Unintended consequence of ***some*** modesty teachings is distrust of men and other insights

[Calm]

Quote

Now there are two ways I could react to these encounters. I could rail against people for being racist and sexist and size-ist (if that’s a thing) – I’m so gentle and warm and loving! How dare they act as though I’m not? That’s one way – and it’s the stupid way. The other way is to recognize that while I strongly dislike the fact that people see me as dangerous because of how I look, it is up to me to decide what to do with that information. If I don’t care about spooking my neighbours, I don’t have to shuffle my feet – let them deal with their fright. But if I docare, then I have to find some way of mitigating that fear so we can coexist harmoniously.

Bringing this example home, men in the freethought movement have a decision to make. They (we) can rail against the hypocrisy of claiming to be anti-sexist whilst engaging in sex-based prejudicial behaviour, or we can recognize that if we want to be accommodating to women we have to make some adjustments to how we behave. It comes back to the central question: do we want women to be more comfortable? If not, then we should say so explicitly – “we don’t care about your comfort, toots! Nut up or shut up!” On the other hand, if we do care, then we can’t simply maintain the status quo of behaviour and berate women for being afraid of rape. That doesn’t solve any problems.

The other point I want to make here, which goes back to my objection to anti-black racism being used as a rhetorical device by those who will never face it, is that black people engage in tons of behaviours to make white people feel safer. We do this all the damn time. We make accommodations in speech, behaviour, dress, mannerism, conversation topic – a wide diversity of adjustments that we make in the presence of our white friends. We want them to feel comfortable around us, and we accept the inherent racism of the need for such changes. The fact that you rail against its manifest unfairness is indicative of the fact that you have no idea we’re doing it – which means, in turn, that we’re doing it well. Until I am convinced that you actually understand anti-black racism (which would take quite a bit of doing), I don’t appreciate being deputized into your anti-feminist screed in this way.

https://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/2012/01/16/shuffling-feet-a-black-mans-view-on-schroedingers-rapist/

[MiserereNobis]

Smac, do you mind sharing the purpose of your posts?

My 11th grade AP English Language (rhetoric) students are quite capable of doing an analysis of your rhetorical choices over the past pages, and they would come to the obvious conclusion that your purpose is not to convince or change the minds of those with whom you are disagreeing. You have chosen a persona that is adversarial to those posters, which is ineffective if those posters are your intended audience. Remember Aristotle's advice that one of the many ways you can appeal to ethos is to show good will towards your intended audience? You're not doing this, so you're tanking your abilities to convince. I'm wondering then if your intended audience is someone else. Perhaps not the posters you are engaging with, but those who are reading and not posting?

Next would be to analyze your choice of language. The rhetorical triangle of purpose, audience, persona dictates the choice of genre/language. Multiple posters have told you they do not like the way you use language. Your choice would be quite odd, then, if you are trying to convince them. However, if they are not your audience, then perhaps your choice of language use is more apt.

My take is that you are writing for an audience who already agrees with you. I base this on the above and on my belief that you are too good a litigator to make such poor rhetorical choices if your intended audience is those with whom you've been interacting. Only a mediocre lawyer would treat their jury this way.

That would mean your purpose is not to convince those who oppose you, but to strengthen those who agree with you. This totally fits your rhetorical choices. Your quips, your antagonism, your repetitions -- these would all be appealing to those who already hold your views, in a similar degree as they are off-putting (clearly by the responses they generate) to those who oppose you.

If this wasn't such a culturally/politically charged topic, it would be fun to assign these past pages to my students for analysis. I sometimes do this with the faculty email list-serve for the local university (I have access because I teach classes there in the evening). My students get a kick out of analyzing the rhetoric of the arguments of professors and finding the ineffective rhetorical choices that show up in those who supposedly know better: they have Ph.D's! But then I remind them, like I'm pointing out here, that perhaps the intended audience is not who the professor appears to be arguing against, but some other group that is silent. It's like an interactive "open letter."

Finally, and on a note that might refute what I wrote above: you are keen to point out various logical fallacies, and I'm with you on that. However, it's good to remember Spock's advice to Valeris:

This is especially true on a board dedicated to religion. In spirituality, sometimes logic actually holds us back from that which is deeper and more important. As we approach the experience of God, language, and thus logic, begins to fail. In Christianity, the experience of God runs through our connection to and understanding of our fellow creatures (to use the Catholic phrase: that which is created by God: nature, but primarily fellow humans). The great Christian mystics use paradox, inherently illogical, to describe that which language cannot describe: the unity of all of us within the Being of God.

