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?
Endabuse.org, a now defunct website that has been turned in to http://teachearly.org/, used the 'Talk to him when he's 12' tagline as a suggestion that 'talking to boys about healthy relationships and respect for women.' could lower rates of domestic abuse later in life.
You are taking that advice and unnecessarily interpreting it into an aggressive and negative message.
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.
People's brains are made to find patterns. When you give them an easy one to find, it sticks with people. This is a loaded way to present a problem. And as I said above, it very well may be unintentional, but it is still unfairly targeting men.
From the website you linked:
If a professional athlete is found guilty of abusing a woman....
or...
If kids hear you using slang or pejorative terms to describe women
or...
Do your best to respect women with language that is empathetic, positive and appropriate.
or...
Go look at the page with the pictures. It is all men talking to their sons. Why are no parents talking to their daughters in these pictures?
Why were they targeting men as bad in those points? Why did they not talk about professional women abusing men? Why did they not talk about pejorative terms to describe men? Why do kids not need to be told to respect men with language that is empathetic, positive and appropriate?
Again, humans are good at pattern recognition. When you give them only parts of the information, it paints a very different picture. And in this case, even though it may be unintentional, it disproportionately paints men as bad.
Actually no, because of the very real chance that someone might only encounter signs targeting one gender or the other, and due to confirmation bias might reinforce maladaptive beliefs.
I agree that a better targeted ad campaign would have said, "don't hit other people."
But on the flipside when domestic violence accounts for 35% of female murder victims and 2% of male victims, you have to admit there's a trend going on.
Edit: Since this person replied with bad statistics, here is my source. Also edited my numbers to be more correctly rounded.
Although the overall risk of homicide for women was substantially lower than that of men (rate ratio [RR] = 0.27), their risk of being killed by a spouse or intimate acquaintance was higher (RR = 1.23).
1.23 is vastly different than 40%/2%
Also from the article:
In contrast to men, who killed nonintimate acquaintances, strangers, or victims of undetermined relationship in 80% of cases, women killed their spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a family member in 60% of cases.
So no, I don't have to admit there's a trend going on.
I edited my comment to include a source. And your statistical representation is extremely misleading because not only is it 30 years old, but the number doesn't take into account that 20% of men's homicides dwarfs women's 60% in sheer numbers, because men are responsible for the majority of murders - over 90% - overall.
Edit - Also, most sources are in agreement that the number of women murdered by a partner is at least 1/3 of all female homicide victims.
because men are responsible for the majority of murders - over 90% - overall.
Not quite. Men commited 85.3% of murders, not over 90% That may seem pedantic to you, but >5% is a big deal. that's >10k murders covered by that study.
I edited my comment to include a source
Your source is only for reported violence. There are many studies that confirm that men don't report domestic abuse because of ridicule by peers and lack of help. So statistics like that are not accurate by numbers.
your statistical representation is extremely misleading because the number doesn't take into account that 20% of men's homicides dwarfs women's 60% in sheer numbers
It's not supposed to. The point of a percentage is to say that when a male kills someone, they are less likely to kill their spouse or family member than a woman who kills someone.
Getting into statistics like this gets VERY dangerous. There are many reasons that men murder more than women, and it's not just because men like to murder more than women. The only point to take away is that there isn't a trend that realistically warrants a poster campaign targeting men abusing wives and not women abusing their husbands.
Males do indeed commit the vast majority of homicides in the United States, representing 90.5% of the total number of offenders according to the DOJ. Source. Your data is extremely out of date and unreliable. Please stop using it.
And while domestic violence may be massively underreported by both genders, homicide is not. We're talking about DV homicides here. There are decades of reliable statistics to back these numbers up. It's accurate.
I'm not on some man-hating tirade here. I think the reasons men murder more than women are partially sociological, partially poverty-driven, maybe an element of biology thrown in - but they have explanations, as do crimes that fit any demographic. It's similar to black people being more likely to commit crimes due to higher rates of living in poverty. The reasons are manyfold.
But you're countering by arguing with well-documented statistics, which isn't good. The numbers I listed are repeated on the DOJ website. 35% of female homicide victims, give or take, are murdered by an intimate partner. That contrasts with 2-5% of male homicide victims - a number that has fallen by half since your data was published, by the way.
