That’s the thing I like to point out, but the response is “woman-hating rape defender!” It’s just reverse sexism and hypocritical and shutting up your opponents by hitlerizing them seems like such a ridiculous way of “winning” people to your PoV and really calls into question what your real motivations and agenda are.
So maybe I should have said something to indicate I was pointing out a general fact, not making an absolute statement; perhaps like …
I’ve not the stomach to go looking for the research, but ISTM that wartime rapes would be even more likely to be skewed toward the youngest/most desirable victims. It’s a little unlikely to imagine a Russian/Nazi/etc. walking into a roomful of women, all equally vulnerable, and choosing the grandmother over the teenager.
I’ve not the stomach to look into it either, but my understanding is that the 1945 rapes were largely intended, consciously or unconsciously, as a way to punish the Germans for what they had done, and were less about getting some easy sex.
I get it, from a different angle maybe. I spent a good portion of my life dedicated to addressing issues that immigrants, particularly Latino undocumented immigrants, face in the U.S. I spent like ten years studying Spanish and my early career trajectory was focused specifically on issues within immigrant communities. I did both direct practice work and worked at the administrative and fundraising levels for nonprofits serving these communities. At one point I made some new colleagues who were DREAMers, and man some of them fucking hate white people. I’m aware that my status as a documented white citizen creates an experiential chasm that can never be crossed, and that there are things I will always miss, and ways I will always be ignorant, but goddammit if I don’t try. I’ve since given up on a lot of activism work because the overwhelming message I took was ‘‘we don’t want you here.’’ Not that they ever said it to my face but the dialog was so profoundly alienating to me and the emphasis was so much on how much white allies suck. Ok fine. I want to help but I’m not going to spend the rest of my life prostrating myself in supplication for the sin of being white and documented. No.
In some social justice circles I would be excoriated for what I just said.
My whining voice doesn’t carry in that context, but in the feminist movement, being a woman allows me to more safely express my distaste for targeting potential allies. It doesn’t make sense to me strategically and it’s morally questionable. It embarrasses me because I know how shitty it feels to be on the receiving end.
But I really do see the oppression of men in the oppression of women. For every woman who is ignored for being too emotional about a subject there is a man who isn’t free to express his emotions without ridicule. For every woman trapped in the homemaker role there is a man trapped in the breadwinner role. Women protest that they are blamed for being raped, and that sucks, but men don’t even get to talk about being raped. There are two sides to the coin and as long as that continues to be the case I am vehemently against shutting down men’s voices in the public dialog about so-called women’s issues.
In that way sexism is perhaps very different from racism.
And your point is what?
I made a *general *claim, backed it up with data, and then specifed that of course there are exceptions, because general is not universal.
Responding “yes, but this one event sixty years ago was an exception” doesn’t challenge the general point, any more than “95% of dogs have four legs,” is challenged by “my neighbor’s dog had only three.”
Thank you! I appreciate this more than you know. Over the years, I’ve considered leaving the board over some of your posts. While I appreciate the knowledge and perspective you bring to many discussions, you’ve often posted very personal experiences on sensitive issues of taboo subjects. In several threads, because most people rightly don’t want to hurt your feelings, given how personal the stories are, the conversation becomes very stilted with some people coming to white knight your viewpoint. There were points where I thought you were doing this purposely. If you take a look at your original Pit thread, you dared people to question you, as though you knew that anyone doing that would get slammed. Since I also didn’t want to hurt your feelings, I didn’t speak up about my viewpoint. That got irritating and frustrating. Now that I realize that you understand that your viewpoint is not the only one despite your personal experience, I’ll behave differently. Thank you for revealing that so candidly. It means a lot to me.
I thought of sending this as a PM, but this isn’t principally about you beyond my gratitude of that post. I’m not wanting you to change anything. It’s more of an explanation of why I won’t be tip-toeing around your feelings about these issues. It’s because you’re not asking me to.
And I in turn will agree with you. However her feelings weren’t I was talking about. Perhaps I phrased my comment poorly but what I was speaking to were the arguments she said she was making (which were obviously a result of those feelings). According to her post she had been making impassioned arguments and was experiencing frustration over the way the men she mentioned would analyze and find fault with them.
Well, that explains all the passive-aggressive slights I’ve felt from you over the years. What bothered me about it was it always seemed targeted at some hidden motive I must have, some implication that I was being disingenuous. Which is a soft spot for me, I try to be genuine. I’m not crafty enough to lay traps for people. Knowing that you perceived me as trying to control the conversation, this all makes more sense.