 

[Calm]

nvm

 

Edited February 14 by Calm

[manol]

20 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

In spirituality, sometimes logic actually holds us back from that which is deeper and more important. As we approach the experience of God, language, and thus logic, begins to fail. In Christianity, the experience of God runs through our connection to and understanding of our fellow creatures (to use the Catholic phrase: that which is created by God: nature, but primarily fellow humans). The great Christian mystics use paradox, inherently illogical, to describe that which language cannot describe: the unity of all of us within the Being of God. [emphais manol's]

You guys have got it figured out.  Of course you've had some time to work on it, but it takes more than just time, so, kudos!  Imo ^^that^^ is "it". 

[sheilauk]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.

"All men whom a woman encounters in isolated/compromised circumstances, and/or who behaves suspiciously in those circumstances," yes.  That would be reasonable.  But "All men are potential rapists" is a categorical statement.  It denigrates literally all men, with no regard as to behavior or circumstance.

Thanks,

-Smac

I suspect this is the nub of the issue.  Smac accepts it’s ok to say all men in specific circumstances can be viewed as a potential threat but he limits those circumstances to isolated areas and suspicious behaviour whereas women, based on the information they have, have a much broader definition of the circumstances in which men are viewed as a potential threat - because sexual assault doesn’t just happen in isolated areas or by men acting suspiciously.  Women don’t want to have to feel at risk most of the time or in most places they go. But, stating that the short statement all men are potential rapists is prejudicial doesn’t help move the conversation on, it shuts it down.  Instead of asking why women feel that way, or accepting women have good reason to feel that way and asking how it can change, a man can simply say the woman is being irrational and emotional and prejudiced and so, feeling better himself, walk away. It also denies that women are entitled to their feelings and it favours men’s feelings over women’s. And it fails to understand that such a response is infuriating to women.  Women’s voices have been shut down for centuries by men claiming they are irrational (eg women who said they were sexually assaulted have been locked up in asylums and accused of hysteria).  But it is not irrational to be wary/suspicious of most men in most circumstances because women know, through personal experience or hearing the experiences of others, that women have been assaulted in most circumstances by a man. 

but let’s humour the man.  Let’s accept that the (shorthand) “all men are potential rapists” is prejudiced. What phrase do we use to describe the risk women feel (also accepting that women are entitled to feel that way due to their collective, lived experience)? “Any man, known or unknown, may be or become a threat, possibly even a rapist, in many situations that a woman finds herself and therefore a man encountered in those circumstances is a possible threat until the man proves he is safe, because it’s not possible to identify which man will actually be a perpetrator of violence”- will that do?  Not very catchy!  But my behaviour and feelings are predicated on that because that is my personal lived experience and it’s the experience of many other women, maybe even the majority.  Does that move the conversation on?  Can we address the issues that arise? Eg, how do we design spaces so women feel safe and how do we minimise male violence?  (To be fair, men, especially gay men, should be wary of other men in a lot of situations too.  Most violence is perpetrated by a man - though most men are not violent (I really shouldn’t have to add this as a qualifier)).  It does also raise the question as to how a man proves he’s safe and when does a woman accept a man is safe, given how a trusted man can suddenly become a risk (most women at the start of a relationship don’t know that it will become abusive, until it does).

so, let’s move on.  Those of you who dislike the short phrase, what do you suggest we say to describe the threat posed, taking into account all the situations women can be harmed in, to warn women and to encourage men to help improve matters?  
 

(without upsetting men because the last thing a woman must do is upset a man.  Part of the conversation must surely be how we stop making women responsible for men’s feelings and actions.)

(btw, if a man’s experience is that women pose a threat to him, I’m ok with him saying all women are a potential threat, because, to him, they are.  I’m happy to act accordingly.)

