‘When Will We Stop Being Shocked By How Normal A Rapist Seemed?’

shinny

http://www.her.ie/life/when-will-we-stop-being-shocked-by-how-normal-a-rapist-seemed-husband-of-murdered-jill-meagher-speaks-out/

Jill Meagher's husband Tom Meagher speaks out. Well worth a read.

Neyite

Excellent read.

In AH yesterday, someone linked the wiki list of worlds youngest mothers. Overwhelmingly the 'father' column was a male relative. Someone who was trusted within the family, only being discovered presumably in many cases when a pregnancy presented.

The most common rapist 'type' I've seen are the everyday normal guys who make a point of targeting the drunkest girl at a party. The ones who can barely stand up, let alone consent. Since I'm not much of a drinker, I've tended to spot these in action a bit easier and become a limpet to the girl much to his disgust. And from time to time I've been the target of verbal abuse for not letting him take a near-comatose girl away to rape 'interfering'

These guys were sometimes workmates, or friends of workmates. Educated, seemingly law abiding. Friendly, sociable, funny.

Precious flower

I suppose it reflects the statistics that most women are attacked, abused physically and sexual substantially more often by people they know, who society sees as a normal, average person rather than a random stranger lurking in an alleyway. Makes the fact more scary. Though I don't think that poor girl even knew the guy who attacked her, did she? Really insightful read though, seriously made me think about the whole issue.

Da Shins Kelly

I read that article this morning. A very well written piece. This idea of the boogeyman rapist has very little bearing on reality. What happened to Jill Meagher is really quite rare. In any case I've been familiar with, the girl always knew her attacker - in one case, it was a cousin, another was a boyfriend, and I've seen numerous lads who have skirted some very shady grounds at parties and such - these are men who would be considered 'normal lads', 'good craic', etc.

There definitely seems to be a certain level of wilful ignorance surrounding rape, or a general attitude that doesn't accept that certain acts do constitute sexual assault. I think this attitude prevails in particular with rape victims who were drunk at the time. People seem to think that anything goes when there is drink involved, or that girls are somehow more 'up for it' if they have some drink in them, or that the victim's version of events can't be trusted just because they were drunk at the time.

It's an issue that men need to talk about between each other. I've had numerous conversations with girls about stuff like this, and never once have I heard a male friend talk openly about it. The unwillingness of men to have an open dialogue about this just contributes to it being swept under the carpet. And this 'bro code' thing is irksome too - men looking out for each other and refusing to call each other out on certain behaviours and sometimes even egging each other on is something that can be incredibly intimidating when you witness it in full flight.

eviltwin

It's a great article. She was very unlucky, wrong place and wrong time. A few minutes either way and she might have never encountered him. What scares me is the amount of women being raped by their husbands, boyfriends etc. I work with abused women and rape is becoming more common, scarily so and these men are often pillars of the community, teachers and gardai. Rape by intimate partners is still taboo and needs to be addressed.

lazygal

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056598001

This is an old thread but full of 'nice guys', boyfriends, friends, acquaintances and others known to the posters who were the guy who sexually assaulted them.

Precious flower

lazygal wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056598001

This is an old thread but full of 'nice guys', boyfriends, friends, acquaintances and others known to the posters who were the guy who sexually assaulted them.

That thread made me really think that men really don't know what it's like to be a woman, and the vulnerability you feel around men when you are a women. God, I feel nervous passing a group of men who are 3 or more! I just can't help it. The men in that thread who couldn't comprehend that a woman would feel intimated by a man without him having to do anything physical to ensure that really shows that men can't see a man from a women's viewpoint and they don't realise there own strength. Men don't often feel intimidated by other men, but women are raised with the thought that a man is always stronger than her, no matter how small he is. men don't see these issues because they don't cross them in their day to day lives.

meeeeh

My experience is totally opposite. I have a large circle of male friends and coworkers. I am not scared of men neither was I ever assaulted by any of men close to me.

But I've been stalked by a customer and also by a complete stranger who spotted me walking dogs. I've been assaulted by a man who worked in a hostel and by some random guy who was sitting behind me in the cinema (I was 13 at the time). A complete stranger was riding the bicycle in circles around me with his pants of when I was walking to a car and threatened to rape me. (That one was quite funny. I threatened to burn his arse with a cigarette bud and he cycled away because I didn't react as he expected. I guess smoking can be good for you. )

Most of the sexual violence is committed by those close to us. But I don't buy this out of the blue thing and how men don't talk and understand sexual violence. Decent men know exactly what not to do and very often it is quite easy to avoid the bad eggs. I know there are exceptions but if anybody feels threatened by male friends at a party or friends of friends then it is time to find new ones.

Femme_Fatale

I do see the point that a rapist isn't necessarily a shadowy figure lurking on street corners and can unfortunately be someone we wouldn't expect it to be. But... I dunno. Doesn't "Rapists can be just regular guys" set quite a dangerous precedent?

Precious flower

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I do see the point that a rapist isn't necessarily a shadowy figure lurking on street corners and can unfortunately be someone we wouldn't expect it to be. But... I dunno. Doesn't "Rapists can be just regular guys" set quite a dangerous precedent?

That same question came to me as I read it. It kind of puts forward the idea that no man is really safe, even the ones that seem normal, that a woman should always be on guard. I always felt I had a good sense of telling when people are safe. Anyone else get this? When you just 'tell' that that person is okay. But it's a scary thing to think that any number of men you meet or even socialise with occasionally could be dangerous.

johnnyskeleton

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

It's an issue that men need to talk about between each other. I've had numerous conversations with girls about stuff like this, and never once have I heard a male friend talk openly about it. The unwillingness of men to have an open dialogue about this just contributes to it being swept under the carpet. And this 'bro code' thing is irksome too - men looking out for each other and refusing to call each other out on certain behaviours and sometimes even egging each other on is something that can be incredibly intimidating when you witness it in full flight.