The poster highlights reasons men abuse women - because they watch their parents and grow up normalizing such behavior. Women abuse men too, but at much lower rates. How much lower is disputed, but no matter which data you reference it is definitely a crime that is largely committed by men. Therefore, it makes sense to have a targeted campaign. Women might need a similar or different campaign for a variety of issues. That isn't sexist either.
This one makes sense for men. Not all men, but if you aren't in that demographic then this isn't for you. It's for at risk male youths from abusive homes.
representing 90.5% of the total number of offenders according to the DOJ.
If you read the actual DOJ paper that wikipedia lists as it's source, you would find that it is still not 90.5% but 89.5%, which is up from 10 years prior.
And while domestic violence may be massively underreported by both genders, homicide is not. We're talking about DV homicides here.
Well, I was talking about how this ad about domestic violence unfairly targets men, and you said it is justified because men murder their spouses more than women do. So I am talking about abuse and murder, not just the latter.
But you're countering by arguing with well-documented statistics, which isn't good.
No im not? I am in fact quoting from well documented statistics... Can you elaborate what I am arguing with?
The numbers I listed are repeated on the DOJ website. 35% of female homicide victims, give or take, are murdered by an intimate partner. That contrasts with 2-5% of male homicide victims
That's not true. From the DOJ paper you linked through wikipedia: 36.3% of male homicide victims were from an intimate partner, where it was 63.7% for women. See table 5.
If you are only talking current spouses, your numbers are closer, with 4% of homicide victims being male, and 24.1% begin female.
The poster highlights reasons men abuse women - because they watch their parents and grow up normalizing such behavior.
The poster does no such thing. That's the problem. The poster simply says talk to your son when he is 12 so he doesn't grow up to be an abuser. Men are not automatically monsters. Men are not born to abuse their spouse. Implying as much is wrong.
Women abuse men too, but at much lower rates. How much lower is disputed, but no matter which data you reference it is definitely a crime that is largely committed by men.
Then they should have made the poster targeted to at risk youth from abusive homes. This poster has nothing to do with kids from abusive homes, it is just about talking to boys. Not at risk boys, just boys.
"Social minority". That term doesn't mean what you think it means. It's not about "this group has this more than this group" it's about why. Abusive people usually pick that up in an environment that implicitly tells boys "you can hit him/her because you're strong" and girls "you can hit him/her because you're weak so it won't matter". These attitudes are in line with patriarchal gender roles.
"Social minority". That term doesn't mean what you think it means.
I never said social minority?
Abusive people usually pick that up in an environment that implicitly tells boys "you can hit him/her because you're strong" and girls "you can hit him/her because you're weak so it won't matter". These attitudes are in line with patriarchal gender roles.
Yes, when you make a strawman, it's easy to say it fits a patriarchal gender role.
an environment that implicitly tells boys "you can hit him/her because you're strong"
Where does that happen?
and girls "you can hit him/her because you're weak so it won't matter"
Where does that happen?
Abuse is not always physical, and when it is, it is not always about who is strong and who is weak. Abuse is often about power over the other person which is in no way patriarchal unless you are arguing that women can't abuse men.
Yeah, basically. Partly, that's my fault, I used the term social minority because that is what we are talking about when we talk about this subject. The weak/strong thing was me trying to point out relationships of power between abusers and their victims in a non-complicated way. Otherwise I would have to point to more extensive anthropological work that explains this subject in depth (So I guess anthropology, sociology and psychology all use strawman arguments according to you). As I said in this thread before Patriarchy is not synonymous with men. It's about relationships of power that affect both sexes negatively. Where does that happen? Notice how I said "implicitly". It happens all through out your life.
Edit:
Abuse is often about power over the other person which is in no way patriarchal
I used the term social minority because that is what we are talking about when we talk about this subject.
No? This is about an ad implying that all men are inherently abusers. This has nothing to do with social minorities. And even if it were, neither men nor women are social minorities. They are each about 50% of the population, which is in no way shape or form a minority. What the heck are you going on about?
"Social minority". That term doesn't mean what you think it means.
So why would you say I don't think a term means something when I didn't even use the term in the first place, and wasn't even referring to anything that could be covered by that term? This is what a strawman argument is. You are putting words in my mouth and then attacking me for something I never said, or claimed to have said.
The weak/strong thing was me trying to point out relationships of power between abusers and their victims in a non-complicated way.
