Am I right or am I right?

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Trespasser ]

But seriously. Here's one example. On a certain thread I started a discussion with a guy who claimed things that he had only vague knowledge of. Let's call him Mr. XY. I dared to disagree (in detail) and he answered with a temper tantrum, told me that I had no idea what I was talking about, that what I was saying was 'crap' and that I was a victim of political propaganda. Several posts later he was still claiming and did not bother offering any evidence, and I discovered that he had the nerve of debating without actually carefully reading my posts.

Enter a cyber-friend, poster with 2000+ (size issue perhaps? ) who happens to be a man and joins my side. The tone of the posts of Mr. XY totally changes: he's respectful all of a sudden, even suck-ass-y, actually bothers doing some research before posting, and even goes back to read my earlier posts again.

More examples later.

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Trespasser ]

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Loretta ]

Trin and Tres: ROTFL.

(For some reason, I just remembered the picture of Ed Broadbent shouting his lungs out at a mike during last NDP convention in response to a women delegate's question: Why would the labour delegates have the privilege of voting twice at the next leadership convention. NDP Founding Fathers were in general quite androcentric, but that's another story)

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Too old to lie ]

On a different note. I find women posters on Babble too consensus-seeking in some respects (if we sidestep a couple -- yes, there were no more than one or two -- trolls of female gender). At first I wondered why, but after disproportionately antagonizing people with clear disagreement three or four times (in all fairness, the interlocutors were both men and women, although more often men), I got the picture.

Boys and girls are bullied not by kids their own size. I would bet there are any number of average sized males on this site who have backed out of a situation because some overbearing, burly dude was threatening to pull his ass out threw his throat.

The sense of being physically dominant doesn't disappear just because you are on-line. Profiles indicate whether the poster is male or female and a person given to this sort of behaviour might assume a female poster is more easily intimidated.

We might be progressing but not be leaps and bounds. More by lurches and creeps. The Internet is a great equalizer because you can speak your mind with out feeling the hot, smelly breath of some jerk yelling in your face.

And Tres: Could you explain this? I don't follow:

quote:

---

after disproportionately antagonizing people with clear disagreement three or four times (in all fairness, the interlocutors were both men and women, although more often men), I got the picture.

---

quote:

---

I thought the main advantage of cyber space was its anonymity. You can be anything you want: male, female, ten feet tall if you wish. The opportunity we have here is discussing the messages (issues) without worrying about the messengers. I may be naïve, but isn’t the content of a post so much more important than the question whether the poster has a penis or a vagina? Sorry for being so crude but I am really exasperated.

---

A list of inferences contained in the TOTL's post that I have huge problems with:

(1) Your gender has no impact on your writing, your preoccupations, your fears, your freedom.

(2) We are all writing from a universal position, with universal (or endlessly extendable) interests and entitlement to speak: anybody can write about anything any given time.

(3) Thought formation and thought communication is not a social process.

(4) To be a "woman" means having a vagina.

(5) To be a "man" means having a penis.

Just to mention a few.

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Trespasser ]

quote:

---

But with all that said, if men are more likely to begin threads, engage in debate and flame wars, I think the bigger question is what holds women back? Not neccessarily from flame wars but from starting threads and engaging in debate?

---

quote:

---

I feel that men (at least of my generation) are often not given much help in understanding feminism, but expected to, and it's often disappointing for both men and women when we don't. That's not to say that there is no effort or desire to understand, but it's not a simple concept.

---

I don't know...there are women's studies courses that men are welcome to take but usually don't. There are a ton of feminist books by feminist authors out there to read which many men don't. Many men claim to dislike "those radical feminists like Gloria Steinem" or roll their eyes when her name has been mentioned, but more often than not when you ask them whether they've actually READ anything written by her - the answer is no. But when I read one of her books for the first time, I couldn't believe how mild it was compared to what I was expecting. Just made clear sense, and what's more, would probably be considered by most reasonable men to make sense as well.

I think if men really wanted to educate themselves on feminist issues, they would find a way somehow. Like typing "feminism" into google. Or going to the library and maybe starting with a couple of the "lighter" feminist authors. Or being really radical and actually taking a women's studies course if they happen to be in university anyhow.

There are lots of resources and lots of ways for men to learn about feminism - if they really want to.

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

"those radical feminists like Gloria Steinem"

---

quote:

---

Tres, to be fair: There are a relatively small number of babblers who are interested in carrying on certain kinds of philosophical debates -- you and I among them ... When those particular debates get bitter and twisted, it's partly because they're damn hard work, and you've really got to be up for them ... and I'm trying to decide whether the ganging-up that I know you've faced, that I tend to duck by joking with the ganger-uppers, is sexist or not ... Maybe.

---

But too, there's a relatively small number (really!) who go in for flame-wars, chest-beating, spouting off with no knowledge whatsoever, and the like. The fact that they are all men, or nearly all men, doesn't necessarily mean that babble is male-dominated. I'd put it this way: those who want to dominate babble (and occasionally succeed) are men.

quote:

---

there are women's studies courses that men are welcome to take but usually don't. There are a ton of feminist books by feminist authors out there to read which many men don't. Many men claim to dislike "those radical feminists like Gloria Steinem"

---

I took one Women's study course and there was one right way of doing everything - I don't do well in courses like that. Many of the people taking the class were sexually abused. I knew of a man who later took the class and he enjoyed it at first. He thought it was funny that they would get into really sexual discussions and think nothing of it because they just assumed that he couldn't anymore because he was in a wheel chair. At the end I think he was a bit demoralized - he said how he passed the course was to answer every question with an elaboration of the statement: women good - men bad.