Just so we are clear, are you saying that men should have an honest discussion amongst themselves about how they are all potential rapists? And then that they shouldn't look out for each other or refrain from openly criticising each other?

Pat Mustard

I don't agree with Tom Meagher's article.

Tom Meagher's article would have us believe that the behaviour of ordinary men normalizes a mindset that can lead to the types of crime committed by Adrian Bayley.

Tom Meagher is telling us that he realised that Adrian Bayley was ordinary man, when he heard him form sentences, in order to speak normally.

No, Adrian Bayley is not an ordinary bloke. Not by a long shot. It is no exaggeration to say that Adrian Bayley is a lethally dangerous sexual predator.

Link

Bayley, 41, was previously found guilty of 20 rapes over a 23-year period, 11 years of which he spent in jail. His history of repeated attacks on women have raised questions over Victoria’s parole regime, with the state premier, Denis Napthine, saying the system “failed Jill Meagher" and would be reviewed.

At the time of Meagher’s murder Bayley was on parole for raping five women in the bayside suburb of Elwood in 2002.

It's been a while since I've read something that shows a man writing with such unfounded criticism and apparent hatred of other men, in general.

The monster myth allows us to see public infractions on women’s sovereignty as minor, because the man committing the infraction is not a monster like Bayley. We see instances of this occur in bars when men become furious and verbally abusive to, or about, women who decline their attention. We see it on the street as groups of men shout comments, grab, grope and intimidate women with friends either ignoring or getting involved in the activity. We see it in male peer groups where rape-jokes and disrespectful attitudes towards women go uncontested. The monster myth creates the illusion that this is simply banter, and sexist horseplay. While most of us would never abide racist comments among a male peer-group, the trivialisation of men’s violence against women often remains a staple, invidious, and rather boring subject of mirth. We can either examine this by setting our standards against the monster-rapist, or by accepting that this behaviour intrinsically contributes to a culture in which rape and violence are allowed to exist.

He is saying that there is a 'monster myth' where people think of rapists hiding in the shadows, perhaps. He says that it is actually ordinary men who are responsible, with their 'furious and verbally abusive' behaviour or men who 'grab, grope and intimidate women'.

What a lot of man-hating rubbish.

Men are not responsible for what Adrian Bayley did. Nor society. Adrian Bayley is responsible what Adrian Bayley did. And there is nothing mythical about him.

Men do not share a collective responsibility for rapists and murderers.

CiDeRmAn

I don't see men in the main condoning rape humour, even less so than racist humour.
But I do see fellow men, especially in my workplace where gender is biased towards women, using "techniques" to get their way, to enforce their will, and this is probably the thin end of the wedge, the mindset that reckons it's ok to manipulate with persuasion and intimidation, and from there it's not far before you are dehumanising women in general.
I'm not saying even a reasonable fraction of such men will rape but I am suggesting they will be more likely to be party to some sort of acceptance of violence towards women, an understanding that it can happen and they may deserve it, generating the perfect environment for the kinds of predators who commit such heinous acts as rape, assault and murder of women.

Wordless

It's an issue that men need to talk about between each other. I've had numerous conversations with girls about stuff like this, and never once have I heard a male friend talk openly about it. The unwillingness of men to have an open dialogue about this just contributes to it being swept under the carpet. And this 'bro code' thing is irksome too - men looking out for each other and refusing to call each other out on certain behaviours and sometimes even egging each other on is something that can be incredibly intimidating when you witness it in full flight.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you. I think that men too often read something like the article and start down the road of ' That says we are all rapists' and then go on the defensive. Meagher, in my opinion, is making the point that he made the rapist a monster and in doing so removed human agency from the equation, he removed the fact that the way in which our society is taught to treat each other has a bearing on how we react in society.
I am a man and we can be brutally misogynistic. I have heard my friends being misogynistic, strangers in pubs being misogynistic, guys on the street being misogynistic and of course I have been misogynistic. The internet is horrible for misogyny: the lounge itself had massive problems with guys coming on devaluing women's experiences by constantly asking female posters to prove their experiences and threads descending into whataboutry. I remember a thread on here about women's experiences of being groped and assaulted on nights out and the number of women with negative experiences was an eye opener. After I read it I asked my female friends about their experiences and Jesus the stories I heard would make you think.

Wordless

The monster myth allows us to see public infractions on women’s sovereignty as minor, because the man committing the infraction is not a monster like Bayley. We see instances of this occur in bars when men become furious and verbally abusive to, or about, women who decline their attention. We see it on the street as groups of men shout comments, grab, grope and intimidate women with friends either ignoring or getting involved in the activity. We see it in male peer groups where rape-jokes and disrespectful attitudes towards women go uncontested. The monster myth creates the illusion that this is simply banter, and sexist horseplay. While most of us would never abide racist comments among a male peer-group, the trivialisation of men’s violence against women often remains a staple, invidious, and rather boring subject of mirth. We can either examine this by setting our standards against the monster-rapist, or by accepting that this behaviour intrinsically contributes to a culture in which rape and violence are allowed to exist.

I think this passage is key: particularly the sovereignty part. The attitude that prevails that it is alright to 'get up into women's personal space'. There was a thread on here that amply illustrated this point. Female posters were making the point that they were often out in the pub with female friends and were being hit on and when they politely declined the offer they were being verbally abused. A lot of the replies were saying they should just go elsewhere!!! The idea being: change your habits if someone is annoying you. The person doing the annoying wins!

