But the alternative is, apparently, to treat all men like potential rapists with the likes of mandatory anti-rape seminars. Where are all the other seminars, mandatory or otherwise, demanding that people don’t break other laws? Why should so many men be lectured to about something that they have absolutely zero intention of doing? Isn’t that kind of like treating innocent people like potential criminals?
The mountains of blogs and newspaper articles regarding that incident and what Jay-Z could have done to cause it sickened me. They far outnumbered the articles that just said straight up “that was assault, Jay-Z is a victim”.
That’s what you get when you let ideology dictate your choices in the real world. That is, you get rubbish. The focus should be on whatever leads to fewest rapes without inconveniencing women (& innocent men) unduly. This focus of course includes teaching women prudent behavior and tackling potential dangerous situations when that is the most efficient way to decrease rapes (Sexual-assault prevention program cut rape rate nearly in half). We’re on d’oh territory here.
Your cite doesn’t claim that there were fewer rapes because of this course, only that recipients of the course were less likely to be raped. That’s all fine – I’m all for giving women tools to keep themselves safe. That’s not victim blaming.
But as the article says, that is not attacking the cultural problem of rape. Men who want to rape will rape, and they’ll find victims who are vulnerable. I think helping women reduce their vulnerability is fine, but it doesn’t attack the source of the problem – men who desire to commit rape and are willing to actually commit rape. And considering how many men don’t see certain kinds of rape as rape, this just shows us the scope of the problem. Educating those men might actually lead to less rapes in society – educating women might reduce their own chance of being raped (a good outcome, to be sure), but I don’t see what it does to reduce rape as a problem in society.
Colleges have occasional “mandatory” awareness thingies. My old college had a (much-needed) one on health and hygiene. (Amazing how many college-age students don’t know about soap and water…)
Being forced (ooh! fascism!) to sit through one or two public service sessions isn’t so big a violation of anyone’s rights: it’s part of the contractual deal to obtain a college degree. I also had to take a P.E. class, some math, and some social/cultural classes. That was “mandatory” too. Big deal.
Ah, those mandatory rape seminars. Gotcha. I’m fairly certain our incoming freshmen sit through one of them, although they are a bit broader in focus. Bystander education and all of that. Then there’s the cultural diversity role playing, the tour of the library, and an optional harbor boat cruise. Nothing more oppressive than college.
I had to take three gym classes and demonstrate that I could swim two lengths of the pool.
Well thankfully when I went to University all that was mandatory was my courses and my exams, both in the subject I was studying.
As some people seem to have missed the point, I’ll spell it out for you.
A common trope is that rather than teaching women how not to be raped, we should be teaching men not to rape. The normal way this is presented is with mandatory anti-rape seminars, which is now becoming reasonably common. Not only is this treating the innocent like potential criminals, it also seems to be purely for rape. There doesn’t seem to be mandatory seminars about how not to assault people, steal things or suchlike.
Basically, it is singling out innocents to demand they listen to you about how not to do this one, hideous, thing that they never had any intention of doing in the first place. It is an extension of the radical feminist trope of “all men are potential rapists”. Surely you can see that being treated that way isn’t exactly something that many men are going to be OK with?
If I say feminism is “about” gender equality, and you say feminism is “about” privileges for women, where do we go from there? We each present things feminists have done and said as evidence for our positions, correct? So, let’s just cut straight to that part. Words and deeds are objective, ineffable qualities are subjective.
Gender equality, and freedom from gender roles - no person being prevented from doing what they want to do on account of their gender.
So, why were women given a subordinate role in pretty well every single human society?
I actually used that article because the nice, neat list of links to articles about the role of women in war, from ancient times to now. They are below that paragraph.
The “gathering” half of hunting and gathering was, in fact, typically done by women.
But yes, giving birth was part of the “work” done by women. Are you saying that it’s easier than plowing a field, or…?
When I wrote “what you mainly see…”, I was referring to films other than your examples. You realize that the male protagonist rescues the female protagonist far more often than he dies for her benefit, right?
But to speak to your examples, Sarah Conner proves her worth by killing the Terminator. She’s thus worthy of giving birth to and raising the savior of humanity.
I haven’t seen Titanic in a long time, but I recall Rose being fairly bland and passive, as opposed to primal-life-force Leo and despicable-brute Billy Zane.
As above: gender equality and freedom. There’s a vast space between oppression, and equality.
Again, I was referring to movies generally. With thousands of films released each year, it’s not hard to find counter-examples to any trend.
There’s no one else for Reese to kill; the Terminator has no goons or soldiers. Reese does use violence, as I’m sure you’ll concede. At any rate, Reese isn’t the protagonist.
Yep, Titanic is a different sort of story, a tragic romance, star-crossed lovers doomed to be apart. Romeo and Juliet is the template here, in which both lovers die. Rose doesn’t, because otherwise the framing device wouldn’t work, and Cameron couldn’t link the 1912 storyline with modern efforts at exploring the wreckage. But for that, it’d be more fitting for Rose to choose to drown with Jack.