Interuption research
1. Men interrupt women more than women interrupt men.
2. While objective messure indicate that men talk more, men perceive women as talking more than men.
3. Men prefer to be interrupted by other men than by women.
4. Women prefer to be interrupted by men than byother women.
5. People more readily accept being interrupted by superiors than inferiors.
6. Even in random assigned role playing, the person playing the teacher or boss interrupts more than the person playing the subordinate or student.
7. Teacher are more apt to interrupt accademically poor students than accademically good students.
8. Teacher are more accepting of the interrupting behavior of accademically good students than accademically poor students.

quote:

---

the materialist-rationalist-positivist Know Nothing position

---

Cheeky, very cheeky, Skdadl . You're hurting some brother's feelings...

As a man, there are patterns of behaviour that are not easy to recognize as inherently discriminatory when you are the one acting that way. Some of these things are going to have to be explained (probably repeatedly) to men before we understand well enough to pass the healthier attitude onto our kids, of both sexes. It doesn't mean women have to be nice about it, or even all that patient, but there will be occassions when women will have to make the time to say, "Hey! That's not cool." The cycles of society will make it more and less of a struggle at times to accomplish this, but I guess I think that collaboration between the sexes is vital.

It amazes me that the same guy who will complain angrily about affirmative action policies can blithely ignore discriminatory hiring practices directed at women (or minorities). I find it equally amazing that a guy seeking to improve his own quality of life through wage increases finds it so unreasonable that a woman would equal pay for work of equal value.

quote:

---

'lance, some things here are said tongue-in-cheek. But then again, some others aren't.

---

Why are women more likely (not universal, only general) to hesitate before posting?
Possibly because they need to feel confident of their facts and in their logic, lest someone prove them wrong. This is only a problem if one is actually listening to the answers, rather than set on a predetermined course. Women are probably more used - in walking life - to being ridiculed if they get some fact or figure wrong, and may be aware of the danger of their mistakes being generalized to the entire gender, or all socialists, 'the left', and careful to avoid responsibility for the tarring of their social or political allies. Some men are also aware and careful of this problem; many are not.
There are other reasons, but that will do to go on with for a while.

Small and big issues. Big issues are, by definition, masculine. War, affairs of state, economics, law, constitution, foreign policy... Well those things have been in the male domain for a long time (and a sorry state they're in! I'm not saying that's cause and effect; i'm merely juxtaposing two facts.) Men have strong opinions on those subjects. Sometimes the opinions are stronger than the supporting evidence; sometimes the arguments and evidence are compelling. It's always interesting to read, and especially interesting is input from men who have both strong convictions and compelling sources. When a woman jumps into one of those contraversies, she usually does so with little previous experience and weak credentials. She's ill-prepared for the heat these discussions can generate. Nobody's fault - it just so happens. So, the female interloper (or trespasser) offers a relatively humble (that's not me - i get flamed for Trudeauesqe arrogance, and sometimes rightly so) suggestion or relevant source material, and is ignored. Why? Because she hasn't addressed (or worse, tried to defuse) the emotional component of the argument. A steamroller isn't stopped by a nutshell, however tidily packed.

Small issues are social, familial, interpersonal. The fact that all big structures are made up of smaller modules doesn't make the small modules more exciting. Small issues don't engage the minds of most men, unless they impinge in some way on the man's rights, fredom or prosperity. Alimony is a subject that makes a single or happily-married man yawn and a recently-divorced man come alive. These issues are personal, or nothing.

quote:

---

And it often comes down to the fact that we supposedly don't, and won't, get it.

---

Ah the issue of Women's Studies. To approach it from another side: does anyone know how Mary Daly's legal case have been solved? She's a feminist writer and professor at a Boston college, where she teaches Feminist Ethics and Feminist Theology. She's also among best-known 'radicalesbian separatist' thinkers in North America.

So. Her practice was not to allow male students to register for her class for a variety of reasons, some philosophical, some political, some in the sphere of class 'management' (it was her experience that men, no matter how small in number, would usually turn the class discussion into a discussion about their feelings, problems, perspectives -- they soon become the object of the focus). In 1998, I think, a cocky young male student who happens to be a Republican and an activist of a conservative civil liberties organization, comes to the college and after she refused to accept his registration, he takes her to court.

He argued that her principles harmed his freedom of speech, or something in that vein. Interestingly, the college takes his side and asks her to change the policies or leave the position.

I have no idea how it all ended.

(edited to add: Right on, Nonesuch)

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Trespasser ]

quote:

---

Radical feminist theologian and author Mary Daly has barred men from her classes at Boston College for 25 years, saying that "the dynamic is totally interrupted" with males in the classroom. Now, her job at the Catholic institution is in question. When senior Duane Naquin complained of discrimination, she was ordered to let him into her feminist ethics class. In response, Daly, 70, says she asked for a paid leave of absence; the college maintains that she retired. Last week, a judge ruled that catalogs may be issued that omit her classes. Daly, who offers to teach men privately, will continue her effort to resist a forced retirement.

---

quote:

---

Trespasser--
A list of inferences contained in the TOTL's post that I have huge problems with:
(1) Your gender has no impact on your writing, your preoccupations, your fears, your freedom.
(2) We are all writing from a universal position, with universal (or endlessly extendable) interests and entitlement to speak: anybody can write about anything any given time.
(3) Thought formation and thought communication is not a social process.
(4) To be a "woman" means having a vagina.
(5) To be a "man" means having a penis.
Just to mention a few.

---

2,4&5 seem reasonable enough to me... please explain?

next:

quote:

---

NDB
I feel men are being pushed to be macho and insensitive again (did we stop?) and that the division between the sexes is becoming greater.