For me, blaming it on the monster, be it in cases of rape, murder, genocide etc becomes an easy way for us to sleep soundly at night and never to question our own attitudes.

fits

Great article from Tom Meagher, but why is this only seen as a women's issue? (As evidenced by this being posted in the ladies lounge and nowhere else on boards.) Where is the self examination he asks for? I would really like to see this type of thing being discussed maturely amongst men.

fits

fits wrote: »

Great article from Tom Meagher, but why is this only seen as a women's issue? As evidenced by this being posted in the ladies lounge and nowhere else on boards. Where is the self examination he asks for? I would really like to see this type of thing being discussed maturely amongst men but have never seen it happen.

The guys usually reply with "how dare you imply we're all rapists"
"we're not implying that, it's just maybe if you see a guy preying on a comatose girl at a party, you might say hey man that's not cool, for example"
"no, I'm really offended now. I am not a rapist and my friends arent. How dare you. shut down this discussion"

Then we're told "just go somewhere different then"

The Mustard

The Mustard wrote: »

Tom Meagher is telling us that he realised that Adrian Bayley was ordinary man, when he heard him form sentences, in order to speak normally.

No, Adrian Bayley is not an ordinary bloke. Not by a long shot. It is no exaggeration to say that Adrian Bayley is a lethally dangerous sexual predator.

That's exactly what the article says

"One of the most dangerous things about the media saturation of this crime was that Bayley is in fact the archetypal monster. "
In fact, you're falling into exactly what the article is warning about.

One of the most dangerous things about the media saturation of this crime was that Bayley is in fact the archetypal monster. Bayley feeds into a commonly held social myth that most men who commit rape are like him, violent strangers who stalk their victims and strike at the opportune moment. It gives a disproportionate focus to the rarest of rapes, ignoring the catalogue of non-consensual sex happening on a daily basis everywhere on the planet. It validates a limitation of the freedom of women, by persisting with an obsession with a victim’s movements rather than the vile actions of the perpetrator, while simultaneously creating a ‘canary down the mine’ scenario. Men who may feel uncomfortable by a peer’s behaviour towards women, may absolve themselves from interfering with male group norms, or breaking ranks with the boys by normalising that conduct in relation to ‘the rapist’. In other words he can justify his friend’s behaviour by comparison – “he may be a ___, but he’s not Adrian Bayley.”

johnnyskeleton

bluewolf wrote: »

That's exactly what the article says

"One of the most dangerous things about the media saturation of this crime was that Bayley is in fact the archetypal monster. "
In fact, you're falling into exactly what the article is warning about.

At the risk of being overly Jesuitical, could that not be said of all crime? John gilligan ships a lot of drugs, and he's an otherwise affable middle aged man, so all middle aged men run the risk of being drug dealers and everyone over 35 needs to sit down and decide how not to possess large quantities of drugs.

Lots of young people are caught shoplifting every day, should young people who have never even thought of stealing take steps to address their peers' behaviour?

Catherine Nevin kills her husband for profit, therefore all married women have the potential to do so and should openly discuss not murdering their husbands instead?

Etc etc.

I don't really want to debate the rights and wrongs of whether men ought to get offended by this or not because that's a long and pointless debate and will anger the mods. But what I would say is that if the purpose of these articles is genuinely to appeal to men then he's miles off the mark.

johnnyskeleton

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Lots of young people are caught shoplifting every day, should young people who have never even thought of stealing take steps to address their peers' behaviour?

Well if they're in the company of someone who is talking about shoplifting and how great it is or about to actually do it I would hope they'd say something and realise that it IS okay to say something
That's all

Wordless

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

At the risk of being overly Jesuitical, could that not be said of all crime? John gilligan ships a lot of drugs, and he's an otherwise affable middle aged man, so all middle aged men run the risk of being drug dealers and everyone over 35 needs to sit down and decide how not to possess large quantities of drugs.

Lots of young people are caught shoplifting every day, should young people who have never even thought of stealing take steps to address their peers' behaviour?

Catherine Nevin kills her husband for profit, therefore all married women have the potential to do so and should openly discuss not murdering their husbands instead?

Etc etc.

I don't really want to debate the rights and wrongs of whether men ought to get offended by this or not because that's a long and pointless debate and will anger the mods. But what I would say is that if the purpose of these articles is genuinely to appeal to men then he's miles off the mark.

Speaking as a man I don't think he is miles off the mark at all. By highlighting drugs and shoplifting you are talking about a different area. To put it another way do you think that women and men should be able to talk about the effects of misogyny (both subtle and overt) as a stand alone topic or do we always have to consider every angle before we talk about it? What I take from the article isn't that every man is a potential rapist, what I take from it is that rapists don't walk around with the word rapists on their head and that men who commit violence against women are usually known to the woman. To me, there is merit in looking at male attitudes to women. What do we say? What message are we passing on? What ways do we respect or disrespect women? When women online and in real life talk about their experiences do we listen or do we react with 'ah it ain't that bad?' Personally, checking my attitude towards these things doesn't make me less of a man and I think we need a space to talk about these issues. Sometimes these issues may make us feel uncomfortable and that in itself makes me think.

johnnyskeleton

bluewolf wrote: »

Well if they're in the company of someone who is talking about shoplifting and how great it is or about to actually do it I would hope they'd say something and realise that it IS okay to say something
That's all

So the point of the article is to stop the supposedly rampant conversations among men that rape is great and swapping tips on how to do it? And that other men feel that it is not ok to object? I honestly don't know how to respond to that

johnnyskeleton

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So the point of the article is to stop the supposedly rampant conversations among men that rape is great and swapping tips on how to do it? And that other men feel that it is not ok to object? I honestly don't know how to respond to that

You brought up shoplifting. I continued on the shoplifting example, having already given an assault-related example earlier. So did the article.
If you disagree with the article, please go ahead. You don't need to turn it into "we all think rape is great", yeah?

