re: "rape culture"

[james_the_evil1]

Posting this in case leora wants to continue the conversation we were having.
This started here: http://corpsefairy.livejournal.com/19639.html
And then went here: http://joreth.livejournal.com/241787.html

Unfortunately joreth felt I was

Comments

[joreth]

I did not say you were trolling, I said I was about to lose my temper and start treating you like a troll.

You continue to "not get it".

[james_the_evil1]

Apologies for misunderstanding. Your exact words were "Please stop now before I get angry and start responding the way I usually to do trolls on my blog

[joreth]

The reason for continuing to say you don't get it is because you claimed to be one of the men who do, when you clearly do not if you think anything I have to say stems from any anti-man orthodoxy.

In your own words "for those guys who don't get it (tho many of us do)". The word "us" is not appropriate there.

What you are arguing about is the Tone Argument, which is a classic and much abused argument tactic that says I don't like how you said what you said, so whether you're right or not, I'm not going to listen because I don't like the way you said it, and it completely derails the discussion or argument from the original topic because we then have to go off on a tangent about which words are appropriate to use instead of discussing what got someone so pissed off in the first place.

As long as you continue to hold this position, I do not wish to discuss this topic with you and you are rapidly making me reconsider you as a friend at all because of your obstinacy on my tone.

[james_the_evil1]

I NEVER said that I think what you have to say stems from an anti-man orthodoxy. I said some of the LANGUAGE used by people in these discussions either does come from such orthodoxy; and/or that some people, especially the people who PERCEIVE it as such, who're also the most likely to need to hear the message, will refuse to do so because that's all they hear. You continually read this as me arguing with you that the problem exists or that I was minimizing it when, in fact, I never did any such thing

Reply to Leora # 1

[james_the_evil1]

From this post: http://joreth.livejournal.com/241787.html?thread=983163#t983163

I have no view on whether or not it is possible to be evangelical and decent. I am not convinced it is impossible, but I am not sure it isn't.

I never said it wasn't. However, the governing evangelical organizations and their principles are NOT decent, and many decent people who consider themselves evangelical have to engage in deliberate cognitive dissonance to ignore how the groups they belong to practice & promote very different things than the individual members adhere to.

However, I don't see how that analogy holds then, since you can hold the same basic views and be decent. Just as you can hold the rape culture views and not be anti-male.

Of course. I hold a number of views that fit the criteria for it. I know joreth and corpsefairy and I don't think either of them is anti-male. However, the underlying philosophy & principles are inherently anti-male and while well-meaning people

Re: Reply to Leora # 1

[corpsefairy]

What terms would you prefer?

Re: Reply to Leora # 1

[james_the_evil1]

"Culturally insensitive gender/sex bias" maybe?
That could be a great conversation.

As part of that discussion there's a need to go thru a number of the manifestos like the one you linked and evaluate them as objectively as possible, with viewpoints from multiple sources considered, to strip the anti-male (and more specifically anti cis-gendered male) bias many of them contain.

Preferably this'd be something done with several live panels/groups in real time to avoid net miscommunications, and a set of standards worked out.

Reply to Leora # 2

[james_the_evil1]

From this post: http://joreth.livejournal.com/241787.html?thread=983419#t983419

Again, there is a distinction between seeing every man a a potential rapist and assuming every man is a rapist until proven innocent. They are completely and utterly different things. I would again appreciate it if you would acknowledge that, as you still have failed to address this. You seem incapable of understanding it.

No, there really isn't. Again, based on the principles at play, you're playing a semantics game to try & avoid admitting something that'd prove my point, but you cite things that confirm it.

You also have not addressed my point as to whether or not you think I view every man as a boyfriend until proven otherwise, which would be analogous in your point of view. I do not view men as such simply because I am aware of and acknowledge the possibility of any male potentially becoming a partner of mine. You said you assess them on a spectrum from threat to

Re: Reply to Leora # 2

[leora]

I absolutely do not assess people on a spectrum from potential mate to potential threat. They are two entirely different categories. Admittedly, being rated highly as a threat will affect my rating of someone as a potential mate, but being a low threat won't make someone highly likely to be a mate

Re: Reply to Leora # 2

[james_the_evil1]

Ok, please clarify how do you reconcile that with citing a principle based on this?

So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?

That appears to be a contradiction.

[slutbamwalla]

I've held my tongue on things like this for a long time, as I've lost more than one female friend by suggesting that the 'guilty until proven innocent' nature of rape culture is demoralizing to men. And it's something that I struggle with -- do I feel this way because I truly believe it, or do I feel it because I'm inherently part of the problem and I am reacting defensively?

But the thing is, Schrodinger's Rapist states that men can never prove themselves not to be rapists (as you can't prove a negative), only to be less likely to be one. That just seems to me to be inherently hostile to all men.

Leora's self-assessment seems rather to be the inverse of that: Most men are probably okay, but I am constantly reassessing based on interactions, and if they pass a certain threat threshold, I will remove myself from the situation. And that seems more sensible to me. I know when I cross the street that I could be hit by a car. But I don't assume that any given car is likely to hit me unless there are definite warning signs -- excessive

[james_the_evil1]

Reply to this