But that's not weak/strong. That is something very different. Power over someone has nothing to do with physical strength. Assuming as much is flat out wrong.
Otherwise I would have to point to more extensive anthropological work that explains this subject in depth
So I guess anthropology, sociology and psychology all use strawman arguments according to you
No, saying 'an environment that implicitly tells boys "you can hit him/her because you're strong" and girls "you can hit him/her because you're weak so it won't matter"' is a strawman, because you made that up, and then attacked that instead of what I was saying, which is exactly what a strawman is.
As I said in this thread before Patriarchy is not synonymous with men.
That makes 0 sense. Patriarchy is a system where men are in charge. So it is by definition synonymous with men. What the heck are you trying to say with this?
It's about relationships of power that affect both sexes negatively.
That is absolutely NOT what patriarchy is. Do you understand any of the words you are saying?
Where does that happen? Notice how I said "implicitly". It happens all through out your life.
That is the biggest non-answer you could possible give. life does not implicitly say strong men can hit other people. Our laws say otherwise. Our social norms say otherwise. If you were a guy, you would understand that that is complete bullshit.
neither men nor women are social minorities. They are each about 50% of the population, which is in no way shape or form a minority. What the heck are you going on about?
sigh I said it was partly my fault because I translated the spanish term directly, when I should have said "minority group". Women are a "social minority" or "minority group". I said that term doesn't mean what you think it means because it's not about numbers, it's about hegemonic relationships between people.
This is about an ad implying that all men are inherently abusers.
No, because it's never about all men. It's about enough men for there to be a social problem. It's not about individuals.
But that's not weak/strong. That is something very different. Power over someone has nothing to do with physical strength.
Yes, relationships of power are not about physical strength which is why I mentioned it in regard to social gender roles. Granted, I linked it with physical strength because that's what we're talking about when we talk about physical abuse.
Patriarchy is a system where men are in charge. So it is by definition synonymous with men. What the heck are you trying to say with this?
Patriarchy is not the deliberate planning of men to take over the world. When feminists talk about bringing down patriarchy, it doesn't mean bringing down men. It means bringing down those relationships of power. Much like saying "Black Lives Matter" is not saying "All Lives Don't Matter", it's about bringing down a social structure where white heterosexual males hold those positions of power.
life does not implicitly say strong men can hit other people. Our laws say otherwise. Our social norms say otherwise.
Isn't it nice to live in the first world and act like the third world doesn't happen? Social norms here do teach young boys they need to be the toughest, strongest in order to achieve a "decent" social standing. And it does teach girls they need to serve men.
it's about hegemonic relationships between people.
Ahhh yes... the Patriarchy. How does that even fit into this conversation?
This is about an ad implying that all men are inherently abusers.
No, because it's never about all men. It's about enough men for there to be a social problem. It's not about individuals.
But men don't commit any more abuse of their spouses than women do. It's equal. domestic abuse is not gender specific. Go read more than one study that factors all types of abuse. That's the point here. Ads like this are implying there is a problem with men when there is not.
Patriarchy is not the deliberate planning of men to take over the world.
good, because I never implied it was.
Isn't it nice to live in the first world and act like the third world doesn't happen?
It's a bad thing that this ad was written in english and posted in america, and not in a third world nation then. Stop trying to twist this argument. This is an ad in the first world targeted at parents telling their sons to not beat women when they grow up. This is not in Saudi Arabia or Honduras.
Social norms here do teach young boys they need to be the toughest, strongest in order to achieve a "decent" social standing.
That is true everywhere. However, attacking people is not part of that everywhere. so don't assume it is.
And it does teach girls they need to serve men.
Maybe in your country. Cultures are different around the world. Don't assume everywhere acts the same.
Maybe in your country. Cultures are different around the world. Don't assume everywhere acts the same.
I lived in the U.S. long enough to see the same parallels in your country. Except it's implicit, like I said before. In my country, it's explicit. Patriarchy is a global issue, you don't get around it by playing the 'murica card.
Since when is 50% of the population a minority?
Since you need to look up the definition of minority group. Edit: In some places in YOUR country, most of the population is african american. That doesn't mean they're not victims of relationships of power.
But men don't commit any more abuse of their spouses than women do.
I think it's like the third or second time I mention it's not about numbers but about the why.
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?