Because Buttercup doesn’t do anything. Wesley literally runs a gauntlet of dangers, survives torture, and outwits the villain. Buttercup…looks good in a dress? She’s done nothing to earn a reward, Wesley has.
You’re wrong, and twice. First, yes, it’s perfectly valid to hold “good behavior” training for college students, because some of them have been poorly socialized at home or in grade school. And second, as a matter of fact colleges hold other kinds of awareness seminars, such as the health and hygiene training I mentioned earlier.
Since some of the men in that audience will go on to commit rape, your complaints are ill-founded. The ideal is to reduce the number of such crimes, and such awareness seminars seem to have this benefit.
Since many of the men in the audience know women who have been raped, a good many of us are absolutely OK with it. If others can be spared that misery, then sitting to a couple hours of lecture is a small price.
Are you sure that all men see it as “hideous”? Maybe the ‘knock woman on head with brick and drag her into alley,’ sure, but…are you sure that all men see putting a roofie in a woman’s drink and then “getting in there, son” as being a hideous act? Is it possible that many still feel that’s okay, if you can get away with it?
Might there be some men who have watched practically every 1970s or 1980s comedy movie set in a high school or college, and enjoyed the scenes in which male characters manage to “get some” from unconscious female characters? Is it possible that many such men would never have thought of doing such a thing as “rape”? After all, if it’s in a movie, it must be okay…
That’s the sort of thing those seminars are for, surely. (And, yes, I am calling you Shirley.) Not everything now considered to be rape by the majority of both men and women, is considered to be rape by all males. Many will be shocked at the suggestion that it’s not okay to penetrate an unconscious woman. It’s doing them a favor to inform them that their ideas are mistaken, and could bring them to harm in our current legal system.
A freshman once told me that once women starting drinking at college parties, they were agreeing to have sex. Seriously. He truly believed this. Other guys had told him.
He most certainly had no intention of committing rape. Total sweetheart. Just clueless about sex, consent, alcohol, women, men, parties, you name it.
Unless you work with them, you’d be astonished what young people don’t know.
Sorry for the long delay. I started a response, and then got unhappy with it, so I started thinking about why I was unhappy. And what I realized was I wasn’t accurately stating what I think. So I decided to think about it some more.
Anyway, I’ll try to take a s stab at it. First of all, (and this is a compliment, not a complaint) you seem like someone who is especially interested in women’s comfort, safety, and well-being. Again, that’s a compliment. It’s admirable.
We live in a society in which men are encouraged to look after the safety, well-being, and comfort of women. In fact, I’d go so far as to say it is part of what defines being a man. It is, as I’ve argued, not just part of our cultural heritage, but part of our biological heritage, as well. For the most part, I don’t have a problem with it. If part of being a man includes doing the heavy lifting, taking risks, and being on the front line, I’m OK with that.
But there are some problems with that paradigm. One is that it’s really one that was created in, and for, a different world than the one we live in today. (Thus the feminist discussions about whether men are “obsolete”. The answer, by the way, is “No”, but whatever.) Another problem is that part of that baggage includes a rule that men are not supposed to complain, or show weakness. It’s why, for example, men are so much less likely to go to the doctor, more likely to ignore physical or even mental health issues, and likely to have their complaints taken seriously if they seek treatment. Among our tribal ancestors, a man who complained or showed weakness was a man who could not be counted on. He was a man who risked being left behind, or, at least, one who was less likely to reproduce. Of course, we don’t live in that world anymore.
If women are “ornaments” - a feminist complaint - then men are appliances. The thing about appliances is, if they don’t work they get thrown away. That’s one reason for the great imbalance between men and women in terms of homelessness, imprisonment, and suicide. Some men don’t work, so society throws them away.
Women, of course, have the right to be seen as people, not ornaments. And men have the right to be seen as people too.
It’d be great if feminism really were about equality. But it’s not. It’s about portraying men as victimizers, and women as victims. It claims to be about “empowering” women - but not by encouraging them to be agents, who make their own choices, and take responsibility for the choices they make - but by demanding that society empower women for them, and blaming society when women don’t make the choices feminists want them to make. In other words, it objectifies women. And it abuses so-called “patriarchy,” by constantly coming up with ever more obscure and ridiculous things to complain about, and demanding that society pay attention, no matter how stupid the complaints. It seeks to create double-standards, rather than eliminate them, and it actively suppresses facts that conflict with its agenda. It deprecates the value of fathers in homes, while ignoring the evidence that fatherlessness is a prime indicator of worse outcomes for children. It does everything it can to make marriage a bad deal for men, to the point where more men are opting out. Feminism, in short, is bad for men, it’s bad for women, and it’s bad for children.
I realize that doesn’t address all the points you made.
They’re just the first three that came up when I googled “income gays vs. straights”.
There’s tons of cites up-thread about domestic violence. The weight of the evidence, I believe, shows that men and women commit domestic violence in roughly equal measures. As far as domestic violence that results in serious injury or death, women are more likely to be victims. That’s a small category, however: most domestic violence does not result in serious injury or death. That’s not to trivialize or minimize it, just to say it’s not typical of domestic violence cases.
If there’s other things you want me to address, let me know. For the moment I’m out of time.