Edited February 14 by sheilauk

[sheilauk]

Perhaps another analogy will help.

in the past, I rode a motorcycle.  Being a rider can be dangerous, car drivers do not notice bikes as much as they should and when accidents occur between a car and a bike, the rider will almost always come off the worst because they are in a more vulnerable position.  In the UK there is a campaign called “think bike”. Which tries to raise awareness, get car drivers to think about and look for riders, so as to minimise accidents.  Now, most drivers don’t collide with bikes.  Most times that a rider goes out, they don’t have a collision.  Most journeys are safe.  But the instructor who taught me to ride told me that I should ride my bike as though every vehicle on the road was going to hit me.  He didn’t mean they would, he meant each one was a potential threat and I should ride defensively, acting to protect myself even if it meant giving way when I was in the right.  And I did,I rode defensively, i treated every other vehicle on the road as a threat, as something that had the potential to hit me and harm me.  Almost all weren’t going to but I viewed them in that way.  Despite my efforts to minimise risks to me, I was still hit twice by a car.  Following each incident, I modified my behaviour further to try to minimise the risk of being hit again.   It would be nice if drivers chose to modify their behaviour to minimise risk to me but, until they do, I have to behave as though any one of them will choose to harm me.

When I learnt to drive, my instructor also taught me to drive defensively, to act as though a collision would occur with every vehicle on the road - it means not being aggressive, being aware of all other vehicles on the road and giving way, even if I am in the right.  Every vehicle is an accident waiting to happen, a potential threat.
 

am I prejudiced against drivers or am I sensible, acting in accordance with my direct experience and the experience of others?

[Calm]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

All men whom a woman encounters in isolated/compromised circumstances, and/or who behaves suspiciously in those circumstances," yes.  That would be reasonable.

Women have been attacked, molested and even raped in public settings.  Even while people have watched and filmed it on their phones doing nothing to stop it.  Why isn’t it reasonable since it occurs in those settings as well?

——

Hadn’t gotten to Sheila’s posts yet…she covered it well (as did others)

Edited February 14 by Calm

[Calm]

This restriction to women’s fear of men in general only being legitimate in certain locations while not in others as dictated by a man’s decision on what is and isn’t legitimate fear and not the actual experience of a woman, notable for being secluded in some form reminds me of the Old Testament limitation of legitmate rape in the city to only those who cry out for help…because in a town of course a woman knew if she screamed someone would always respond and save her.  If she didn’t scream in a city, she wasn’t raped, it was consensual…ignoring of course the ability of a rapist to threaten her life, but I guess being dead was preferred to rape or for a woman to freeze.  In the country where the assault would take place in secluded fields, woods, etc, the woman claiming rape had a better chance of being believed and rape being accepted as rape.

[Calm]

15% of (reported?) rapes occurred in open public places…and yet to fear men in these areas is not reasonable, decent, or rational.  What percentage does that need to be before women are seen as reasonable and decent to apply the same concerns in open public areas as more secluded ones?  50/50?
 

 

Also for interest:

What was the survivor doing when the crime occurred?7

48% were sleeping, or performing another activity at home

29% were traveling to and from work or school, or traveling to shop or run errands

12% were working

7% were attending school

5% were doing an unknown or other activity

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem

[Calm]

Sexual harassment otoh is most likely to occur in public places, which suggests to me that since harassment is a warning sign for assault it is quite reasonable, decent, and rational to use the paradigm of “all men are potential rapists”*** actively while in public places as well as in secluded ones.

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2018/02/191526/stop-street-harassment-data

Quote

Public spaces were reported most frequently as the location of respondents' first experience with sexual harassment. Overall, the top-three location where women reported sexual harassment were in a public space (66% of women respondents), at work — including temporary jobs and internships (38%), and at home (35%). For men, the most frequently reported locations were in public (19%), at school (14%), and for 13% of men, at work, home, and by phone or text.

***shorthand for not viewing any man as so safe there is no need to pay attention ever to any warning signs as well as to prepare oneself in any encounter for the possibility of assault because the likelihood of a woman encountering a predator quite frequently in their lifetime, even up to several times a day if around large numbers of men is statistically significant.  I saw one estimate that if one includes child predators in the engaging in nonconsensual forcible sex at least one time in their life predator category, placed it at 10% of the male population.  Didn’t show the stats though.  OTOH, studies of college men have between 4 to 16% admitting to committing rape, 2/3s being repeat rapists.  Hard to tell if college men are more likely to assault women than noncollege or the reverse since education and better economic status tends to be protective, but alcohol use is a major factor in assaults and college kids are more like to binge drink and drive under the influence.

https://www.wcsap.org/prevention/concepts/risk-protective-factors

Not shorthand for any man will become a rapist if given the right opportunity because this is false, thank goodness 

Edited February 14 by Calm

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Women have been attacked, molested and even raped in public settings.  Even while people have watched and filmed it on their phones doing nothing to stop it.  Why isn’t it reasonable since it occurs in those settings as well?

