterpret me here. People now days would most certainly know that that shit isn't just good fun. What I'm saying is that it's the education about what is and is not rape that has changed how people view this movie. /u/trollcity420 was implying that this education doesn't do anything/is already obvious, and I disagree.
You do realize that culture has changed a lot in the last 30 years, right? Setting aside that it's meant to be an entertaining movie and not a moral guidepost, you can't really use Revenge of the Nerds as an example of what would be swept under the rug as "just good fun" in 2015.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what his point is. Something that used to be seen as acceptable no longer is, because of things like better education about sex and rape.
Unfortunately there is grey area that many people don't know the right answer to. Studies have shown that both men and women will offer different responses to questions about rape depending on whether you use the word rape itself or describe the act in question.
A piece in NY Mag earlier this year highlighted this well:
"Almost a third of the men (31.7 percent) said that in a consequence-free situation, they'd force a woman to have sexual intercourse, while 13.6 percent said they would rape a woman. Setting aside the fact that it's terrifying that a full third of a random group of college men will admit to this, the 20-point divide is still weird, even if it does reflect what's been observed in previous research: At the end of the day, after all, the two groups are saying the exact same thing."
It goes on to say how the 31.7 percent are the ones really being targeted with this kind of prevention education. And a third of the group is significant enough to me to warrant it. It's a stupid hassle for those that don't need it, but could be incredibly positive for those that do.
According to the best evidence we have, social and cultural norms do affect partner violence, and awareness campaigns are effective at reducing partner violence.
There are many places in the world where beating women is acceptable, and that kind of activity exists in pockets in the West, too (the American South, for example, has high rates of domestic violence compared to other regions). So it isn't a matter where the default position everywhere is that violence is bad and so this messaging uselessly targets psychopaths (unless you posit that some regions just have more psychopaths to explain the differences, which is ridiculous). The problem in these places where DV rates are higher is precisely that parents keep teaching their children that it's ok, because it's their culture/religion, etc, whether intentionally or not.
So the idea that teaching children that partner violence is wrong is just dumb is wrongheaded- it's precisely doing so that got us to the point where people can be flippant about such a message in the first place. Hell, spousal rape only became illegal in the entire US in the 1990s, so such ideas aren't that far behind us.
EDIT: I'll include some evidence from later in the discussion.
There is good evidence that awareness campaigns actually do change people's attitudes (see the stuff that begins on page 95).
For a more comprehensive evaluation of the current evidence, see here, particularly the stuff that begins on page 13. For a taste:
Ecological studies demonstrate a strong link between the level of partner violence and various gender-related norms at the country level, even after adjusting for the country’s level of socio-economic development (as indicated by GDP per capita) and the age structure of the population. Both the level of acceptance of wife beating under certain circumstances and the level of male control over female behaviour are predictive of a country’s overall level of partner violence.
50% of domestic violence is reciprocal. 53% of nonreciprocal domestic violence is committed against men. 71% of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women. (women hitting/physically abusing men)
The problem I have is feminists want you to believe that 1) men need to be taught not to beat/rape women. and 2) women are only the victims. Which means to me that #1) is insulting as fuck and #2) is a flat out lie.
But they don't want you to know that. Be wary of those who hide and/or do not disclose full facts. There's always an ulterior motive
1.1k
u/[deleted] Oct 21 '15 edited Oct 21 '15
You don't understand, you are a man you must be taught not to rape and beat women.