Men who may feel uncomfortable by a peer’s behaviour towards women, may absolve themselves from interfering with male group norms, or breaking ranks with the boys by normalising that conduct in relation to ‘the rapist’. In other words he can justify his friend’s behaviour by comparison – “he may be a ___, but he’s not Adrian Bayley.”

The monster myth allows us to see public infractions on women’s sovereignty as minor, because the man committing the infraction is not a monster like Bayley. We see instances of this occur in bars when men become furious and verbally abusive to, or about, women who decline their attention. We see it on the street as groups of men shout comments, grab, grope and intimidate women with friends either ignoring or getting involved in the activity. We see it in male peer groups where rape-jokes and disrespectful attitudes towards women go uncontested. The monster myth creates the illusion that this is simply banter, and sexist horseplay.

Lou.m

It is this knowledge that has made me of recent years consider the type of men I allow into my life at all very carefully.

I now longer feel I need to give an explanation. I simply refuse contact.

If I feel he doesn't respect me or doesn't 'get it', then I respectfully have no further contact.

I know there is no sure way of preventing such things. But I know if we don't see eye to eye on some issues it is for the best.


Some make excuses like ah sure he is just awkward or he is lovely. They know what they are doing. And even if they don't it's you that you must think of.

Men who show signs of manipulation or emotional abuse or physical abuse should be left alone at the earliest possibility.

Women too of course.

This should go for male victims too.

johnnyskeleton

Personally, checking my attitude towards these things doesn't make me less of a man and I think we need a space to talk about these issues. Sometimes these issues may make us feel uncomfortable and that in itself makes me think.

Fine. That's an opinion that you are perfectly entitled to have. I never made any point about how a man ought to react to such an article. My point is that most men, in my view, will read the article as an attack on them: an attempt to paint all men as accessories to the offence of rape unless they go around wearing a white ribbon or preach about male dominated attitudes to women etc.

Lou.m

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Fine. That's an opinion that you are perfectly entitled to have. I never made any point about how a man ought to react to such an article. My point is that most men, in my view, will read the article as an attack on them: an attempt to paint all men as accessories to the offence of rape unless they go around wearing a white ribbon or preach about male dominated attitudes to women etc.

Why?

johnnyskeleton

Lou.m wrote: »

Why?

Because it is arguing that non-rapist men should start talking about how they are all potential rapists; that there is some conspiracy, express or otherwise, which implicitly condones rape and that it is all mens' fault that rape happens. The only way men can stop being potential rapists is, presumably, to buy and wear a white ribbon and contribute money to the cause.

beks101

I read this yesterday and was going to start a thread about it actually.

Tom Meagher is an incredibly articulate, intelligent and insightful man no doubt. But I feel conflicted about his message. I feel there's as much danger in this 'your best friend/brother/man next door could be a rapist' idea as there is in the isolation of the issue to 'jabbering manmen' and sweeping under the carpet of the fact that most men who commit these crimes are known to the victim.

I guess as a woman I can only speak from my own perspective. I've never been sexually assaulted, beyond an arse/boob grope, which I by no means would belittle or try to normalize, but which I think both sexes are subjected to. I've never felt in any inherent danger in the company of a man. Any time I've felt ill at ease, it's because the guy in question was omitting social cues that instinctively compelled me to move away - his language was too explicit maybe, he was too forceful or leery, or his intentions clearly didn't match mine. I tend to escape from this kind of company fairly seamlessly because the cues are so obvious.

I've felt antsy and cast frequent glances over my shoulder on many late-night walks home alone over the years, but I think that's a human reaction to a dodgy set of surroundings - dark, quiet, lack of people around, unfamiliar route etc.

And on the same time, I recall around the time of Jill Meagher's death there was a thread in AH and my gut response - which I also posted - was this idea that I would be more cautious in my travels from then on and would taxi it / travel in groups in these circumstances in the future. This idea that I think in hindsight lays the blame with the victim for being tactless, or reckless, or naive to the automatic male threat by default of her being a woman.

And we've all heard the misogynistic way that women are frequently talked about among groups of men as if it's the most normal thing in the world. Even the language - 'I'd destroy her' - the sexually explicit jokes, the 'slut shaming' of a woman who enjoys her sexuality in a way that a man in the same predicament would be patted on the back for; the god-given right that so many man seem to think they have to evaluate any woman's 'hotness' and publicly comment, or cat call, or insult any random woman on the street because she doesn't register on his 'fcukability' radar.

It's disgusting and disturbingly 'normal' and reinforces all the points that Tom Meagher makes about this monster-rapist narrative that seems to allow this kind of carry-on to be 'normal' in the first place.

But I don't know if I can agree that society as a whole should be held accountable for the sins of any individual, regardless of whether his status is that of 'respectable upstanding citizen' or 'monster/mad man'. I think rape and violence against women would exist with or without the rape jokes, the language, the victim-blaming - and while a 'rape culture' no doubt exists - so too do violent, power-hungry, women-hating individuals, who will commit their crimes regardless.

Lou.m

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Because it is arguing that non-rapist men should start talking about how they are all potential rapists; that there is some conspiracy, express or otherwise, which implicitly condones rape and that it is all mens' fault that rape happens. The only way men can stop being potential rapists is, presumably, to buy and wear a white ribbon and contribute money to the cause.

But we ARE all potential criminals. All men have a choice. I could potentially become a murderer is I drink and drive. I need to be made aware of this through ads on TV.

All men are potential rapists unless they take a stand they they never will be. In order to do that they need to be aware of what leads up to sexual assault. And what is appropriate and what is not.

Mothers can be potential abusive parents unless schooled in society about what is acceptable parenting.

