I know I've only been here since November but I've never seen anyone say "all men are rapists"

[Arcanetrance]

I don't know if this is considered a call out or not. But there's another thread going where there's a claim there are people going around calling "all men potential rapists". Personally I've never seen anything of the sort. There have been a few posters that have pointed out due to a rape culture that exists it's hard for females to feel completely safe when out and about or with a group of guys. As a guy and someone who was molested and raped as a child I think that's a very valid thought and feeling it's not say all men are potential rapists. It's saying the potential for rape is always present due to a culture that seems to damage and punish the victim more than the rapist. While all guys aren't rapists we all feel the effects of what rapists do and as soon as that's accepted as truth we can change the culture of rape. So that our wives, girlfriends, daughters, nieces, aunts, grandmother's, all women can walk in the world and feel safe.

Thanks I know it's kind of rambling but I'm posting from my phone since my computer is being worked on

[Kalidurga]

1. Absolutely

Ironically the same people that deny we live in a rape culture would caution a woman to not go running at night or leave her drink unattended in a public place.

[bettyellen]

2. the "all men" thing is what they use to derail any feminist leaning conversations they don't like...

Last edited Fri Apr 5, 2013, 05:05 PM - Edit history (1)

if you are not super careful to modify the word men with "some" or "few" they jump all over the post and disrupt the conversation because their sense of being offended is more important than the OP.
If you do use the words some men every single time, they jump straight to the "why the outrage" and "man hater" accusations.
Then they trot out some puppet women who will agree with every hateful thing they say about feminists, and say "See, even women disagree with you".

Happens all the time here. And every other news story/ blog post on feminism that isn't moderated with an iron fist.

(wait ten minutes and one of them will show up and pretend this doesn't happen every single fucking thread!)

[Arcanetrance]

3. That depressing I've yet to meet feminists any where in real life or here

that hate men.

[Dr. Strange]

4. Well, you missed iverglas by a few months.

Although, in her defense, she didn't just hate men. She hated everyone.

[LittleBlue]

5. Oh God, I remember iverglas

She hated men with a burning passion like the fundies hate Obama. She was so vitriolic that she could poison the forum.

[etherealtruth]

13. My vote is with the "everyone" thing

Everyone, everywhere

[Jamastiene]

28. Yes, she did.

She hated the GLBT community the most though. She never missed a chance to beat us down. Then again, she never missed a chance to beat anyone down.

[madville]

80. I was wondering where she went

Was always fun to debate in the Gungeon, she was very anti-gun.

Wasn't she Canadian as well, I just remember her always talking about us 'Mericans and our love for guns.

[Dr. Strange]

87. Yes, she was Canadian.

Very anti-gun, anti-man, anti-GLBT, antisocial. She was a hoot.

[cliffordu]

29. That's funny. Go to Eugene Oregon and find hundreds.

I can introduce you to a couple in Portland, Oregon.

[bettyellen]

36. I hear they also have a huge problem with white supremecists and serial killers!

do you think it's one of those vortex thingies? freak magnet?

[cliffordu]

37. Oregon. It's a whole 'nother planet.

I love it here.

[bettyellen]

39. i grew up in the So Bx, and frankly, that shit scares me!!

[cliffordu]

56. Not many White supremacists in my neck of the woods.

Serial killers? Washington state has had more (I-5 killer, Green River Killer, Ted Bundy)

Mostly we have tons o' bicyclists, a GREAT urban core on Portland and a very diverse population.

[bettyellen]

58. sorry I am doing the Vt/NH thing... LOL I'm not scared of Portland because I have Swag and Heather

to protect me. But the woods, they just scare the shit out of me.

[treestar]

86. I wondered why there were so many killers in Washington state

but it is possible we just know more about them because of Ann Rule.

[polly7]

10. Really?

Care to name names of those 'puppets' being trotted out here???

I doubt you've got the courage, but I'd be VERY interested to read them.

[bettyellen]

11. I don't have to, Pol. It will become obvious to Arcane soon enough who the feminst attck squad are.

Once you see the same six people misquoting people and playing uber dumb a few times, you realize typing malicious bullshit is just their thing. :HI:

[bettyellen]

15. Authoritarian? You sound very confused, Pol. And baiting someone into breaking the rules is really

poor form! Name calling as well. Perhaps you need a refresher in the DU rules?
Or are the mods too authoritarian foy you?
Maybe try Reddit? That might be a nice place for you to go through life. Lots of angry people there for you to play with.

[polly7]

18. You said there were women here who only speak out because they're 'puppets'.

Who are they? LMFAO at your cowardly way to insult a bunch of women who see right through you and piss you off so bad you have to make up whatever stunningly stupid insult you can.

