nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Unhelpful 'gendering' of social issues

Amirani

Apparently all us men are at fault that rape still exists: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/telling-women-to-be-careful-gets-men-off-the-hook-1.1536337

"men must accept that most violent crimes perpetrated against women are by men, and that they have the power to stop this."

I'm sorry Una, but I'm in no better a position to stop rape than you are. I'm also no more responsible for its existence.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Lemming

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I actually got a response today from the editor. He fairly just brushed off any comments I made and said the article was aimed more at the Garda commissioner and that the author hopes her 'provocative' article will make more men take steps to reduce violence on women.
So he essentially endorsed the article.
I sent a follow up e-mail to highlight the fact that he ignored most of my points so we will see if I get a response from that. After that I will fire one off to the ombudsman.

You wont get anything more thoughtful or introspective back from the editor if the initial response was that cavalier. Wasting your time with him at this juncture; do not pass go, do not collect €100, go direct to the ombudsman.

Pawwed Rig

You're probably correct but there is nothing lost by waiting a couple of days for a further response

um7y1h83ge06nx

And they wonder why men, particularly young men suffer from poor mental health and are more likely to commit suicide.

Tarring all men as potential rapists would be another kick when you're down to a vulnerable man. Yeah, society hates you.

I think I'll be submitting a complaint as well. :mad:

[Deleted User]

clairefontaine wrote: »

It's no big secret the media is saturated with lefty bean eating yuppies.

This is politics 101 and I've said the same thing on discussions around Islam, not that feminist are nearly on par with jihadists but there is a similar principal at work, like in any ideology.

The radicals and extremists are there to make the moderates look good, so they don't seem so bigoted and irrational, so their irrationalities can take hold in the perceptions of ordinary people who simply like to think of themselves as good people. So the more extreme on the continuum the ideology is, the more extreme the moderate scale can become while still appearing reasonable, to those who have swallowed the original sales pitch.

Yah yeah, it's not all Muslims, yeah yeah, it's not all feminists, yeah yeah I'm a Muslim and I condemn that, yeah yeah, I'm a feminist and I condemn that, all sinking in the slew of denial because the brainwashing worked. And no one likes to admit they are a fool. All denying the very essences and evidences of what's right in front of them. Peer pressure at its finest and most dangerous.

This is not just feminists fault, but also the fault of do goodie yippies.

Fox news is run by lefty bean eaters is it?

How can you be moderate and radical at the same time.

[Deleted User]

The article was a bit silly that's all, its not to do with feminism in and of its self, feminism is only one outcrop of the confused thinking in the society re rights verses responsibilities and where do you draw the line.

Telling men ( or women ) to think before they commit violence is going work!! if only it was that simple.

The Corinthian

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I think a few people would huff and puff about it but most would think it fair enough if they actually took the time to think about it.

I admire your optimism, but the evidence past history and current reality does not really support it.

To begin with, there has never been (more correctly, not since the suffragettes) any real campaign, initiated or supported by the feminist movement, to tackle any issue (even if it affects women) that would have resulted in women losing any patriarchal privileges - instead, policies that protect the status quo and compensate for the disadvantages that come with this status quo, for women, have been pursued.

Secondly, you presume that those feminists who currently hold the reins on the movement would even be ideologically open to such concepts. As I pointed out, there's plenty of moderate feminists who might be open to such quid pro quo compromises, but they're not active - they have lives, careers and families.

Remember, it's the one's who've been indoctrinated by womens' studies courses and associated literature, and view mens' demands for equality as simply an attempt to reverse womens' advances, that you're going to be dealing with. Have you looked at some of their CV's?

Whatever few moderates remain in the public sphere have been all but drowned out by them, as a result.

So, unfortunately, I can't see it happening, at least not unless that silent majority of moderate feminists stands up to the radicals, which they're simply not doing right now.

Lemming

mariaalice wrote: »

The article was a bit silly that's all, its not to do with feminism in and of its self, feminism is only one outcrop of the confused thinking in the society re rights verses responsibilities and where do you draw the line.

A bit silly? Implying that all men and boys are somehow facilitating and by extension as bad as those men who commit acts of rape because they do not personally stop them. In net; your grandfather, your father, your brother, your son, your cousin, your nephew; all are guilty of rape by association. The article stops short of saying "all males are rapists".

So no, that article is not "a bit silly". It's vile.

I mean, it's not like all women are guilty by association for prostitution now is it? You'll never see a "provocative" article written like that, because it'd be seen for the boll*cks that it is and rightly so. So why, as soon as you peg a penis to the equation does it become acceptable to pen such an article and then laugh it off as "a bit silly".