There is a culture which condones certain behavior that most women would see as assault or harassment and many men would not.

I am tired of men reading an article like this in which a woman is brutally raped and somehow turning it into 'MEN ARE THE VICTIMS'.

It is like priests reading an article on abuse in the church and saying 'look they are at it again attacking all priests'.

Pat Mustard

bluewolf wrote: »

That's exactly what the article says

"One of the most dangerous things about the media saturation of this crime was that Bayley is in fact the archetypal monster. "
In fact, you're falling into exactly what the article is warning about.

Well, the article says several things, that appear somewhat contradictory in places.

First, the article begins where Meagher changes his opinion of Bayley from a singular force of pure evil, to that of a normal man.

This 'normal man' is an extremely violent serial rapist, and most recently, a convicted murderer.

Secondly, Meagher states that this 'normal man', is really an archetypal monster, and because archetypal monsters are rare, the real danger must lie elsewhere. Men must be responsible.

Thirdly, Meagher paints a dystopian picture of men who become furious and verbally abusive in bars; men who grope and grab women.

This last piece just does not reflect reality at all. Where is this Gomorrah that he describes?

I have not witnessed any society or even 'bro-code' where people acquiesce in such behaviour.

Meagher believes that men should take other men aside and speak to them about the toxic environment which they help to create, which spawns the likes of Adrian Bayley.

This is nonsense.

If people want to ask their friends and relatives not to go cheerleading for rapists of a Saturday night, then go right ahead. I can't conceive of how anybody would consider that appropriate.

I think that people are missing an important point, that Adrian Bayley is a recidivist rapist and a violent criminal, who completed a sex-offender programme in 2009 and was released on parole. Even though he broke a man's jaw in a 'king hit' (unprovoked ambush assault) in 2011, he was released on bail in February 2012, instead of having his parole revoked and being sent back to prison.

The fact is that Adrian Bayley should have been in prison for violation of his parole, when he was out on the streets looking for a victim instead. There should be serious questions about the parole system in the state of Victoria, Australia. Maybe they could also look at the issue of mandatory minimum sentencing, a concept much scorned in Ireland.

Meagher's article attempts to attribute blame for some imagined misogynist culture. The article is an eloquently crafted piece of misandry, which wouldn't have looked out of place coming from the likes of Andrea "Dead Men Don't Rape" Dworkin.

I hope that people treat this article with the suspicion that it deserves.

Femme_Fatale

beks101 wrote: »

we've all heard the misogynistic way that women are frequently talked about among groups of men as if it's the most normal thing in the world. Even the language - 'I'd destroy her' - the sexually explicit jokes, the 'slut shaming' of a woman who enjoys her sexuality in a way that a man in the same predicament would be patted on the back for; the god-given right that so many man seem to think they have to evaluate any woman's 'hotness' and publicly comment, or cat call, or insult any random woman on the street because she doesn't register on his 'fcukability' radar.

It's why I think feminism is still relevant in the western world. Things may be hugely improved for us now, and at times we might even enjoy an advantage being women (not that that's right) but the above is still all too prevalent, and normalised as you say. God I hate phrases like "I'd smash it", "I'd destroy it" etc - it just reads like violence IMO. I know it's not meant that way, but I just don't see the necessity for such crass language. And referring to women as terms like "gash" - no need for it; really none. And the commenting on a woman's rate of sexual attractiveness even if sexual attractiveness is not of any concern to her - e.g. a politician, a scientist; fair enough if she is a model or actress, or even any career if she's clearly keen on looking hot (nothing wrong with that) but if she's not "hot" but it's not of any relevance, I'm not sure why the need for comments about her.

However, I cannot see how "Rapists could be anyone" is fair on men. Of the countless guys I know... well to answer the question in the thread title: I'll never stop being shocked by a rapist seeming "normal". I will happily not deem any of them capable of rape.
I think let's cut guys a little slack here. We women are often unfairly generalised, so we of all people should be able to understand why guys would object to such an assertion. The intention behind it might not be to offend, but I can completely understand how guys would see it as "Watch out, any guy could be a rapist" - and that's certainly not true.

Lou.m

The Mustard wrote: »

Well, the article says several things, that appear somewhat contradictory in places.

First, the article begins where Meagher changes his opinion of Bayley from a singular force of pure evil, to that of a normal man.

This 'normal man' is an extremely violent serial rapist, and most recently, a convicted murderer.

Secondly, Meagher states that this 'normal man', is really an archetypal monster, and because archetypal monsters are rare, the real danger must really lie elsewhere. Men must be responsible.

Thirdly, Meagher paints a dystopian picture of men who become furious and verbally abusive in bars; men who grope and grab women.

This last piece just does not reflect reality at all. Where is this Gomorrah that he describes?

I have not witnessed any society or even 'bro-code' where people acquiesce in such behaviour.

Meagher believes that men should take other men aside and speak to them about the toxic environment which they help to create, which spawns the likes of Adrian Bayley.

This is nonsense.

If people want to ask their friends and relatives not to go cheerleading for rapists of a Saturday night, then go right ahead. I can't conceive of how anybody would consider that appropriate.

I think that people are missing an important point, that Adrian Bayley is a recidivist rapist and a violent criminal, who completed a sex-offender programme in 2009 and was released on parole. Even though he broke a man's jaw in a 'king hit' (unprovoked ambush assault) in 2011, he was released on bail in February 2012, instead of having his parole revoked and being sent back to prison.

The fact is that Adrian Bayley should have been in prison for violation of his parole, when he was out on the streets looking for a victim instead. There should be serious questions about the parole system in the state of Victoria, Australia. Maybe they could also look at the issue of mandatory minimum sentencing, a concept much scorned in Ireland.