No, I'm not confused at all. I despise bullying, backstabbing, hypocrisy, lying and all the other things you do to make yourself feel so above the rest of us.

Yep. Chicken-shit. Deal with it.

[bettyellen]

20. You weren't aware that there are plenty of socks here? Well then, I AM educating you. ;-)

Also, an individual expressing opinions is not "authoritarian", LOL. Hope that clears things up for you. It's a message board, that's what people do.
Again, please stop with the name calling! You could get in trouble. This is not Reddit.

[etherealtruth]

27. Your vitriol diminishes anything you might want to express

Reading through your posts here ... I come away remembering that you are bitter and nothing else. If you have thoughts, perhaps they could be expressed constructively and folk might take notice (or not).

[Comrade Grumpy]

24. Accusing people of "derailing" conversations seems a bit odd.

This is, after all, a discussion board, and moreover, this is General Discussion, not HOF or some other protected group.

Unless by "derailing" you mean not posting in lock-step with your opinion. That seems to be the sort of authoritarian implication behind "derailing:" This thread is not open to opposing views.

[bettyellen]

26. derailing has nothing to do with "authoritarianism". threads are expected to stay on topic

but often on the net, people try to steer the conversation away. more so when they don't like the conversation.
anyway- now we're straying off topic. LOL. don't want us to be part of the probelm.

[Summer Hathaway]

34. And as we all know

if someone posted that women are selfish, women are gold-diggers, women are into S&M, women are untrustworthy without using qualifiers such as "a few" women, or "some" women, you wouldn't react to it, because you would accept that the OP was more important than your being offended.

There is no need for anyone to "trot out some puppet women" in order to demonstrate disagreement with you. There have been many women on this site who have consistently voiced that disagreement of their own accord, and will continue to do so.

You (and your colleagues) have been told repeatedly, in no uncertain terms, that your view of how women should conduct themselves and their relationships with men is NOT accepted by all women, nor is that view reflective of the goals of true feminism.

But rather than acknowledge and accept that disagreement being voiced by many women here, you instead dive into the deep end of the delusion pool, and come up with some BS about how those who disagree with you are merely "puppet women" who have been "trotted out" for the sole purpose of ridiculing you and your cohorts.

Where is your proof that there are "puppet women" in play here? Where are the facts to back up that assertion?

You have no such facts, just as you have no facts to support most of what you say here on a daily basis.

And while we're on the subject of facts, you might also consider the fact that there ARE some women who form part of the 'self-proclaimed feminists' contingent that DO become outraged on a consistent basis, and who DO hate men. Note that I said some women because I, unlike you, believe it important to qualify such statements when they are not meant to be taken as applicable to all.

Furthermore, I am basing my assessment of such women on their own words and the opinions they have expressed, and NOT on the skewed notion that ALL women are easily outraged man-haters, in the way that many of your colleagues promote the idea that ALL men do and/or say XYZ.

I have read some very eye-opening discussions in HoF of late, and often see posts about leaving DU because your group is so ill-treated here. I would imagine that the reason none of you ever do leave is because you've investigated other sites that you could potentially move to, and have realized that your brand of "feminism" wouldn't be any more widely accepted elsewhere than it is here.

Now, you can go ahead and debate everything I have said here. But as you do so, please be aware that the minute you stated that "they trot out some puppet women who will agree with every hateful thing they say about feminists, and say 'See, even women disagree with you'," you had already lost the argument.

[bettyellen]

38. you seem to be confused, as I was stating what happens to when OTHER people post OPs, not myself

hope that clears things upf or you, LOL.
Sorry you wasted time writing a thesis about a completely non-existant issue!

I posted one OP in about five years, and am part of no group, never try to speak with any authority here, just voicing opinions.
Hope that helps!

[Summer Hathaway]

43. No, sweetie

you're the one who is confused. My comment was clearly about how you would react to an OP posted by someone else, not yourself.

"... if someone posted that women are selfish, women are gold-diggers, women are into S&M, women are untrustworthy without using qualifiers such as "a few" women, or "some" women, you wouldn't react to it, because you would accept that the OP was more important than your being offended."

I think we can all safely assume that YOU would never have posted an OP stating that "women are selfish, women are gold-diggers", etc. Ergo, it was more than obvious that I was referring to an OP posted by someone other than yourself.

Nice dodge, though - or would have been, were it not so blatantly a dodge.

&quot I) never try to speak with any authority here."