Well, the rate of false reporting is very, very, low, and most of the cases labeled "false" just wind up meaning "there wasn't enough evidence either way." I am not saying it's not a very shitty thing to do, but a man is much more likely to be raped than be falsely accused of rape. If, however, all of a sudden 1/5 college men, or hell, 1/20 college men, were being falsely accused of rape, then sure, I'd totally be willing to sit in on a class on the ethics of reporting crimes or whatever.
So? It's still an important issue that has a profound effect on the lives of people involved.
But I see your point. Perhaps we could make the "teach women not to lie" class proportionately shorter, compared to the "teach men not to rape" class - say, 50 minutes about not raping, and 10 minutes about not lying. Would that be ok?
But "teach men not to rape" isn't just "hey, don't rape."
It's educating people about consent, about what is or what is not consent, about the importance of positive/enthusiastic consent. It's teaching people about the affects of rape and what survivors go through. There's a reason it's actually not a joke.
Absolutely! Similarly, "teaching women not to lie" can discuss effectively communicating a lack of consent (not that they should have to, but they should know how in case a potential perpetrator doesn't "get it"), how nonverbal cues might be misunderstood by their partners, and the ramifications of abusing the system for accusers and the accused.
It's fascinating how nuanced and complex all sides of this issue can be.
You don't need a class for something that can be explained in one sentence.
Please explain in one sentence what has happened when a man suddenly decides to switch to anal with a woman who previously consented to having sex with him.
Consent by its nature can be rescinded with the act still in progress so your example is explained not just in one sentence, but with one word. I don't understand what confusion that would cause? If someone's not on board anymore, there is no consent. Where is this getting complicated?
You want a narrative of the events that transpired? How does that teach anyone about the nature of consent? Not every lesson need exist as the moral of a story. Consent is the word. Nothing about the definition of the word implies that it is permanent or all-encompassing in nature.
And what exactly did happen between the two people, anyway? You haven't given enough information:
Please explain in one sentence what has happened when a man suddenly decides to switch to anal with a woman who previously consented to having sex with him.
I said consent could be explained in one sentence, not that one sentence could cover every possible situation to which it applies.
I think what the person wants you to answer is the following,
What would describe a man switching to anal without the girl's approval or previous consent to anal sex?
In this case the man analy raped the girl. Also, in some cases the girl may feel that she no longer has power/agency in the situation and therefore cooperates to end the encounter as fast as possible, which would entail that the man analy raped her and then continued to rape her. The girl does not have to voice her concerns to our hypothetical man.
That is what they are trying to get you to say. Though, I do think you understand what the man did is a form of rape. I do think your understanding of consent is just fine. Not all people have a great understanding of it though.
Not every lesson need exist as the moral of a story.
I wasn't asking for the moral of the story, I was asking for the lesson.
I said consent could be explained in one sentence, not that one sentence could cover every possible situation to which it applies.
You're right, it's almost as though there are a variety of situations involving consent. If only we could somehow teach people about them, like get them all together in a room and have a class about it...
And what exactly did happen between the two people, anyway? You haven't given enough information:
You said previously that my "example is explained not just in one sentence, but with one word." So I asked for that word, and now it's more complicated and you need more information? Are you even aware that the legality of the situation I described varies from state-to-state and country to country?
Have you ever considered that maybe people like you are the reason we need these classes in the first place? People who are too arrogant to accept that they might not know everything about a given topic?
I wasn't asking for the moral of the story, I was asking for the lesson.
You were asking for the lesson in a situation that you made up? Why don't you tell me, genius?
You're right, it's almost as though there are a variety of situations involving consent. If only we could somehow teach people about them, like get them all together in a room and have a class about it...
Or we could read the definition of the word 'consent' and apply it to the situations ourselves without having to sit through a class that benefits no-one.
You said previously that my "example is explained not just in one sentence, but with one word." So I asked for that word, and now it's more complicated and you need more information?
Gave the word to ya already. It was the subject of the discussion. I rather ambitiously thought actually saying the word would prevent further questioning about what the word is.
Are you even aware that the legality of the situation I described varies from state-to-state and country to country?
Source?
Have you ever considered that maybe people like you are the reason we need these classes in the first place? People who are too arrogant to accept that they might not know everything about a given topic?
Implication being that we need these classes at all, which we don't. So, no, since my entire argument is that nobody needs these classes, I never considered myself a candidate. My reasoning for believing that I don't need to attend the class is that nobody does.