[Deleted User]

Lemming wrote: »

A bit silly? Implying that all men and boys are somehow facilitating and by extension as bad as those men who commit acts of rape because they do not personally stop them. In net; your grandfather, your father, your brother, your son, your cousin, your nephew; all are guilty of rape by association. The article stops short of saying "all males are rapists".

So no, that article is not "a bit silly". It's vile.

I mean, it's not like all women are guilty by association for prostitution now is it? You'll never see a "provocative" article written like that, because it'd be seen for the boll*cks that it is and rightly so. So why, as soon as you peg a penis to the equation does it become acceptable to pen such an article and then laugh it off as "a bit silly".

Fair point but I am not sure if that's what she meant or maybe I read it wrong.

I wonder what people think of this my husband thinks a lot of extreme feminism is nutty, however he will not put up with jokes that put women down, if someone make a joke he doesn't like in company he does not say anything he just does not laugh or respond to it and that can be enough of a signal.

I read it as, don't with your silence endorse behaviour you might be uncomfortable with yourself.

py2006

The article suggests that I am potentially a rapist and some of my friends are aware of this but choose to turn a blind eye. Equally it suggests that I KNOW a rapist, he is one of my friends/family, and I choose to turn a blind eye.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I did a little digging on the personal life of this journalist by using the power of Google.

I wanted to know if she had any men in her close circle. Apparently she is homosexual (before anyone jumps down my throat I'm just stating she is, not using it dismissively) so no male partner, and kids may be unlikely. Don't know if she has brother(s) but she definitely has or had a father. Is he a potential rapist?

Apparently to quote the link below she “specializes in not demeaning women”.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/03/11/every-girl-should-know/

I reckon complaining to the ombudsman or anyone won't make a jot of difference, being a homosexual woman means she can only be a victim, never an aggressor.

[Deleted User]

Anyone can be an oppressor that's why I am against a lot of the vicctimology that is current at the moment, also fear of victim blaming is stopping a lot of debate in right verses responsibility issuers.

Pepe LeFrits

I don't think the author's personal life is of any relevance.

Lemming

mariaalice wrote: »

Fair point but I am not sure if that's what she meant or maybe I read it wrong.

I wonder what people think of this my husband thinks a lot of extreme feminism is nutty, however he will not put up with jokes that put women down, if someone make a joke he doesn't like in company he does not say anything he just does not laugh or respond to it and that can be enough of a signal.

I read it as, don't with your silence endorse behaviour you might be uncomfortable with yourself.

No, she knew what she was writing; She's a journalist; she does this for a living, and in any case the editor has said as much in commenting on her "provocative" article.

As for silence; we as a society do not endorse such behaviour. It's immoral, it's illegal, and just plain wrong. There are laws against violent crime such as rape; up to including charges for aiding & abetting for those who stood by with full knowledge. It could be pointed out that those laws were drafted by men long since dead from times long gone.

smoking_kills

py2006 wrote: »

The article suggests that I am potentially a rapist and some of my friends are aware of this but choose to turn a blind eye. Equally it suggests that I KNOW a rapist, he is one of my friends/family, and I choose to turn a blind eye.

That's how i read it.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

I don't think the author's personal life is of any relevance.

Generally I would agree, but when a very subjective article is written it can be of relevance in order to understand the thought process of the author, particularly when the view expressed in a piece could be seen to be extreme.

Pawwed Rig

Nathanael Jolly Barmaid wrote: »

And they wonder why men, particularly young men suffer from poor mental health and are more likely to commit suicide.

A good point and has been highlighted by mental health professionals as one of the contributing factors in the high rate of male suicide.

mariaalice wrote: »

The article was a bit silly that's all, its not to do with feminism in and of its self, feminism is only one outcrop of the confused thinking in the society re rights verses responsibilities and where do you draw the line.

If it was in the Herald or the Star I would most likely have ignored it. The fact it is in the national paper of record is deeply disturbing.

Nathanael Jolly Barmaid wrote: »

I reckon complaining to the ombudsman or anyone won't make a jot of difference

I don't think it will either but lets wait and see. It generally depends partly on the volume of complaints received.

SeventySix

Don't tar all men as rapist, but dont walk down that alley alone as there might be a scary man there to rape you.

Don't tar all men as rapist, but dont meet a man from the internet alone as he might be a scary rapist.

Don't tar all men as rapist, but dont wear that outfit as a scary man might see your boobs and be unable to control himself.

Don't tar all men as rapist, but dont get too drunk as a scary man might see that as an opportunity and sexually assult you.

Women are damned if they do, and damned if they dont. We are rightly not supposed to tar all men as rapists, but privately, according to advice from some men including the Garda Commissioner we are supposed to view a lot of situations as rife with potential rapists and therefore make sure to protect ourselves. For me, this is an enormous part of the problem. Its not just this artice that says all men are potential rapists, it was the statement by the Garda, who said basically - be careful if you meet men off the internet as they might rape and kill you.