---

I don't think we ever stopped...those concepts are a common fallacy of "masculinity". But I think we are again being pushed towards the old-school mentalities of "honor, bravery, chivalry etc." which have positive inflections--but only for men involved in a patriarchal society. There have been a few articles in southam newspapers (I'll try to find some and post links later), that basically state one of the reasons some western males have supported Bin Laden is that western society has become too "feminized". For some of you, it may not be surprising that I actually agree to that regarding some things...but certainly not in such a gross generalization (see other thread).

quote:

---

Michelle:
Many men claim to dislike "those radical feminists like Gloria Steinem" or roll their eyes when her name has been mentioned, but more often than not when you ask them whether they've actually READ anything written by her - the answer is no.

---

I don't know who Gloria Steinem is...what time-period are we talking about? And I have read pieces of Sunera Thobani's papers to the point that I cannot read them anymore because they generate a feeling of disgust and me--and I hate that feeling. "All pornography is a form of violence against women", "All men are potential rapists"....blech. There are certainly more positive ways to go about feminism--by promoting feminism as feminism and not a form of anti-masculinity. And positive methods are the ones that are going to win support from both camps.

quote:

---

Nonesuch
If you don't like being excluded from something so unimportant, imagine 10,000 years of being excluded from everything important. Then you will begin to have the tiniest inkling of how women feel and why they might want to exclude you from something - anything, no matter how small.

---

First, I would dispute the notion that babble is unimportant. Second, though admittedly I don't know, I would question whether women really feel the past "10,000 years" of oppression, rather than just being affected by experiencing oppression in their own lives and those around them. Last, it is understandable for women to want to exclude men from some aspects of their lives...and this is a topic I will bring up in another thread.

I'm not accusing any man of being sexist - indeed, there are lots of male feminists (assuming that's allowed in the prevailing semantics) and there are lots of well-meaning men who would fight for women's rights. And there are men, like WingNut, Too old to lie, medaes, Mandos, NDB and others (don't take it as a personal slight if i neglected to mention you) who think that gender ought not to be an issue in meaningful dialogue. All respect.

Nevertheless, there may be details and nouances and the residue of long evolution and training which divide men and women on some subjects, or which determine styles of debating.

If a certain amount of venting, whining, swearing and yelling happens to come up... well, it just does. Skip it if it bores you; read if if you think it may shed some light.

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: audra estrones ]

Question for Audra: Is quoting from HC's "Laugh of the Medusa" considered appropriate for this thread?

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: vaudree ]

That being said, I allowed myself to live in a fantasy world of what I pretended Babble was. I enjoy being here because I can assume that we are all intelligent, rational, well meaning human beings who want to discuss problems and possible solutions. Regardless of where we came from and what handicaps we have to suffer in the outside world. Babble has been an escape for me from that world.

I know that this thread was inspired by legitimate complaints and real pain originating in that outside world, but at the same time I believe it is very divisive, pitting babblers against each other unnecessarily and I can see more name calling and accusations, counter accusations to follow.

I know that nobody owes it to me to contribute to my fantasies and it is a purely selfish reaction on my part (sorry but I am only human) but this thread seriously threatened what Babble meant for me and this is what I referred to when I said: “I am so exasperated”. If I offended anyone with any part of my post, I apologize. It was not intentional and did not come from insensitivity to legitimate complaints in the ‘outside’ world.

And with this post I respectfully take my leave from this debate.

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Too old to lie ]

Not really. Even before we're born, some of our business has been settled with a great degree of determinacy. A name and a familial belonging awaits us. A gender awaits us. A historical epoch that will influence our political choices and utopias envelops us. A mother-tongue, that will condition our abilities to create and discard concepts. Professionalization and socialization processes will be there for us, in which we won't have much say until -- when? adolescence? ever? We're also born into a class situation. Our bodies are conceptualized as being of one particular race or other. There's a bunch of people claiming to be our 'brothers and sisters' by virtue of 'us' belonging to the same nation as 'them.' After a certain period of time, we become aware of death and illness as constants in our lives.

In conditions like this, who can speak on behalf whom? Who can claim to speak from the position of unversal validity? Who and under what conditions can come up with something that 'holds truth' for everyone alive, and all our ancestors, and all our descendents? Or more modestly, who can say legitimately anything about me? There are nuances and there are people who can. But there's also awareness that universal-speak (philosophical or scientific or religious, for instance) historically carried particular political privileges. The question is more the one about of a truth-teller than about the truth. Who, under whay circumstances, to what audience, and with what consequences, tells the truth (or gives a universal statement, if you'd like). Feminism was among the schools of thought that helped to popularize that awareness.

(4) To be a "woman" means having a vagina.
(5) To be a "man" means having a penis.

Words 'man' and 'woman' signify much more than simple biological descriptions. There's a whole world of social, philosophical, political, psychological intermediaries between our 'bodies' and our personalities and actions. You can't even epistemologically access 'body' unless through language, which is a playing field for the above mentioned things social, psychological, political. So may we safely say not that 'woman' is a creature with a 'vagina', but that we live in times in which 'vagina' is accepted as the sign that points to (the concept of) a creature called 'woman?'

To be honest, I actually feel more comfortable around women than I do men. I don't know why- I thought about it, and I know it's not like I feel more comfortable around women because I view men as superior, and being young, I should "keep to my equals" or anything like that- It's always been that way (yes, for quite sometime in elementary I was a "tomgirl"- as much as I hate that term).