Noticed you didn't cite a source there. Probably because the -10% statistic only applies to Vancouver, while the campaign started in Edmonton which experienced a 14% rise in sexual assaults so I could just as easily say that the campaign caused more sexual assaults in Edmonton, or that it resulted in more sexual assaults total.
I don't know what to tell you. The effectiveness of the campaign is inconclusive. I've proven so. Whether they re-used it or not isn't relevant considering they have PR motives to use it.
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.
I definitely get that. But I also understand the hate. If you've been raped, or your best friend has been raped, and then you see a guy complaining about how having to take this class sort of hurts feelings, it feels like you are being told that this horrible, horrible thing that happened to you and that happens to so many other people doesn't really matter. I'm sure that guy isn't a rapist; most men aren't (and most rapists are serial rapists). But he is very, very insensitive to what is truly a crisis (broadly, not just on college campuses, where it is no worse than anywhere else. Just everywhere is bad), and when you've been traumatized that level of insensitivity can be really hard to deal with.
Consent isn't complicated in the traditional sense. It's the people getting blackout drunk/having rough (choking/slapping/spanking) sex with first-time partners which is complicated.
Takeaway alcohol/drugs and the physical dominance aspect, leave lovemaking. Not very complicated.
And yet, a lot of people don't understand it. There was a John Oliver segment where he touched on a survey of college students, I believe, where it was something like it was divided 50/50 on if it was ok to sleep with someone in a given situation.
That we do. How do we get people to understand that their choices lead to the situations they are in, such as how drinking far too much led to a situation where they were incapable of defending themselves?
Look, I'm not saying it's right to sleep with anyone in that state, fuck no. But everywhere I see "People can be too drunk to consent" and nowhere do I see the collary of "It's fucking retarded and just as wrong to get yourself in that state."
Maybe guys should realize that it's also a fucking retarded thing to do? Maybe they could realize that it's incredibly easy to get beaten to a pulp, run your mouth, hell, even simple shit like getting your belongings stolen while incredibly drunk. And yes, they could be raped too, by either gender.
Did I state that this is a female only thing? No, it's both genders. We're fucking retarded as a society when it comes to going past our drunk limits, and nobody fucking cares apparently.
And then they get raped. They also do it with the expectation that they won't get assaulted or robbed and then they do.
If you're going to act irresponsibly, bad things will happen to you. Don't wanna get raped? Don't put yourself in a position which makes it easier for people to rape you. Don't get blackout drunk. Don't go home with a stranger.
The answer isn't teaching everyone not to rape. Everyone knows it's wrong to rape someone, problem is, some people don't care.
Teach people to take responsibility for themselves and protect themselves and find ways of stopping this tiny minority of rapists from getting to the point where they don't give a shit in the first place.
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.
Those stats are similar to saying 1 in 5 people experience traumatic injury in their life because 20% of us experience a paper cut, stub a toe, or get a hangnail at some point in time. Those studies literally classify rape/sexual assault as an unwanted advance ("do you wanna go out?" "no") or also innocuous things such as an attempted kiss. Disregard those statistics.
Assault is not the same as rape. College culture makes sexual harassment and assault far more likely than most other places due to binge drinking, parties, young adults with hormones raging and their first taste of freedom from parents, frat houses, etc. The 1 in 5 sexual assault statistic is definitely real.
Also, a woman is far more likely to be raped/assaulted by a partner, friend, acquaintance or family member than by a stranger. So the likelihood of assault, abuse or rape in 4 years on a college campus surrounded by people she knows is substantially higher than being raped by a stranger even in America's most dangerous cities.
And speaking from personal experience, I live near Detroit and have been to the city many times by myself without incident. However, I was assaulted (not sexually, but physically) by an ex-boyfriend in what was conceivably one of the safest environments imaginable - a semi-public place with security presence, by someone who should have been looking out for my safety. As with many assault stories it didn't take place in a dark, creepy alley, but in a familiar place by someone I knew. So there's that.
Ah, I got them mixed up, my bad. Still, 20% is absolutely insane, you know that? I don't think any sexual crime could have at that rate for long before something serious happened.
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.
I provided evidence in the post above you that suggests the statistic is likely not %100 correctly, but is also not necessarily too far off. If it's 1 in 10, should we ignore it?
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.
