"Why I did not report my rapist"

Digs wrote: »

I agree. I have two young daughters and I'm left wondering how I help them navigate this new wave of utter rubbish that the likes of RMC is spouting. That Conor mc Gregor article bothered me so much!! Also the defence of objectifying men being allowable because women have it worse??? Boils my blood. Thats like defending poor treatment of women in Ireland, well because, ya know women have it so much worse in the Middle East.

Men are not the enemy, however, my daughters father, grandad and uncles etc are doing a good job of proving that to them as they grow up.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not so much to be seen as a "victim" garners social currency and validation, but to be seen as a "survivor", to have overcome an ordeal. The language, and the perspective changed, the circumstances are still the same. The whole "idea" (inverted commas because to me it was always a stupid exercise in semantic gymnastics), was to "give people who have been raped back their power". Yet again, the very idea is to paint a certain "one size fits all" narrative of people who have been raped, and define them all in exactly the same language and the exact same fashion, as though they are a cookie-cutter mentality - "they have experienced rape, and that's all that matters".

It isn't, and it shouldn't be, because just the same way as some posters have pointed out that modern feminism wants to paint a narrative of women having no agency, it's just as detrimental for society IMO when we collectively shun, shame, and try to shut people down whom we don't agree with, because we just don't like the cut of their jib.

It's as though for a lot of people they need to define people who have experienced rape in a way that fits in with their sociobiolological mental model that's been formed over decades of social influence. It's as though anything which interferes with that and causes them to question it, causes them a cognitive dissonance which appears to upset some people greatly, and some more than others, and the only solution to that is to block out that which contradicts their already formed narrative.

I've met all sorts of people who have experienced rape, and there are some that I'll be glad if I never saw them or met them again. The thing is though - I don't have to like them, I don't have to agree with them, I can think they're full of shìt and so far up their own hole they're never likely to see the light of day. None of that means I can ever allow myself to tell them that they weren't raped, if they say they were. That, IMO, would take an arrogance and hubris on my part that quite frankly I just don't have (other people have the agency and the freedom of thought to disagree).

As for the idea of echo chambers? Jesus lads, take a look around before anyone starts criticising anyone else for the formation of echo chambers. Pre-internet, post-internet, bloody hell since the dawn of man, echo chambers have existed to exclude people from the group think and influence a particular narrative. How the fcuk does anyone think religions came about? Identity politics is just religion 2.0, and nobody has to have Mensa level IQ or EQ to be able to see that for themselves.

Could just go on believing what they want too, if that's what keeps them happy, there's always that option when someone wants to control their own space, and it's perfectly rational, understandable human behaviour that some people aren't just happy controlling their own space, but they want to control everyone else's too. It never amazed me in the first place that some people are surprised when they meet an equal but opposing force. I didn't need Newton to explain something I'd known ever since I was a child. That's why when you're pushing for something you want from someone, civility and personal responsibility for yourself, and respect towards others, will always be a far more worthy endeavour that will last long term, than bulling ahead without any regard as to the consequences of your actions for yourself, or for others.