——

Hadn’t gotten to Sheila’s posts yet…she covered it well (as did others)

Very good point, that I have skipped over.

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Sexual harassment otoh is most likely to occur in public places, which suggests to me that since harassment is a warning sign for assault it is quite reasonable, decent, and rational to use the paradigm of “all men are potential rapists”*** actively while in public places as well as in secluded ones.

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2018/02/191526/stop-street-harassment-data

***shorthand for not viewing any man as so safe there is no need to pay attention ever to any warning signs as well as to prepare oneself in any encounter for the possibility of assault because the likelihood of a woman encountering a predator quite frequently in their lifetime, even up to several times a day if around large numbers of men is statistically significant.  I saw one estimate that if one includes child predators in the engaging in nonconsensual forcible sex at least one time in their life predator category, placed it at 10% of the male population.  Didn’t show the stats though.  OTOH, studies of college men have between 4 to 16% admitting to committing rape, 2/3s being repeat rapists.  Hard to tell if college men are more likely to assault women than noncollege or the reverse since education and better economic status tends to be protective, but alcohol use is a major factor in assaults and college kids are more like to binge drink and drive under the influence.

https://www.wcsap.org/prevention/concepts/risk-protective-factors

Not shorthand for any man will become a rapist if given the right opportunity because this is false, thank goodness 

Groping most often happens in public places as well.

My friend had her butt pinched by an adult man when she was 15 standing in line at a convenience store, with a female checker behind the counter and me standing off to the side staring at them waiting for her to finish checking out. This was at 2 in the afternoon and in a town of 6,000 people in a western state.

Neither one of us did anything but be shocked because we had no idea what to do about it at that age.  She turned around and looked at him in shock right after he did it, but he just smiled back at her.

It still makes our blood boil thinking about it decades later. We wish we both would have made a scene and had the checker call the cops.  But we weren’t prepared to be sexually harassed in that place so had no plan on how to deal with it. After that instance though we learned you had to be prepared for it anytime and any place.

[MustardSeed]

I was in my 20s when walking in busy Seattle crossing a crosswalk and got groped mid day, someone grabbed my breast hard.  There is literally zero I could do other than yell HEY- I was so stunned I didn’t know who I was yelling at. 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I was in my 20s when walking in busy Seattle crossing a crosswalk and got groped mid day, someone grabbed my breast hard.  There is literally zero I could do other than yell HEY- I was so stunned I didn’t know who I was yelling at. 

Horrible 

[longview]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

  4 hours ago, Calm said:

Sexual harassment otoh is most likely to occur in public places, which suggests to me that since harassment is a warning sign for assault it is quite reasonable, decent, and rational to use the paradigm of “all men are potential rapists”

The points being made about the prevalence of sexual assaults of varying degrees are VERY sobering and real. It would be agonizing for it happen to my relatives.

However the prefix "all men" is still too jarring. The word "potentially" is utterly a blanket condemnation. Would it be better to use non-absolutist terms? How about this? "Women have a very real dread of any man that could suddenly make an assault any time any place."

After all, there is a significant percentage (hopefully) of men who have NEVER degraded women and would "shake at the appearance of evil."

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, longview said:

The points being made about the prevalence of sexual assaults of varying degrees are VERY sobering and real. It would be agonizing for it happen to my relatives.

However the prefix "all men" is still too jarring. The word "potentially" is utterly a blanket condemnation. Would it be better to use non-absolutist terms? How about this? "Women have a very real dread of any man that could suddenly make an assault any time any place."

After all, there is a significant percentage (hopefully) of men who have NEVER degraded women and would "shake at the appearance of evil."

If we knew exactly which men those were, that statement could work perfectly!  

[MustardSeed]

How’s about “in the minds of many women, due to life experience and also warnings from their predecessors, all men pose potential sexual threat.  This is not unfounded nor unreasonable. Established trust reduces anxiety significantly but does not guarantee safety.”

Edited February 14 by MustardSeed

[MustardSeed]

I’m sorry that this is shocking news to some.  It’s a reality that I don’t think about consciously every minute of every day but it’s a latent awareness constantly that becomes more clear when the topic arises.  Many women know and understand.  Some men understand, but will never know.  Many men just don’t know or understand- it’s a shocking reality and very sad indeed.  Until more seek to understand, reality cannot be altered. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

42 minutes ago, longview said:

The points being made about the prevalence of sexual assaults of varying degrees are VERY sobering and real. It would be agonizing for it happen to my relatives.