Meagher's article attempts to attribute blame for some imagined misogynist culture. The article is an eloquently crafted piece of misandry, which wouldn't have looked out of place coming from the likes of Andrea "Dead Men Don't Rape" Dworkin.

I hope that people treat this article with the suspicion that it deserves.

I thoroughly disagree with your opinions. But there you go.

beks101

The Mustard wrote: »

some imagined misogynist culture.

There is absolutely nothing 'imagined' about the following -

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

God I hate phrases like "I'd smash it", "I'd destroy it" etc - it just reads like violence IMO. I know it's not meant that way, but I just don't see the necessity for such crass language. And referring to women as terms like "gash" - no need for it; really none. And the commenting on a woman's rate of sexual attractiveness even if sexual attractiveness is not of any concern to her - e.g. a politician, a scientist; fair enough if she is a model or actress, or even any career if she's clearly keen on looking hot (nothing wrong with that) but if she's not "hot" but it's not of any relevance, I'm not sure why the need for comments about her.

What perhaps is debatable is the extent to which this kind of a culture plays into these crimes of rape and violence against women; but the simple fact that such a culture exists in the first place is unquestionable.

Pat Mustard

beks101 wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing 'imagined' about the following -



What perhaps is debatable is the extent to which this kind of a culture plays into these crimes of rape and violence against women; but the simple fact that such a culture exists in the first place is unquestionable.

A society in which the norm is for men degrade and abuse women? You are saying that this is what we have?

I don't accept that at all.

Waking-Dreams

Many men will read the article as an attack on them because it implies that THEY have a responsibility to do something about the behaviour of other males (incl. friends and colleagues) and should, therefore, challenge any sexist/misogynistic attitudes and behaviours they encounter. That’s all well and good but, in general, lots of groups of men and women will encounter attitudes/behaviours they do not agree with but say nothing.

Of course, men should be vigilant and not rationalise the behaviour of mates simply because they are mates. If your friend was responsible for treating any living creature inhumanely, there should be no hesitation about ending that friendship and even reporting them to the authorities.

However, changing attitudes is probably going to be much more problematic. And this goes for both sexes. If men are expected to pull their friends up on sexist jokes or whatever, can we expect the same from the other sex too? You see plenty of ladies having a laugh amongst themselves about how ‘thick’ some of the lads are and whatnot, and there are plenty of media representations of men out there which aren’t too flattering but they’re part of our social fabric.

One can argue that sexist jokes/attitudes amongst certain groups of males will lead to instances of assault/violence but equally then, sexist attitudes from women can also hurt men in various ways. For example, instances of female violence against men have been laughed at by women which was demonstrated to full effect that time on The Talk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrvDhSB7GHk

And even there, when one of the women openly challenged the attitude, she was more or less dismissed. Obviously Sharon Osbourne is not representative of women but there were large amounts of laughter from the audience and even on the next show where she had to issue an apology she still couldn’t resist the urge to make a wise crack.

Perhaps it is examples such as these which demonstrate both how difficult it is to change attitudes, as well as cut to the core of why men may be irked by some of the views put forward in Meagher’s article. It’s because, in general, many people do feel immense sympathy towards rape/sexual assault victims, as long as they’re women. Male victims have a much harder time being perceived as victims, an attitude which comes from other males too especially in light of reactionary comments to female teachers having sex with underage boys (i.e. “Nice!”, “Sure what’s the big deal?”, “The lucky fecker”, etc.). This isn’t helpful and it is unfortunate that many men hold these views about their own sex.

I thought Mr. Meagher’s point about the irony of people wishing rape on the perpetrator was very good, but the overall message being put forward here needs to be taken into account with the wider picture. It’s not very fair on men to be expected to tackle the attitudes of the more reprehensible members of their sex, when they as males aren’t even being properly acknowledged as being “real victims” when they are the ones on the receiving end of sexual assault or rape.

Wordless

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Fine. That's an opinion that you are perfectly entitled to have. I never made any point about how a man ought to react to such an article. My point is that most men, in my view, will read the article as an attack on them: an attempt to paint all men as accessories to the offence of rape unless they go around wearing a white ribbon or preach about male dominated attitudes to women etc.

Johnny this is where we both differ I don't read it as an attack on me, nor as an attempt to paint me as an accessory to rape. It does make me think about some of my attitudes for example what I might see as banter may not in fact be banter and might be seen, by some ( and I stress by some ) as implicitly condoning certain ways of treating women. When I talk about misogyny I don't feel that I am 'preaching' about it either it is based on my experiences, it is just a conversation. I also feel that when conversations of this nature come up a lot of the reactions turn to 'what about violence toward men' 'sure you can say that about all crimes' etc

beks101

The Mustard wrote: »

A society in which the norm is for men degrade and abuse women? You are saying that this is what we have?

I don't accept that at all.

A society in which a very definite undercurrent of misogyny has become normalized in many social situations. There are certain comments, jokes, attitudes and behaviours among many men that pass for 'banter' when in fact they serve to judge, belittle, mock, degrade and reduce a woman to her sexuality and nothing more.

Pat Mustard

beks101 wrote: »

A society in which a very definite undercurrent of misogyny has become normalized in many social situations. There are certain comments, jokes, attitudes and behaviours among many men that pass for 'banter' when in fact they serve to judge, belittle, mock, degrade and reduce a woman to her sexuality and nothing more.

You say that many men do this.

I would say the opposite; I would say that some men may do this, that this behaviour does not reflect societal norms, that an undercurrent of minority belief or action does not reflect society as a whole, or men in general.

If anything, this is a 'monster myth'.

sunflower27

Neyite wrote: »

Excellent read.