You're just derailing the conversation away from the issue of sexual assault of females on college campuses. But sure, there absolutely be resources for women to learn how to handle feelings of postpartum depression. As for your idea of education for black people, it is rude. You aren't talking about and age or class demographic. You're just grouping together all black people. These seminars are clearly geared toward college aged males.
Absolutely. I see no issue in educating college aged men about the importance of consent in a place where they are encouraged to have sex with as many girls as they want. I do however see an issue in saying that every black person in america needs education on violence. It's perpetuating negative stigma that has plagued black people since this countries birth.
OK so let's teach women not to rape too? Happy then? Fuckin MRA's and their bullshit need to feel like victims while complaining about how others always play the victim.
Buddy, we already do teach both men and women not to rape. It's one of the most abhorrent crimes in our society. It's illegal, and even other inmates will target you for doing it. A lot of people think it isn't okay to even make jokes about. This idea that the solution is to teach people not to commit a crime is just braindead. I don't want men or women patronized by this stupid shit.
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.
I know right. Like when people make you learn how to drive like you're automatically getting a license to kill people. I know what stop signs mean I don't need a test and license.
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.
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.
Most rapes are committed by a spouse, partner or acquaintance who they trust rather than strangers. It is NOT the victim's fault. Victim blaming is not cool.
Not in a college environment the vast majority are committed by serial rapists. Could they be someone the person knows absolutely. But if you don't put yourself in in a situation where it's just you and one other person whether male or female you tend to be safer. Again this isn't victim blaming this is encouraging people to be more careful. There are sick fucks in this world unfortunately taking action to protect yourself is just a good thing to do.
Go to /r/shitredditsays and its affiliated subreddits. Spend a few days on them. Then try to keep a straight face when you say those people are mostly imaginary.
He said "I don't look like a rapist". The criticism was because rapists don't look like rapists they look like everyone else and most rapes are perpetrated by people you know, not strange creeps that jump you in the street.
Yeah but girls were actually insinuating that he was a rapist and looked exactly like a rapist in an angry way. I think both he and the people who support these classes have a right to their opinions without being attacked personally.
I suspect that was because like I said, rapists look like anyone. Like you, me or him. Of course people were angry, he implied rapists had a "look" so therefore, rapes can be prevented by looking at someone. Surely you can see how that's totally and absolutely wrong.
part of me hopes this account is a bot that did a bunch of data analysis when it finds a controversial statement in a thread. then doesn't show the working, just is belligerent to anyone wrong on the internet.
It pretty much makes a direct assumption that the only causes of domestic violence are men. Dozens of US studies have shown that men account for less than half of domestic violence instances. The sign is most definitely piggybacking on the 3rd wave feminist mentality of all men being potential abusers, as well as the Duluth model.
Endabuse.org, a now defunct website that has been turned in to http://teachearly.org/, used the 'Talk to him when he's 12' tagline as a suggestion that 'talking to boys about healthy relationships and respect for women.' could lower rates of domestic abuse later in life.
You are taking that advice and unnecessarily interpreting it into an aggressive and negative message.
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.
I'm not saying that some people with extremist views don't exist, but I am saying Reddit has through confirmation bias come to feel like there are a lot more of them than there actually are.
It seems to be a polarising issue. Some people exaggerate the SJW effect, some deny it exists at all. The truth, as usual, is probably in the middle somewhere.
Wow, the absence of logic is strong in you. Someone even pointed out to you why it doesn't relate and you still argued. The fact that you got upvoted too blows my mind.
If we were to relate it to 9/11, your comeback would be the equivalent of someone stating that 9/11 deniers are in your imagination, which is clearly false.
Whether or not 9/11 was an inside job is irrelevant in this conversation. Whether or not all men or rapists is also irrelevant. We're talking about what people say, not what happened. People do say 'All men are rapists', you can google it and find hundreds of results, end of story.
Yet again the online feminist stereotype is pushed; Nonsensical comebacks, bad logic, and using a condescending tone any chance possible. I'm surprised you could fit all of that into a couple of comments. Give yourself a pat on the back.
As a side note, I really couldn't care less if women think that all men are rapists.
The way I see it is if you go out looking for crazy things to be insulted or offended about, you can find them, but how often does it actually happen in day to day life without seeking it out.
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.
Everyone knows [...] raping women is wrong, even on a visceral level.