After thinking about it, I kind of am a little patronizing to some people on babble, though I don't check profiles unless something in someone's message refers to info that is found there. I'm not patronizing to women specifically, looking back, I think I was a bit patronizing to a few then-recent-rabble-rousers (I've overcome it, I think, though). Gee, strolling down babble-memory lane sure makes me feel like an ass

quote:

---

2. While objective messure indicate that men talk more, men perceive women as talking
more than men

---

I wish the women in my school would talk more than the men (boys and girls, same thing)! At least, from what I've heard of the conversations, the women have something interesting to say! Which is a lot better than "fucken *insert derogatory term for homosexuals* fucken *insert derogatory term for ethnic minority* fucken fucken fucken gettin drunk this weekend fucken fucken fucken pot fucken fucken marijuana fucken fucken *insert derogatory term for female genetalia* fucken fucken fucken...". Of course, male students aren't the only ones who talk like this, but they do make up the majority of those who do (Skdadl, if you haven't been to a highschool recently- don't make the trip. The quality, or lack thereof, of English is enough to make one cry- and yes, many students have failed English with marks WELL below 50(and because they don't care, not because they have a learning disability or something, so I'm not being mean- sort of. Actually, I kind of am...never mind )).

quote:

---

3. Men prefer to be interrupted by other men than by women.

---

It doesn't matter that much to me. So long as they're polite about interupting me, I'm fine with it, no matter who does it. If someone's rude, or mildly rude about it, I get this look on my face that utterly screams "...uh, excuse me, f**k you". Of course, I just realized that I might be misunderstood as trying to defeat these claims- I'm not- they're probably (my guess- 98%) true, more or less.

quote:

---

I may be naïve,

---

I spend WAY too much time on line, in forums. The oversized novelty spatula the kids gave me for christmas, so I can get my but out of the chair, is probably a good indication.

I know I'd spend a lot less time in forums if there was no female participation. I'm a man, I know how we think. Men, to me are boring, with the odd exception. No offence-- I'm sure I'm boring to most of the other guys too.

Sometimes I think men, myself included should be less strident in our writing style, I think it has a way of intimidating not all women, but a good number of them that I think probably read here but don't participate.

I consider it my loss.

quote:

---

Men hate to be ignored. Sometimes they don't notice that women feel exactly the same way.

---

nonesuch, you are so very wise. And succinct. You've tidily summed up, in two sentences, the complete answer to the complaints herein.

We might be progressing but not be leaps and bounds. More by lurches and creeps...

Amen to this! I wasn't going to comment, but this is something I know about, first hand.

When I first went online, I used some neutral, place-derived name, and I was completely amazed at the respect I got. It had everything to do with how ADDICTED I got to the internet! I really, really enjoyed it and I have to say, such respect really had never happened to me before. And then I wondered...what if I started to identify myself as I really am, in some way? Hence, the screen name. I have gone back on forth on various America Online boards and chat rooms, and I am amazed at the difference. One name gets singled out and baited, the other doesn't--and by the same people! One name is picked on, one is not. One name is routinely accused of unhappiness, bitterness, jealousy and whatnot, the other is assumed to be stubborn or just not understanding the issues.

It is as I always suspected: one gets FAR more respect if one is NOT a gimp. But now I know for SURE!

But I am more "myself"--somehow, with the name, and I use it more than I don't. (And I am sure the deconstructionists would have a field day with THAT.)

Limpy- are you still here?

quote:

---

"All pornography is a form of violence against women", "All men are potential rapists"....blech.

---

quote:

---

There are certainly more positive ways to go about feminism--by promoting feminism as feminism and not a form of anti-masculinity. And positive methods are the ones that are going to win support from both camps.

---

quote:

---

One name gets singled out and baited, the other doesn't--and by the same people!

---

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: adlib ]

quote:

---

Limpy- are you still here?

---

quote:

---

"All pornography is a form of violence against women", "All men are potential rapists"....blech.

---

quote:

---

I don't get why these (or most other) aspects of Sunera Thobani's writings are problematic to you.

---

All women are potential child killers
All Arabs are potential terrorists
All blacks are potential drug dealers

However, this is where I see a difference between that sentence and the ones that sheep wrote (and I take your point, sheep, the stereotypical aspect of the statement is troubling).

The way I interpret it when someone says all men are potential rapists is that all men have the POWER to be rapists. That doesn't mean that all men choose to be rapists. It just means they have the power to do so. Women, on the other hand, do not have the power to be rapists. Well, I guess they have the power to sexually assault in certain ways, but not to rape in the sense that it happens.

On the other hand, everyone has the power to kill children, commit acts of terrorism, and deal drugs. It's not something that is only within the power of women, blacks, and Arabs.

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: Lima Bean ]

quote:

---

She wasn't saying that all men DO these things. She said that the way the power structure is set up, all men CAN do these things. That's what potential means.

---

If people don't get fundamental concepts, like, say, patriarchy, maybe they should actually read up on them. If I'm posting on an anti-racism board, as a white person, I'm not just going to interject with my opinions on Fanon and nationalism if I've no fundamental understanding of the concepts. If people put some time and effort into understanding other people's oppression, and gave them the benefit of the doubt, trusting that they probably understand their own lives better than you do, we'd be in a much better position to fight oppression.

And I'm not saying I'm perfect. But I do at least try. When I read something I don't agree with first off, I try to understand where the person is coming from instead of getting "disgusted" and dismissing the whole point. Or replying in a reactionary way, such as this ;

quote:

---

All women are potential child killers
All Arabs are potential terrorists
All blacks are potential drug dealers

---

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: dale cooper ]

I agree with you Michelle, on what the intent of Thobani's statement was. The problem with it, as is the problem with any type of blanket statement, is that no matter how you slice it, it's simply not true.

I saw a man the other day who was a quadrapelgic in a wheelchair. How would he have the potential to commit rape? Is he no longer a man since he's disabled?

And sorry adlib, disagreeing with Thobani does not imply an lack of understanding of basic feminism. It is simply a different opinion, that statements such as the one attributed to her (i don't even know that she made it) cause more harm than they do good.

Being oppressed does not grant you a free pass to be an oppresser. Being discriminated against does not give you a right to discriminate, and being stereotyped does not give you the right to stereotype in return.

quote:

---

Lest I get spanked for dominating the feminist forum...