In AH yesterday, someone linked the wiki list of worlds youngest mothers. Overwhelmingly the 'father' column was a male relative. Someone who was trusted within the family, only being discovered presumably in many cases when a pregnancy presented.

The most common rapist 'type' I've seen are the everyday normal guys who make a point of targeting the drunkest girl at a party. The ones who can barely stand up, let alone consent. Since I'm not much of a drinker, I've tended to spot these in action a bit easier and become a limpet to the girl much to his disgust. And from time to time I've been the target of verbal abuse for not letting him take a near-comatose girl away to rape 'interfering'

These guys were sometimes workmates, or friends of workmates. Educated, seemingly law abiding. Friendly, sociable, funny.

Your post gave me chills. This sort of thing happens so often I am sure. I am sure there is many a woman that has woken up next to a man and presumed she must have consented when in fact she was incapable of doing so.

johnnyskeleton

Lou.m wrote: »

But we ARE all potential criminals. All men have a choice. I could potentially become a murderer is I drink and drive. I need to be made aware of this through ads on TV.

Just because people have the capacity to commit crimes does not make them potential criminals. Although if that is the very low threshold that you have set, then presumably that article could equally apply to women - women are just as capable of sexually assaulting and/or s.4 raping a man or another woman. But the author excludes women from needing to learn the life lesson? Why, if the standard for potential criminals is so low, is it only addressed to men?

All men are potential rapists unless they take a stand they they never will be. In order to do that they need to be aware of what leads up to sexual assault. And what is appropriate and what is not.

There it is again, the fallacy that unless you are a part of this organisation or make the same "Let's all stand up against rape" noises, then you are a potential rapist. Chirst!

Mothers can be potential abusive parents unless schooled in society about what is acceptable parenting.

Mothers learn how to take care of their children, and much of it is also intuitive (to men as well). What there isn't is a campaign saying that all mothers are potentially abusive parents and they need to admit that this is true and join a campaign where they go around looking for issues that could potentially indicate bad parenting and then get involved.

There is a culture which condones certain behavior that most women would see as assault or harassment and many men would not.

Just to be clear, I don't think anyone is saying that what happened to Jill Meagher is in any way culturally acceptable.

I am tired of men reading an article like this in which a woman is brutally raped and somehow turning it into 'MEN ARE THE VICTIMS'.

The part of the article which deals with the author's loss and what happened to his wife is not offensive. It is tragic, but no one could complain about that. However, when the article goes on to suggest, in very careful words but suggest nonetheless, that all men are potential rapists, and you have accepted same in the quote above, then I think non-rapist men are entitled to say that it is not a fair article.

It is like priests reading an article on abuse in the church and saying 'look they are at it again attacking all priests'.

Well if the article said "one priest is convicted of abuse" and a priest said "they are attacking all priests" he would be wrong. But if a journalist wrote that "one priest is convicted of abuse, and that proves that all priests are potential abusers", then I can see how priests would take exception to such a conclusion.

Is that not all fairly reasonable to say?

johnnyskeleton

beks101 wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing 'imagined' about the following -



What perhaps is debatable is the extent to which this kind of a culture plays into these crimes of rape and violence against women; but the simple fact that such a culture exists in the first place is unquestionable.

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that that attitude or behaviour is normal and typical of most men in, presumably, Irish society? It is probably an accurate representation of a late night on After Hours, but I've never heard a man say that he would like to "smash" a woman as a reference to coitus.

meeeeh

I don't know. I have lovely male friends who always respected me or other women but they were also single most of their twenties (no it's not some religious group) and it was the idiot jocks got the girlfriends and possibly also another one on the side. There was nothing wrong with those boys and they are all in stable relationships and good jobs now but they definately weren't chick magnet. It's not just men, women also help to maintain the myth about unattainable man who will be changed by the right woman. How else the drivel like 50 Shades could be so popular. How is it then surprising when a decent man or a woman is considered boring that so many people end up in abusive relationships. It's a society problem not just a male problem.

Dolbert

The article is in no way saying that 'all men are potential rapists'. It is saying that the everyday casual sexism displayed towards women can very insidiously create a mindset where on some level, women are considered lesser by some, not most men and could therefore contribute towards poorer treatment of women.

The Mustard wrote:

Meagher's article attempts to attribute blame for some imagined misogynist culture. The article is an eloquently crafted piece of misandry, which wouldn't have looked out of place coming from the likes of Andrea "Dead Men Don't Rape" Dworkin.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that there's no misogyny in our culture? Seriously? It must be very easy to dismiss what you have never experienced.

Also, Dworkinning = the new Godwinning, but especially reserved for feminism threads.

Pat Mustard

Dolbert wrote: »

Also, Dworkinning = the new Godwinning, but especially reserved for feminism threads.

I was not aware of that. Very good.

Dolbert wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to suggest that there's no misogyny in our culture?

No.

Dolbert wrote: »

The article is in no way saying that 'all men are potential rapists'. It is saying that the everyday casual sexism displayed towards women can very insidiously create a mindset where on some level, women are considered lesser by some, not most men and could therefore contribute towards poorer treatment of women.

I don't want to quote the relevant paragraph in the article for a third time, but it is beyond obnoxious of the author to suggest that the criminal and offensive conduct that he ascribes to men is in any way tolerated or commonplace.

I think that I may be starting to repeat myself, so I will attempt to bow out of this thread now.

beks101

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that that attitude or behaviour is normal and typical of most men in, presumably, Irish society? It is probably an accurate representation of a late night on After Hours, but I've never heard a man say that he would like to "smash" a woman as a reference to coitus.

You've heard gendered insults though like 'pussy', 'slut', 'b1tch', 'cnut', 'whore' though I'm sure?