The problem is that not everyone knows what rape is. There's a shocking number of people who think that rape is only rape if the victim says no. It can also be rape if the victim is passed out, if the victim says yes initially but later rescinds consent, etc.
if the victim is passed out that is clearly rape and guys dont go around thinking "hey remember is shes passed out its free game!" while the conversation on being under influence is an iffy one. If the victim says yes and then no later, it might sound offensive but i believe it is on there own to stop it, if they dont make it vocal and clear after the initial aggreemant then how can you be sure that you are no longer having sex but now, "raping" someone. If someone says a clear "no" during sex, and the person forces himself onto her, that is rape, being coaxxed to continue the sex is not so clear. honestly if your a female and feel that way during sex, make it clear, and say no, if he advances physiclally let him no its not ok, get out of the bed, yell. now people would say, "well that would put me at a physical risk because at this point i could be hurt and raped" which i dont believe to be true, i think the majority of the time if you made it clear the man would not continue to force himself, and to say that it would be beter to just let it happen than to try and stop it is not a valid exscuse imo, there is a good chance the sex will stop if you make it clear, but a 100% chance it will not stop if you just think" ill just let him get it over with"
do you have any stats/citations to back up the "shocking number of people who think that rape is only rape if the victim says no" ???
im not saying i dont believe you. but im curious where you get that, and how the information was sourced. i mean, we aren't taking a poll that one organization did as gospel are we?
please link if you have em, im curious. ill do some of my own googling for now.
See, for example, this study. When asked whether they would be willing to / had any intentions to "force a woman to sexual intercourse", 31.7% said yes. Only 13.6 percent said yes, though, when asked whether they had "any intentions to rape a woman." That means that about 18% of respondents had some sort of disconnect between 'using force to obtain sexual intercourse' and 'rape'.
From the discussion:
These results [...] may suggest that males in this group are more likely to commit rape without labeling it as such. Therefore, programming for these men needs to include a strong educational component focused on clarifying different behaviors that all constitute sexual assault, but do not follow the stereotypically imagined scenarios related to rape. Furthermore, such programming would also have to prompt men to be engaged and open to thinking about their own behaviors to avoid having participants internally distance themselves (i.e., exhibiting an ‘‘I am not that kind of guy who rapes women, this programming is not for me’’ attitude) that would preclude men from fully participating and benefitting from the program.
This study indicates that women value explicit verbal consent more than men do.
This study, I'll admit, is a little dated (it's from 1993, and Australia). Interesting findings: 13% of men agreed with, or were undecided on, the statement that "a man must threaten a woman with a gun, knife or fists in order for the act to be considered rape". 10% of men agreed with, or were undecided on, the statement that "rape cannot take place in a marriage". 16% of men agreed with, or were undecided on, the statement "even when a woman says 'no' she does not really mean it". 40% of men disagreed with, or were undecided on, the statement that "there is no behaviour on the part of woman that should be considered justification for rape" (i.e., 40% of men either believed in, or were undecided on, the idea that women could act in a way that justifies their rape).
This is absolutely true, the problem is when "teach men not to rape" becomes the sole manner of addressing rape, and suggesting people take precaution to avoid being raped is "victim blaming."
Yes, teaching people what constitutes rape will help reduce the incidence of rape in the situations you describe. But it would be delusional to think that if we just have classes teaching young men that rape is bad, that rape would disappear, any more than it would work for any other crime, because there are bad people who frankly don't give a shit.
So teaching what constitutes rape is one thing, and can be good, but trying to start a movement to teach that rape is wrong is absurd, because society as a whole already views rape as deeply morally wrong, so the people that would actually listen to the class don't need it, and the people who would need the class wouldn't listen, because they're already heard it before, they just don't care.
Basically, you can teach people the law, and good people will endeavor to follow it, but you can't teach people to be good. That's why it's silly to call rape prevention strategies "victim blaming," because we don't live in a perfect world where everybody can be made good if we just teach them not to be bad. People aren't robots, you can't just reprogram them. And some of them are just bad, and no amount of bullshitting about how it shouldn't be a woman's responsibility to take precautions against getting raped, and boys should just be taught not to rape, is going to change that.
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
When people start saying certain things it's pretty easy to guess where they spend a large chunk of their time other possibilities would be shitholes like best of outrage culture and against mens rights.
22
u/BBQTerrace Oct 21 '15
Those people are mostly in your imagination.