---

quote:

---

If people put some time and effort into understanding other people's oppression, and gave them the benefit of the doubt, trusting that they probably understand their own lives better than you do, we'd be in a much better position to fight oppression.

---

quote:

---

Lest I get spanked for dominating the feminist forum

---

If you don't like the guidelines of the feminism forum, you can go somewhere else and whine about it.

quote:

---

How would he have the potential to commit rape? Is he no longer a man since he's disabled?

---

It is not ableist to say that all men have the potential to commit sexual assault. Not all men have penises, nor legs. The spirit of Thobani's message is that all men have the potential to commit sexual assault. A man in a wheelchair can commit sexual assault.

How many times do people have to repeat basic concepts? Rape, sexual assault, etc, are not a matter of physical strength. They are about social power. Strength does not equal power. Different men have different levels of social power, but they still have it.

In fact, I know someone quite well who was sexually abused by her grandfather over a long period of time, during which time he was in a wheelchair. So tell her that it didn't happen.

quote:

---

Being discriminated against does not give you a right to discriminate, and being stereotyped does not give you the right to stereotype in return.

---

But really why are women advised not to walk unescorted late at night, not to get in the elevator with that lone male, to cross the street if a man has been behind you for awhile....

because they are all potential rapists.

I don't think this neccesarily means that we look at all men as if they have two heads ( well actually they do ) but it does mean that given the current situation in which rape is difficult to prosecute and devasting regardless anyway, it does one a disservice not to be on guard.

But then again, Sunera Thobani is an academic who generally "preaches to the converted", so most of her intended audience are generally feminists who know this stuff already. I think the only reason she is being chastised now is because her comments about TWAT that she gave to a feminist convention got national coverage.

quote:

---

If people don't get fundamental concepts, like, say, patriarchy, maybe they should actually read up on them. If I'm posting on an anti-racism board, as a white person, I'm not just going to interject with my opinions on Fanon and nationalism if I've no fundamental understanding of the concepts. If people put some time and effort into understanding other people's oppression, and gave them the benefit of the doubt, trusting that they probably understand their own lives better than you do, we'd be in a much better position to fight oppression.

---

Adlib if your profile is correct I have been reading feminist writers since before you were born. You have in fact said basically the same thing in response to me on another thread. Does it not even occur to you that someone could be well read, pro-feminist, male and still disagree with you in specific areas? Or are only female posters allowed to have views that diverge from yours? Or are all posters who diverge from your views anti-feminist whether male or female?

I believe in the equality of all people and believe that respect is the starting point for any coalition. I also don't think that equates to either ignorance or anti-feminisim. Because those are my believes does not mean that I have not read and listened it just means I still think that the way forward is blocked by statements which tar all of any identifiable group with the actions of the others of that group.

If society is to change then the people with like believes need to see past differences in race, creed and gender. After all the other side welcomes a large number of women who are willing to not only accept patriarchy but also to promote it.

quote:

---

The way I interpret it when someone says all men are potential rapists is that all men have the POWER to be rapists. That doesn't mean that all men choose to be rapists. It just means they have the power to do so. Women, on the other hand, do not have the power to be rapists. Well, I guess they have the power to sexually assault in certain ways, but not to rape in the sense that it happens.

---

The logic given is that all men have the power to rape ergo all men are rapists is a legitimate statement. Some people should take some basic logic courses because the one does not follow from the other. Because, yes all men are potential rapists but then again are not all women also potential rapists. It seems they can buy the date rape drug as easily as any weak kneeded male. I doubt the criminal bastards that sell the stuff care who buys it.

Are we back to the bad old days when a woman had to prove penetration to have it called rape? Rape is about power and sodomy by any objective standard is rape. Men can and do get sodomized against their will. I have been sexually abused by a male in a position of authority but somehow my gender does not allow me to have any knowledge of how it feels to be abused? Can I know fully what women fell? Of course not but then neither can another woman only the victims themselves fully know how it has affected them.

The problem with over inclusive langague is that all men are not rapists and most men find it just as vile and despicable as women. And yes women get raped more often but to me it is like saying gay men get attacked by hetrosexual men ergo all hetrosexual men are gaybashers. That to me is just as problamatic as the rapist logic. I hug my gay friends not bash them in the park at nite just as I would never consider assaulting a woman. I will admit that occasionally when I see Gordo (BC's Premier)on TV some violent fantasies come to mind but even then I would never act on them. My women friends also admit to similar violent thought about the Gordo Liberals.

What is so hard to understand? After thirty years or more of actively reading, advocating and pursuing justice and equality issues hand in hand with my feminist partners and friends I hate being lumped in with msyoginists and rapists?

quote:

---

While I understand the point being made by a statement like "all men are potential rapists", I cannot see any benefit, beyond fulfilling a desire to attract a certain amount of attention or score political points. It's pointlessly controversial and incondusive to fostering an environment that supports equity.

---

So you understand the point being made, but you don't think it should be made because it is so controversial and incondusive? How can rape be condusive? Is it ever uncontroversial? So, should that make us shut up about it? (RW, I doubt that was the spirit of what you were saying, but it is what I read.)

I see a statement like "all men are potential rapists" kind of artfully. It is something to be meditated on, and whether you agree or not, at the end you will have learned something about feminism.

I also see the statement quite literally. I try to empathize with victims (I'll say it this time - I hate that word) of rape.

I was once accosted by a man on a street corner, one half a block away from my home, at 3 AM wearing a mask of underwear. He was HUGE. I have looked for that man in every dark corner ever since.