Many - non women-hating - people will use these terms as a matter of habit, or deride a joke out of a woman's appearance / sex appeal or lack of etc unquestioningly, almost unconsciously, because it's normalized and socially acceptable to do so.

Where my reluctance to agree with Meagher's blog post comes from is this idea that someone can casually express himself that way and suddenly he's some sort of potential rapist - or perhaps that it's one step down a path where such a violent act could occur. Not sure about that one.

But the fact is that these sexist terms and ways of viewing women are stitched into the very fibre of society - movies, games, songs, magazines - are all reflective of the same values.

GalwayGuy2

And we've all heard the misogynistic way that women are frequently talked about among groups of men as if it's the most normal thing in the world. Even the language - 'I'd destroy her' - the sexually explicit jokes, the 'slut shaming' of a woman who enjoys her sexuality in a way that a man in the same predicament would be patted on the back for; the god-given right that so many man seem to think they have to evaluate any woman's 'hotness' and publicly comment, or cat call, or insult any random woman on the street because she doesn't register on his 'fcukability' radar.

This is why I hate the term whataboutery.

You're basing that entire portion on the presumption that women don't say that about men. and it's very hard to comment withoout being called a whataboutery.

Tbh, that's the negative side to all this talk about 'men should talk about these issues among men'. Some things are seen as more 'explicit' if a man says them than if a woman says them.

The above, mixed with a sense that if you allow men to say sexual things then that man may go out attack someone, is some weird form of neo-chivalry.

EDIT:

Can I actually have clarification on the whataboutery law? I genuinely don't see why someone can't be allowed to say 'but it happens to men as well' if someone's entire argument is based that it only happens to women?

Beks, this is a rant that actually isn't aimed at you. It's more giving out about the law.

GalwayGuy2

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

This is why I hate the term whataboutery.

You're basing that entire portion on the presumption that women don't say that about men. .

No, she isn't. We're just talking about the effects it has on women. That's what this discussion is. And I think for once we would like to continue a discussion on things that happen to women.

GalwayGuy2

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

This is why I hate the term whataboutery.

You're basing that entire portion on the presumption that women don't say that about men. and it's very hard to comment withoout being called a whataboutery.

Nowhere is that implied in Beks post. You might infer it, but it's more to do with an arrogant assumption that you know what someone really means - apropos of nothing.

Tbh, that's the negative side to all this talk about 'men should talk about these issues among men'. Some things are seen as more 'explicit' if a man says them than if a woman says them.

What is? You'll have to clarify. Who sees it as more explicit? How is this relevant to this discussion?

The above, mixed with a sense that if you allow men to say sexual things then that man may go out attack someone, is some weird form of neo-chivalry.

Who has that sense? Who ever said or implied that? I've never in my entire life come across a statement like that, I'd be interested if you pointed out where you got that 'sense' from. And what is 'neo-chivalry' when it's at home?

EDIT:

Can I actually have clarification on the whataboutery law? I genuinely don't see why someone can't be allowed to say 'but it happens to men as well' if someone's entire argument is based that it only happens to women?

My take on the whataboutery rule is that when the ladies of the ladies lounge are having a discussion about something that affects ladies, it is considered whataboutery when an interloper drops in, puts words in their mouths, infers things that aren't implied, and complains that they can't turn the conversation to how this women's discussion affects men.

I might be wrong though.

Soft Falling Rain

Every time I hear comments such as "I'd destroy her" I usually just roll my eyes and think of that other cliched line; "you wouldn't know what to do with her". It's just idiots who are literally all talk that make such comments.

I wouldn't believe in encouraging the "any man can be a rapist" argument as it's just not helpful. I do think, however, that we all just have to become more mindful of those around us and less afraid about pulling someone aside if they're being out of order. I can think of one friend in particular who can be quite aggressive towards women when drunk, grabbing them when they're walking off the dancefloor, forcibly going for a kiss etc etc...to my shame, I've never pulled him up on it nor has anyone else. It's actually joked about. That's the kind of thing that needs tackling more than anything else, I think someone aptly called it the bro code earlier.

GalwayGuy2

@Candie

Hmmm, I'm not sure I agree with your definition of the law.

Also,

@Becks

Isn't your point that women are reduced to their sexuality, by comments such as 'id destroy her and songs, while men aren't?

Again, I am not actually disagreeing or even complaining about what said. I'm complaining about the fact that the whataboutery rule makes it very difficult to counteract that claim, if you did in fact make that claim.

@Bluewolf

Most of the posts are about men? The whole thread seems to be about men? I genuinely don't see it as whataboutery if the whole thread is talking about men?

Meh, I'll try and stay out of this thread (which I admit I do say a lot)/ It#s a bit of a derailment as it is.

I've noticed a lot of people saying the points that I would have raised,

beks101

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

@Becks

Isn't your point that women are reduced to their sexuality, by comments such as 'id destroy her and songs, while men aren't?

I never said that men aren't, or implied that men aren't, or made any kind of comment about how men are treated or spoken about or perceived in society.

Why would I? It's not relevant to my experience with the topic at hand as a woman. Or to my response to Tom Meagher's article and the idea that most violence against women is not perpetrated by 'monsters' but instead can be reinforced by the casual and socially acceptable way women can be dismissed and belittled in every day situations. In bars or clubs. In public discourse. In bantering amongst men.

Why is it so hard to consider these kinds of scenarios from a female perspective without having the knee-jerk reaction of "BUT MEN..."? How does it add to the discussion about how women experience these things and how they came to be and what, if any, kind of repercussions they have on society as a whole?

That's why this "whataboutery" you mention provokes a strong reaction - because it's insulting, it's irrelevant and it attempts to trivialize what are very real matters to a LOT of women and it attempts to guilt us into silence tbh.

Yes, men have issues too. Why don't you start a thread about it?