When you stated that "they trot out some puppet women who will agree with every hateful thing they say about feminists, and say 'See, even women disagree with you'," it sounded as though you were speaking with a great deal of authority - as though you were presenting an indisputable fact, a fact that you could actually back up, instead of just pulling some ridiculous BS out of your ass and posting it as though it had any credibility whatsoever.

I have to assume - based on your incredibly silly response, which was limited to your equally silly notion that I had confused a hypothetical OP with an OP you might have written - that you actually have NO intelligent response to anything I've said.

And that's pretty much what I expected.

[bettyellen]

44. I am not your Sweetie, SH. Pls stop this rude phony nice crap Observations are not orders- there

is nothing authoritarian about making observations. It's actually THAT simple.

Not sure why you insist on trotting out ridiculous hypothiticals about if I replied to an an OP of "some stupid shit you made up" when I don't know you and you don't know me. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else you hate and are incapable of being civil with?

So, I know you think you had a point, but you actually didn't.

Please stop with the nasty personal attacks and "Sweetie" bullshit. You only make yourself look desperate and nasty.

[Summer Hathaway]

48. I believe your response

clearly demonstrates who is acting "desperate and nasty".

You stated that: "they trot out some puppet women who will agree with every hateful thing they say about feminists, and say 'See, even women disagree with you'."

And when pressed for evidence of same, by myself and others, your only response is to - well, quite frankly, to act "desperate and nasty".

Those are YOUR words - they are not hypothetical, they are there for all to see. If you can't back them up, simply admit that you were talking out of your ass and move on.

If you CAN back them up, please do so - there are many here who would be interested in 'the facts' on which you relied to make such a statement.

In the alternative, you might consider simply admitting that "you thought you had a point, but actually didn't" - because your point was based on complete fabrication.

[bettyellen]

54. I guess you have me confused with some fool who is willing to fetch for you, .

First I'm an authoritarian, now I'm someone who you order around to search for links? Ha, ha.
Why would I do anything for you- because you've been so darned nice?

I have seen what I have seen, and plenty of others have noticed the same pattern. After a while it gets too obvious who is only here to carry water and parrot for others. Different day, same old caw cawing. :yawn:

[Summer Hathaway]

55. Again your reading comprehension

leaves much to be desired. I did not call you an 'authoritarian'; I said you spoke with 'authority' when you stated that "they trot out some puppet women who will agree with every hateful thing they say about feminists, and say 'See, even women disagree with you'."

We've yet to hear your evidence for making that statement - and, no, saying that "others have noticed the same pattern" doesn't cut it.

YOU made the statement; it's up to YOU to back it up. If your answer is that you CAN'T back it up, then say so and be done with it.

My being 'nice' or not has nothing to do with the FACTS. If you have any FACTS, present them. If not, retract the statement, admit you were talking out of your ass, and apologize for having made it in the first place. It's as simple as that.

It has nothing to do with "ordering" anyone to search for links. What it HAS TO DO WITH is people like yourself who make statements they can't factually support, and then go on to imply that 'taking their word for it' should suffice.

As the old saying goes, either shit or get off the pot. Either you have the FACTS to support your statement, or you DON'T. Which one is it?

[bettyellen]

62. I have absolutely no concerns about whether good DUers believe the veracity of my statements here.

I know the same pattern willl continue, as it has for a long time, and that is good enough for me.

Haters gonna hate no matter what I do. Can't fix stupid.
Let's NOT do this more often!

[Summer Hathaway]

66. In other words

you cannot back up a single assertion you have made about "puppet women", etc.

I knew all along you couldn't - I just wanted to see you state it, in black and white, for all to see.

No, you can't fix stupid - but when the stupid assert things as 'facts' that they can't provide a scintilla of evidence for, their stupidity is exposed for what it is - stupidity.

Thanks for proving my point!

[bettyellen]

70. luckily, people around here aren't half as stupid as you imagine them to be.

even the ones who play stupid on threads aren't! the rest can see for themselves.

[juajen]

85. This appears to be a private argument, not discussion.

I suggest therapy. Bye, now.

[Summer Hathaway]

89. This is not an argument

nor is it private. On the contrary, I want this discussion to be visible to all.

Bettyellen stated: "Then they trot out some puppet women who will agree with every hateful thing they say about feminists, and say "See, even women disagree with you"."

I, among others, have asked her to back up that statement with some facts. As you can see by our exchange, she skirts the issue, attempts to change the subject, etc.

Rather than simply acknowledge that there are women posters here who strongly disagree with her (and her colleagues') 'brand' of feminism, she instead resorts to stating that we women who disagree with that 'brand' are "puppet women" being manipulated by 'them' (men).