I can only imagine a lifetime after rape and thinking that every man IS a potential rapist. I can only imagine a lifetime after being sexually abused as a child and thinking every MAN is a potential RAPIST. I can only IMAGINE a lifetime of fear that it will happen again, or worse, a lifetime of KNOWING that it will.

Can YOU imagine that?

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: skadie ]

quote:

---

The logic given is that all men have the power to rape ergo all men are rapists is a legitimate statement.

---

quote:

---

The logic given is that all men have the power to rape ergo all men are rapists is a legitimate statement. Some people should take some basic logic courses because the one does not follow from the other.

---

Yes, I think so, sort of an idealized version of me, maybe? (Of course, how could I be more ideal than I already am??? hahaha)

SHEEP: How would he have the potential to commit rape? Is he no longer a man since he's disabled?

Well, I will admit, I have often felt angry over the blanket "all men are rapists" statement. I simply can't physically rape anyone, and thats the fact. I have often felt my experience was therefore overlooked or made insignificant. No one, man, woman or child, is AFRAID of me, either...in fact, from time to time, I am actually afraid of aggressive or bullying children (especially with big dogs, good God), girl children included.

I think Susan Brownmiller's statement that men BENEFIT from rape is much more appropriate. I can understand that and appreciate the logic of that. Its true in countless ways, since the existence of rape has an effect on women's behavior (that has been described here).

Kropotkin, I have been a victim, also. But I don't think its the same basic phenomenon as women and girls being victims. Now, you will flame me for that, so maybe I shouldn't say it....but somehow, it just is not the same. (Maybe because if a woman or girl had been available for this man, I wouldn't have been victimized?)

Also, I keep remembering how completely STUNNED I was. I don't think a woman would have been nearly so surprised. (Does that make sense?) Women live with that fear always in a way we do not, even after it happens to us.

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: SuperGimp ]

Not only is that untrue, but it follows that all women are rape victims. It also follows that we need to take on a cautious fearful victim mentality, which personally I find pathetic

When I look at it like this, and maybe someone can provide me with some insight if there are alternative ways of looking at it, I want no part of it. That is not the woman I am, I am neither fearful, nor suspicious, I walk in downtown Toronto on a daily basis at night for 12 years and have received nothing more than stupid comments – I am not calling myself a victim for that.

Now, I am not saying that I will never be raped – I really have no control over that (for the most part) however, I can not (or will not) change the way I interact with people out of fear for the potential. I will not treat with suspicion any man (except the creepy ones) for fear of the potential, and above all, I will never utter the words "All men are potential rapists"

There is a little word in there - POTENTIAL - that's really important, people! And yes, in that case, all women ARE potential - that is, POTENTIAL...

...that is, POTENTIAL...

...rape victims. It can happen to any of us.

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Normally I hate semantic arguements, but this one really bugs me. When you say someone is a "potential" something, you are essentially saying that they have the background and whatever necessary ingredients to make them into a full-fledged whatever. Which is really no different than saying they are that thing.

I think my husband and four sons are all women hating, brainless, dick lead assholes who are only waiting for the right opportunity to rape someone.

quote:

---

... since peni are the instrument used for raping

---

That's true. But in that case, isn't everyone a potential rapist then? It's statistically more unlikely that a woman would commit sexual assault than a man, but if she has the ability to do so, then that pretty much shoots my argument of differentiating between statements like

All men are potential rapists
and
All Arabs are potential terrorists
All women are potential child killers
All blacks are potential drug dealers

out of the water if I'm basing it on possibility.

Sigh.

Angela, it was in response to Dale telling me that it was a merely semantic argument I was using. It WASN'T semantics. When you claim that people are saying "All men are rapists" you are putting words in people's mouths that they haven't said and wouldn't even dream of saying.

And when I pointed that out, Dale told me I was just talking semantics. It's NOT semantics. It's the difference between understanding the meaning of what someone is trying to say, or deliberately misinterpreting it in order to fuel a backlash.

And it's incredibly annoying when you have to explain for the billionth time to someone who just refuses to get it.

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Michelle ]

He is not worth your energy and I really don't know what this Angela is up to except maybe this argument is as good as any.

Just to give you an example:

quote:

---

a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food,

---

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

Angela, check your dictionary for the defintion of victim. Your version is a bastardized media version. It offends me greatly your ability to judge people who have been victimized by generalizing the word victim and then getting offended about men's "potiental" to be a rapists. I guess you just pick and chose what word to generalize.

quote:

---

Angela N do you always feel that your views are well thought out and well written, while others views if they disagree with yours are childish foot stomping?

Just interested for future discussions.

---

No, I believe that most of the views I express on discussion boards are usually well written since we have the capacity to edit our words before we post them. As for being well thought out… I don’t know, I haven’t had the benefit of a formal education in women’s studies, so I imagine that I have a lot to learn. I have been reading this particular forum for a while, and I like the members and find their opinions and experiences valuable.

In answer to whether or not I regard others views childish foot stomping when they don’t concur with my own views. Absolutely not, I regard any effort to engage in a mutually respectful dialogue very rewarding, however, I don’t think you were trying to exchange valuable insight when you offered me:

quote:

---

I think my husband and four sons are all women hating, brainless, dick lead assholes who are only waiting for the right opportunity to rape someone.

---

If I am correct in interpreting your response as a sarcastic quip that is intended to discredit my opinion (which is more an attempt at dialogue than an opinion) then yes, I imagine you can expect more of this in any future discussion where I feel that I am being deliberately misunderstood and dismissed without benefit of actual information. If you wish to engage, I would respectfully ask that you not insult me.

Unless of course you were being honest, in which case I offer my condolences.

Which brings me to Michelle,
I apologise for not including the word potential, I did not exclude it to intentionally to change the nature of the argument, I was looking at something lance had written

quote:

---

The logic given is that all men have the power to rape ergo all men are rapists is a legitimate statement.