Rev Hellfire

SeventySix wrote: »

dont walk down that alley alone as there might be a scary man there to rape you.

The same advise holds true for men, if you're walking down dark alleyways you're at increased risk of violence.

SeventySix wrote: »

but dont meet a man from the internet alone as he might be a scary rapist.

Again meeting strangers alone is not clever for either sex.

SeventySix wrote: »

dont get too drunk as a scary man might see that as an opportunity and sexually assult you.

Again this holds equally true for men, again both men and females are known to take advantage of those people who are drink impaired.

So basically the Garda commisioner had the good sense to say be careful and be mindful of your personal safety. Shocking stuff.

The Corinthian

mariaalice wrote: »

I read it as, don't with your silence endorse behaviour you might be uncomfortable with yourself.

It goes a lot further than that unfortunately. The author is quite clear from the onset that the root of the problem is "how men treat women" - not simply some men, not simply rapists, but all men, the entire gender. And that "every group of guys has a buddy who is a little wayward, and whose behaviour towards women is dubious" and by not reigning them in, we are complicit in their guilt.

I can definitively say that I have no such buddy that I would consider 'wayward', to begin with. It's a bit like suggesting that every group of girls has a friend who is a gold-digger, who's planning to entrap a man by purposely getting pregnant - a level of paranoid bigotry that defies description.

But it also raises the question of personal responsibility. I know that if I walk down certain streets alone, late at night, I'm seriously tempting fate. I've known if I woke up in the morning next to the creature from the black lagoon, it's because I got drunk and ended up in a one-night-stand that I deeply regret the next morning.

For me, that's not victim blaming; it's stoicism. It's common sense. It's personal responsibility.

The irony is, her approach simply serves to underline traditional prejudices of women as irrational and incapable of being responsible for themselves, like children. What do you think the logic behind guardianship of females is based on in countries like Saudi Arabia? She's actually arguing their case.

SeventySix wrote: »

Women are damned if they do, and damned if they dont. We are rightly not supposed to tar all men as rapists, but privately, according to advice from some men including the Garda Commissioner we are supposed to view a lot of situations as rife with potential rapists and therefore make sure to protect ourselves. For me, this is an enormous part of the problem. Its not just this artice that says all men are potential rapists, it was the statement by the Garda, who said basically - be careful if you meet men off the internet as they might rape and kill you.

Don't tar all women as manipulative gold-diggers; but take care that you don't end up in a relationship with one.

Stop focusing on gender. The World is full of assholes and neither gender has either a monopoly on being one, or being the victim of one.

Setun

Just want to say that my initial intention in starting this thread was actually to move away from misandrist/feminist mud-slinging and start a discussion about alternative ways to recognise the complexity of these issues. It has since become a (warranted, albeit) "whoah nelly" atmosphere, but perhaps it is more useful at this stage to look at how we would like to be represented, and how the issue might be written about in the mainstream media as a result?

Nobody should doubt that us men have a responsibility to intervene if a friend/colleauge etc is behaving questionably, but that is a civil responsibility - i.e. that act of being a decent person, rather than the act of "not being a rapist", if you get my distinction. But as I said initially, turning the issue into a man=big bad wolf woman=damsel in distress doesn't give the issue of sexual violence the respect it deserves. This thread is a case in point!

[Deleted User]

SeventySix wrote: »

Don't tar all men as rapist, but don't walk down that alley alone as there might be a scary man there to rape you.

Don't tar all men as rapist, but don't meet a man from the Internet alone as he might be a scary rapist.

Don't tar all men as rapist, but don't wear that outfit as a scary man might see your boobs and be unable to control himself.

Don't tar all men as rapist, but don't get too drunk as a scary man might see that as an opportunity and sexually assault you.

Women are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. We are rightly not supposed to tar all men as rapists, but privately, according to advice from some men including the Garda Commissioner we are supposed to view a lot of situations as rife with potential rapists and therefore make sure to protect ourselves. For me, this is an enormous part of the problem. Its not just this artice that says all men are potential rapists, it was the statement by the Garda, who said basically - be careful if you meet men off the internet as they might rape and kill you.

There in lies the problem, one of my daughters is currently working in a job where she is finish late at night and has to get the bus home and then walk a bit, I worries about this and tell her to be careful to the point where I am sure I am annoying her, however women walking alone on a dark street late at night are more venerable, should she not be out late at night, should I not warn her to be careful. Is it anyone "falt" that a women out alone late at night is more vulnerable, was the head of the Garda wrong to tell women to be careful?