That particular Pit thread in 2007 was one of the first things I ever posted here. I was not psychologically prepared to deal with the consequences. There was no manipulation about it, however it came across, I was just fucked up, socially isolated and reaching out for support in the only way I knew how. That anyone would be skeptical was unthinkable and shocking to me. I was that naive, and when it happened it struck that same nerve of dealing with my own family’s skepticism. I am ashamed of how I handled that thread. It was my reaction to that thread and how profoundly it affected me that made me question that model of the The Collapsible Woman. And even though I reacted poorly in that thread, some of the advice I received stuck with me, in the sense that it offered an alternative to being the victim in everything.
I had an axe to grind against Dio for years, by the time he apologized I realized he wasn’t being unreasonable at all, particularly given the culture of this board and how many crafty trolls abound. And I’m not going to lie, I’ve believed every ridiculous story the trolls have brought to bear since. You all are much more sensible than me. 
I’ve failed in my endeavor to keep a steady hand at times over the years (most memorably in a particular interaction with Der Trihs in Great Debates, which I thought I apologized for, but if not, sorry Der Trihs!), but I’m a damned sight better off now than I was in those early years. Every slip up has made my skin that much thicker. At least now when it’s getting too emotional for me, I can walk away. In fact by now I just avoid these boards whenever I’m in a particular state of mind. And if I do end up getting burned I know it was my own damned fault.
I tried hand-delivering that apology to Der Trihs but he has PMs disabled. Rather sensible, I think.
And honestly Roo, I wish you would have just called me out on my shit if you were seriously considering leaving the board! It would have never occurred to me that I would affect anyone on that level and I’m kind of horrified that I upset someone for that long without knowing about it. It speaks to your character though that you were genuinely worried about hurting my feelings. I’m glad it only took 7 years for me to demonstrate the emotional maturity necessary to handle it. 
I hope you saw my apology to you in June 2012 that addressed some of that.
You had the majority view with the gut-wrenching story. I had the minority view with no story. If I called you out, I would have gotten slammed if you were manipulating the conversation intentionally, which is why I appreciated your post so much where you confirmed that you weren’t doing that.
Oh. No, I think I somehow missed that apology. Thanks. And, also, I apologize to you. As for your ‘‘part in that,’’ you addressed me respectfully, as always. Others should be so lucky in the Pit.
Truth be told, I’m always getting PMs thanking me for speaking out and/or asking me for advice on related matters, which has gone a long way toward encouraging me to use this approach (the drawing on personal experience approach, not the ‘‘flipping out when people disagree with me’’ approach.) I viewed it as a net positive. Now, in consideration of what you’re saying, I’m not so sure. The last thing I would want to do is discourage board participation.
Was it 2008? I don’t see any Pit threads started by you prior to that.
I think it was moved to MPSIMS, but that was after I abandoned it. I will PM you the link.
To me, you’re allowed (this is the general you) to be an overemotional, knee-jerk, irrational shrill harpy, if you’re also right.
Because there are people who will label you every single one of these things if you have XX chromosomes. Even if you have so little emotional affect that you’re less lively than people in a coma.
Someone who is arguing with you does not get to define what “overemotional” is. They have a reason for trying to paint us that way. And men rarely get called any of these things, no matter how they are behaving.
Yeah but I’ve never seen pointing that out do me any favors in the middle of a debate.
I get your point, fully, but I’m also beginning to notice that these overemotional, unreasonable people actually do exist, and they drag down the tone of the debate. I have probably unwittingly been that person more than once, and Heff can confirm I have, in the very least, been perceived that way.
I noticed this phenomenon recently when any attempt for me to engage in discussion on Gamergate (not here) resulted in some people collapsing into this default state of misogynist rage rather than actually hearing what I was saying. I was saying some pretty innocuous things, too, but everything I said was twisted to mean something else that fit their narrative of being oppressed nerd boys.
It must work both ways. I know it does, because the lady in that article zweis linked to horrified me. I was just thinking, in what ways does the standard feminist narrative silence the voices of other women? Where is there room in that lady’s mind for someone like me to say, ‘‘Uh, no, I actually don’t mistrust men at all, and I think it’s wrong that you do.’’
If I stand up and say, ‘‘I have never in my life felt these constant day-to-day slights that you perceive,’’ am I trying to silence her voice, or just speak in my own? Is her truth more ‘‘true’’ because it fits the prevailing narrative?
Goddamnit Spice quit being so fucking reasonable. 
Indeed, many women would be selfish enough to accuse him to get some money.
You’ve probably been perceived as a lizard person, too. That doesn’t mean you should take care to act less lizardy.
Og help me if I ever were to act less lizardy.
You know, I’m beginning to suspect that I can’t please everyone.