---

quote:

---

Normally I hate semantic arguements, but this one really bugs me. When you say someone is a "potential" something, you are essentially saying that they have the background and whatever necessary ingredients to make them into a full-fledged whatever. Which is really no different than saying they are that thing.

---

Written I believe NOT by you.

quote:

---

I was looking at something lance had written...

---

quote:

---

Angela, check your dictionary for the defintion of victim. Your version is a bastardized media version. It offends me greatly your ability to judge people who have been victimized by generalizing the word victim and then getting offended about men's "potiental" to be a rapists. I guess you just pick and chose what word to generalise. I am also aware that not all dogs are friendly and approach strange dogs with caution. It's better than being bitten.

---

I have judged no one, I am telling you what I believe based on personal experience. I don’t think I have used the word victim in any way except the way I know it to mean. Is it wrong? I am not offended about the use of the term "all men are potential rapists.

My issue was…

"I just can not understand how creating such an offensive paradigm that alienates men within our community can be instrumental in reducing the number of assaults against women? If anything it creates mutual distrust and polarizes the sexes even further."

How each individual woman treats men is her business, I am not commenting so much about that.

I would like to know however, how coming up with an ideology that is essentially biased and derogatory to half of the world’s population can possibly be useful, when our aim should be towards finding harmony together.

also...men are not dogs.

sorry Lance - my mistake

sorry Earthmother - my mistake

Go back, please, and start reading from the top and note where the thread breaks down into acrimony.

You will find sheep, a known troller, created the offensive post. The post being offensive in that he acknowledges he knows not the context of what he was quoting but "considering the source" to which you replied Agreed with four exclamation marks. Note also that sheep has not posted since.

That is the role of a troll. To disrupt, breed acrimony and drive people away feeling hurt.

Thobani is certainly a controversial character. But trolls such as sheep attack the person rather than the content of her statements. And that is because he is wholly unaware of the content. It doesn't matter. He is immature and lacking in critical thinking abilities.

this is hard work!!!

(but I do like it)

quote:

---

And yes I am mean.

---

quote:

---

When I look at it like this, and maybe someone can provide me with some insight if there are alternative ways of looking at it, I want no part of it. That is not the woman I am, I am neither fearful, nor suspicious, I walk in downtown Toronto on a daily basis at night for 12 years and have received nothing more than stupid comments – I am not calling myself a victim for that.

---

You are lucky and you still have no right to judge someone who does feel victimized by harassing catcallers, etc. it isn’t pathetic, as it isn’t for you to judge. There is no shame is saying “I have been a victim of violence”.

quote:

---

cautious fearful victim mentality, which personally I find pathetic

---

I have an issue with statement in case you are unclear about what you wrote. Do you find other women’s fear pathetic? A person has a right to be afraid and until something happens a woman isn’t a victim. So what is this victim mentality you find so pathetic? Please explain?

You seem much more sympathetic to the poor men being lumped together than women who wisely are suspicious when they know the odds. You seem to be suggesting that we nicely ask the boys to stop raping and assaulting us. It isn’t my job to cajole the male populace into helping stop violence against women.

quote:

---

also...men are not dogs.

---

I never knew that.

All men are potential rapists'

to which I made the corollary statement:

All women are potential rape victims,

given this is true (which I don't believe)... then...

.. if it follows that all women are rape victims. It also follows that we need to take on a cautious fearful victim mentality...

which personally I find pathetic. (the train of logic that leads to this, not actual victims)

I don't think victims are pathetic!

I started it off by saying I didn't believe the initial comment to be true... therefore it follows that the rest of it is also not true...OK?

I also added

When I look at it like this, and maybe someone can provide me with some insight if there are alternative ways of looking at it,

I am indicating that I am looking at it from a singular (perhaps incorrect or biased) perspective and acknowledging that there are other perspectives, and further to this I am encouraging those perspectives to be voiced.

quote:

---

Ain't it the truth... eh, skdadl?

---

I've been having a very hard time lately liking men. I have my male partner, his immediate family and his best friend, and that's about it for men I 100% have faith have never assaulted a woman in any which way. Given that the majority of rape cases are not even reported, I fear the numbers recorded are understated.

I do think this is a men's issue, just like I believe that racism is a white person's issue. I wonder how many NDP voting men contribute in some way to VAW campaigns, organisations, shelters, crisis centres, women centres to try and end VAW or support those who are working with survivors. I think in cases such as racism, sexism, hate crimes (and yes I truly believe VAW is a hate crime!) you're either part of the solution or part of the problem-to borrow from PETA. The vast majority of men I'm sure haven't given a second thought about VAW outside of their own personal sphere, and I think that silence is condoning, that lack of inactivity continues to support patriarchy and continues to support these men in their privilige and support scores of men use violence against women. AND I am pretty darned angry about that!

For people with severe physical and/or developmental disabiltiies, the potential or ability to rape is impaired OR its meaning can change ( I think (maybe?)).

This summer I worked for one day with a 12 year old boy with autism, who couldn't keep his dick in his pants for three minutes. He terrified many of the other children (and staff). In a macullinist culture his behaviour is unacceptable and barely comprehensible -- to build a feminist culture we need to understand where he's coming from. The onus though is not on women. Men need to learn to respond and understand "deviance" and disability. Bit I think most women will tend to have a better grip on the situation than most men.

See below please.

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]

quote:

---

Well, I also find "all men are potential rapists" to be jarring.
However, this is where I see a difference between that sentence and the ones that sheep wrote (and I take your point, sheep, the stereotypical aspect of the statement is troubling).