The Corinthian

mariaalice wrote: »

There in lies the problem, one of my daughters is currently working in a job where she is finish late at night and has to get the bus home and then walk a bit, I worries about this and tell her to be careful to the point where I am sure I am annoying her, however women walking alone on a dark street late at night are more venerable, should she not be out late at night, should I not warn her to be careful.

That's the difference between being responsible and being paranoid though.

Responsible is knowing that there are bad men or women around and we should remember this. Paranoid is when you believe that all men or women are bad.

Is it anyone "falt" that a women out alone late at night is more vulnerable, was the head of the Garda wrong to tell women to be careful?

We're all vulnerable alone late at night, not just women. Almost every male friend I have, and including myself, has had some bad experience with someone looking for a fight.

Personally, I think you should probably be asking why the head of the Gardi did not feel the need to tell men the same thing?

SeventySix

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's the difference between being responsible and being paranoid though.

Responsible is knowing that there are bad men or women around and we should remember this. Paranoid is when you believe that all men or women are bad.

We're all vulnerable alone late at night, not just women. Almost every male friend I have, and including myself, has had some bad experience with someone looking for a fight.

Personally, I think you should probably be asking why the head of the Gardi did not feel the need to tell men the same thing?

He did. He actually said 'People'. It was widely reported though as 'Commissioner warns women' Perhaps because he said it in connection with a woman being murdered, or perhaps because it is ingrained in a lot of people that women need to be reminded to be sensible, while men do not.

Gender is applied to this issue because many more women are physically assulted by men than by other women. So women are encouraged to be aware of the men around them as potential threats in a way that generally doesnt apply in the opposite case. It would be lovely if that was not the case but as part of being sensible and having personal responsiblity women have to have this awarness of the opposite sex that is just not encouraged in men, in the same way. Sure look out of Golddiggers etc but they generally dont attack you on the bus or outside a pub or in a taxi or down a dark alley etc

[Deleted User]

There is a strand of feminism that thinks telling women to be careful is a form of victim blaming, after all why do they need to be careful. I am going to be honest and say I am not sure what to think of that, it is one of those..on this had then again on the other hand argument.

While women and men are vulnerable when out late on a dark empty street the reality is women are more vulnerable because of their weaker physic and while men are sexuality assaulted it is far more likely to happen to a woman.

To be pedantic every one must know some who had behaved outside the law merely by the law of average's, people who step outside the law don't exist in some other place where "normal" people don't live.

The Corinthian

SeventySix wrote: »

He did. He actually said 'People'. It was widely reported though as 'Commissioner warns women' Perhaps because he said it in connection with a woman being murdered, or perhaps because it is ingrained in a lot of people that women need to be reminded to be sensible, while men do not.

Point taken on how it was misreported, however I do feel that this labelling of 'victim blaming' on even the most basic of common sense advice reinforces this prejudice of women needing to be reminded to be sensible.

Sure look out of Golddiggers etc but they generally dont attack you on the bus or outside a pub or in a taxi or down a dark alley etc

I cited gold-diggers simply to underline how easy it can be to tar an entire gender and become completely paranoid.

Also, I would not underestimate the catastrophic consequences of falling prey to such a person.

The Corinthian

mariaalice wrote: »

While women and men are vulnerable when out late on a dark empty street the reality is women are more vulnerable because of their weaker physic and while men are sexuality assaulted it is far more likely to happen to a woman.

Let's not go there. I've seen figures in the past that demonstrate that a man is far, far more likely to be assaulted than a woman on the street, late at night. But I'd rather not drag the thread OT, so maybe we can just say that your point is debatable.

To be pedantic every one must know some who had behaved outside the law merely by the law of average's

Please, only in white collar crime...

[Deleted User]

I don't want to drag this off topic just one point more vulnerable to something is not the same as more likely to happen to.

The nature of sexual crimes means they are more likely to be secrete so nobody can say for certain that nobody they have as friends or acquaintances has not behaved questionable in sexual matter.

White collar crime is crime just as any other crime is a crime.

py2006

mariaalice wrote: »

There in lies the problem, one of my daughters is currently working in a job where she is finish late at night and has to get the bus home and then walk a bit, I worries about this and tell her to be careful to the point where I am sure I am annoying her, however women walking alone on a dark street late at night are more venerable, should she not be out late at night, should I not warn her to be careful. Is it anyone "falt" that a women out alone late at night is more vulnerable, was the head of the Garda wrong to tell women to be careful?

Of course not. Men need to be careful alone at night too.

However, the article was not talking about that it was basically suggesting that men as a whole, rape!

And those that don't, know a man that does.

Pawwed Rig

There is also a strange assumption by the columnist that women do not have male friends.

py2006

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

There is also a strange assumption by the columnist that women do not have male friends.

Good point. Although they have the good sense to dissassociate themselves from rapists but men apparently don't have that capacity.