However the prefix "all men" is still too jarring. The word "potentially" is utterly a blanket condemnation. Would it be better to use non-absolutist terms? How about this? "Women have a very real dread of any man that could suddenly make an assault any time any place."

After all, there is a significant percentage (hopefully) of men who have NEVER degraded women and would "shake at the appearance of evil."

How about this. Until men make sexual violence and harassment vanishingly rare, we shut the —— up when telling women what is reasonable to think or say on the matter. 

Edited February 14 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Rain]

This is WAY too long, but...  "You can't always tell the difference between a sexual assaulter and a safe man ahead of time. Or between a dangerous place and a safe one."

[Rain]

"Sexual predators sometimes hide in the identities of "safe" men."

Edited February 14 by Rain

[MustardSeed]

Truly, the bad apples ruin it for the whole lot.  It’s too bad, for all of us. 

[Doctor Steuss]

19 minutes ago, Rain said:

"Sexual predators sometimes hide in the identities of "safe" men."

My younger sister is an MFT that works predominantly with children in the foster system.  One of the things she introduced me to, is that instead of "stranger danger," we should teach about "tricky people." 

Tricky people will lure you in, make promises, and use other tactics to make you let your guard down just long enough to claim another victim.  Tricky people are just waiting for an opportunity, and will play a role until they find it.

Trigger warning (not sure it's needed given the overall theme of the tread, but just in case):  A girl I dated many moons ago was assaulted by a childhood friend and roommate.  They had known each other for about 25 years.  One night, seemingly out of nowhere, after they had gotten back from being out with some friends, he put a knife to her throat, and SA'd her.  Twenty-five years, and then the mask slipped. 

I think a lot of men would be surprised to find out just how many women in their lives have been assaulted.  If they don't know any women who have been, it might be worth some introspection on why they aren't seen as someone who could be entrusted with those traumatic experiences.

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, Rain said:

"Sexual predators sometimes hide in the identities of "safe" men."

Sad but true.  I think it would probably be more accurate to say "almost always" because most recognize that they have to hide their deviancy (at least from the public and from women in the beginning) if they want to continue to have access to their prey. 

Also, there was a study done (I can get the particulars for anyone that is interested but I'm not going to go and grab the book and look it up right now) where a man studied men who rape without them really knowing that's what he was studying.  Because of the way that he put the questions, he got them to be incredibly candid about how they treated women.

One guy was a college senior and he talked in length about how he and his buddies would target certain college girls throughout the week (usually the freshmen and sophomores because they weren't as wary yet), pretend to be interested in them, get them to come to a frat party, get them blackout drunk, and then have sex with them.  He spoke about how most of the time the girls were unconscious but sometimes they would try to resist but he would just ignore them and keep doing what he wanted.  He talked about how it was the perfect system and he and his buddies thought they were so smart to have come up with it.

But he did not consider himself to be a rapist and he didn't believe that he had ever raped anyone.  Sexual predators even hide from themselves.

 

[Vanguard]

In my DBT (Dialectical Behavioral Therapy) men's group last night I introduced the concept of nonjudgmental stance which emphasizes the importance of not carrying preconceived or prejudiced notions about others who we do not know. Further down in the text, however, it reads - "If most men or most women have hurt you in life, judgments about that sex might keep you safe psychologically or even physically in some situations." - (underscoring mine). I will typically springboard from that into the scenario of a female who has been abused by her former boyfriend/significant other and is reluctant to date again as she does not want to run the risk of putting herself in that situation again. Her girlfriends remind her she has got to get out there and 'take a chance on love again' but she is reluctant. Finally, she does go out on a date with a new man she met but quickly squelches any chances for a 2nd date because she was triggered by the fact that his hairstyle looked similar to that of her ex's and he drove the same type of car as her ex. She concludes it is simply not in the cards for her to date again as she can really never know. In my scenario the man she went out with is not deserving of this type of prejudice against him as he never has or would abuse a female. I go on to remind the men, however, that it is entirely understandable the woman would have these issues and that I suspect 'behind her eyeballs' it is primarily a question of her very survival. Similarly, I can understand why women might (should?!) carry the concern that any man might be a potential predator/abuser and so it is best to at least be vigilant. Perhaps that stance should soften a bit as the female gets to know the male though some awareness should always remain as we know much of the abuse out there is perpetrated by those the female knows.

The definition of prejudice indicates - preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. For females to maintain some form of vigilance against all men is entirely reasonable in my view.