The way I interpret it when someone says all men are potential rapists is that all men have the POWER to be rapists. That doesn't mean that all men choose to be rapists. It just means they have the power to do so. Women, on the other hand, do not have the power to be rapists. Well, I guess they have the power to sexually assault in certain ways, but not to rape in the sense that it happens.

---

This was the post that I was responding to when I said all men have the power to rape ergo all men are rapists. I did not respond to the first which is all men are potential rapists because that to me defies logic. I would like to see the context of the statement, however that was not provided. Context often changes meaning.

When Scout says she feels she has to be cautious and wary of all strange men that is logical given that some men rape women and there is no way of telling which man is which. Lets face it people like Bernardo fool most people. However that is not the same as saying all men are potential rapists. The later is not a statement about how to approach an interaction with a stanger but is in fact a slander against all the men who would never commit a rape under any circumstances.

It is getting into semantics probably but it is still a valid point in a respectful forum. I am trying very hard to find a place on this forum to discuss feminist issues without being personally slandered. So please no more crocidile tears. I never said my life was harder than yours or I am oppresed etc. As always I see respect as a two way street and if the language used is disrespectfull of one gender soley on the basis of gender then how is that living up to Babble's rules.

quote:

---

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this discussion board to post any material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory. You agree to avoid personal insults, attacks and mischievous antagonism (otherwise known as trolling). You will not post material that is inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy or otherwise violative of any law. You understand that racist, sexist, homophobic and other excluding language is not appropriate on babble

---

quote:

---

Personally I think the comment of all men are rapists (I believe said by Andrea Dworkin-someone please correct me if I'm wrong) should be looked at in terms of society.

---

Andrea Dorkin said that all men benefit from rape. I don't believe she said all men are rapists. And I'm completely with you, Shenanigans - VAW/sexual assault are hate crimes. (Please see the thread about sexual assault in activist circles if you want more detail about my position on this.)

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

I posted a parcel (as we say here in the south!) of links on the thread Blake started, in the IDEAS forum. The thread is called CRIPPLE LULLABY and you might find some of them interesting.

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: SuperGimp ]

Angela N- I was really angry when I first read your post about rape/victims/men/etc.

I guess because my experience as (coming out now I guess) a repeated sexual assault survivor and resulting PTSD (posttraumaticstressdisorder)/APD (anxietypanicdisorder) conditions mean that indeed I spend a good amount of time living in fear. If that is not your experience, lucky you. But please don't call me pathetic until I'm dead. Because that's the only time I'll be a "victim".

I've put up with tons of crap from abusers, what I need from other feminists/women is some solidarity. I can see that you are not trying to hurt people's feelings, AngelaN, but sometimes good intentions don't make up for (IMO) thoughtlessness.

Please consider that your not being a sexual assault survivor, and not living in fear, makes you lucky, not superior to the rest of us.

Please don't allow abusers/sexists to divide us by pretending that acknowledging the very real sources of anxiety and fear makes us "pathetic" or "victims".

I am very glad to hear that you feel so comfortable, and that your life has not at this point been affected by the culture of fear and violence inflicted on most women. Please stand with the people who don't have that privilege, not against us.

quote:

---

It also follows that we need to take on a cautious fearful victim mentality...

which personally I find pathetic. (the train of logic that leads to this, not actual victims)

---

And I hear you saying that you don't think victims are pathetic. But I feel like the other things you're saying contradict that. Please explain more.

quote:

---

I just can not understand how creating such an offensive paradigm that alienates men within our community can be instrumental in reducing the number of assaults against women? If anything it creates mutual distrust and polarizes the sexes even further.

---

I'm not trying to start a fight with you. WingNut is right, sheep's trolling was the source of the argument.

Shenanigans, you're right about the spirit of the statement. I think that a lot of anti-feminist men like to jump on sentences as "proof" of "man-hating". Unfortunately, I think a lot of people who don't consider themselves anti-feminist do the same thing. If people are looking to understand feminism, they will find far less of it "offensive" than if they are simply skimming for a quote to bolster their point.

Blake, as I said, I think it is simplistic to say that a man with a disability can't sexually assault someone. Concerning unintentional "flashing", I think there are a lot of behaviors that, taken out of their cultural context, are harmless. But in my work with people with developmental disabilities, there were many behaviors that the people themselves exhibited because of the negative ways they were treated. I don't know the person you are referring to, so I'm not saying that is the case here, but I did know some people who would do things to get people's attention or to show that they were pissed because people would assume they "didn't know better". I think that is a lot more of a complicated case, but I still think that someone who is unaware of the impact of their behaviour can still sexual assault. It is the impact that is of essence, not the intention.

At any rate, there are various complications about sexual assault that have to be addressed. Like disability and perpetration or surviving sexual assault. Like the impact of racism on sexual assault (the myth that black men are compelled to rape white women for example).

I don't think any of this takes away from how it is necessary to never assume that anyone cannot commit sexual assualt, not matter if the person is an activist, or disabled, or your friend, or whatever.

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: adlib ]

Fear is the only thing I am afraid of - Fear is what keeps women in abusive situations, fear is what keeps people from making a stand, fear is what keeps Dictators in power, fear is what tied slaves to their masters and fear is the only thing that prevents most people from reaching their goals.

Fear is what kept me from telling that man “no” and fear prevented me from telling someone about what was happening for 2 years of my life.

To my mind, fear is my enemy, I will not fear men because it gives them power. I am not interested in providing power to a group of people who have already taken and abused their fair share of power (at my - and your - expense).

Having said all this, I also know that most men are not a threat to me, indeed, most men are very interested in providing the safe environment that all women deserve. It is those men (the majority) that I defend when I spoke about the use of the term “all men are potential rapists” and if you had read what I wrote subsequent to that post, you can see that what I was trying to convey is that: when you start with that premise - it inevitably leads you to... “all women need to live in fear of the potential rapist”