That is not only a lie, it is an insult to the many, many, women on DU who have continually come forward to dispute the skewed notion of 'feminism' being advanced by a certain contingent here.
And their response to that dispute is to now simply label all of us who disagree with them as being "puppets" as opposed to simply being feminists who speak our mind, and strenuously oppose their view of things.

If Bettyellen, or any other women of 'the contingent', have any FACTS to support the "puppet women" assertion, I invite them to post those FACTS here.

[Dorian Gray]

82. I'm not a part of any group

but starting a post with "No Sweetie" is pretty condescending. Especially in a topic of this sort.

(And I disagree with the premise that if a woman argues against the de facto opinion of some of the feminists on this board, they're being trotted out.......)

[Vinnie From Indy]

76. Well written and spot on! Thank you!

I appreciate your post. Cheers!

[MadrasT]

45. Well stated. (n/t)

[redqueen]

6. I'm pretty sure this all started when one woman decided to try to explain

why women aren't overly trusting of men who are strangers or whom they don't know very well.

Here are some links.

The original:
http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/

One man's response to a common whine:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/2012/01/16/shuffling-feet-a-black-mans-view-on-schroedingers-rapist/

And someone who got fed up with the constant bullshit and tried to explain it again:
http://researchtobedone.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/for-those-who-dont-understand-schrodingers-rapist/

[Arcanetrance]

7. See the article is perfectly well reasoned and thought out

I don't see anything to be offended by. The lady is just explaining the world through a woman's eyes when she goes out.

[redqueen]

8. Yep, just more fake outrage. Same as with the 'holding doors open' idiocy. nt

[bettyellen]

9. about a half dozen people here pretend they don't understand that.... even when it;s been explained

again and again. They play coy and say "How dare you accuse my husband/ brother/ son of being a rapist!"

This idiocy is quite deliberate, and divisiveness their only intention.

[Arcanetrance]

14. I wish they'd quit they're purposely dividing us at a time when we need to be united

I thought equality for all and opposition to sexism were basic progressive and democratic values. But I'm starting to question the truth in that.

[seabeyond]

16. sometimes patriarchy over rides our democratic beliefs. that is all. nt

[cliffordu]

32. Well....

[smirkymonkey]

33. I have to admit that I think that way.

I am terrified of men that I don't know well. It's not that I think they are all rapists, it's just that I don't know and I would rather be safe than sorry. It is simply self preservation. I never want to be in the position of having to defend myself physically.

I have known a lot of men in the past that did not respect my boundaries and they freaked me out. I have cut them off without explanation. I didn't care if it was rude. To me, they were dangerous.

[alarimer]

61. I won't accept any help from men I don't know.

I learned to change my own flat tires so I don't have to depend on the "kindness" of strangers.

[SwampG8r]

17. i havent seen any without the word "potential" in the mix so i have to agree nt

[Arcanetrance]

19. Really your gonna go that route and mock this cause I missed a word

Because that seems to be the intention.

[SwampG8r]

21. i apologize if it came across like that

i was agreeing with you
with no snark intended but i had just finished a thread by someone and itwas titled along the lines of all men are potential rapists and then in the body of the op she very honestly laid out the case that it was so
i agreed with her assertion
i found it to be a well thought out op as she made a very plain case that indeed all men are "potential"rapists
which imho is true
so again i apologize for any slight you felt and i assure you it was not intended so

[Arcanetrance]

22. I apologize to you as well

[bettyellen]

41. wow, I am impressed!

good on you both for seeking clarity.

[Texasgal]

23. That's cuz no one said that!

You see, we have these people on this board that like to twist and gyrate words into things that were never meant or intended.

That's how it works unfortunately. Welcome to DU.

[Dash87]

25. It's an extremely misunderstood point here. Nobody is saying all men are rapists.

It's instead based on the concept of Schrodinger's Rapist, it's not 100% known that a given man is not a rapist, just like it's not 100% known that the person standing next to you at the bus stop will not shoot you. The idea is that, since any man can be a rapist (not that he probably is) you should take precautions and be aware of your surroundings.

For the same safety concerns, a man would not walk into a dark city alley at 3:00 AM. The man standing inside that alley could be friendly, or he could be a killer.

What the feminists are talking about on here is also known as common sense, and they're practices that all women follow. I'm not sure why anyone finds it so offensive.

[haikugal]

30. It isn't misunderstood..

it's just useful to those who want to bash feminists. I've seen this same thing over and over on other political forums. I've left two forums because they were allowed to continue their nonsense unabated by moderators. It can and has ruined forums. Women get tired of it and leave. Maybe that's what is wanted.

[bettyellen]

40. Yeppers, this crap is spammed all over the net, and there is no misunderstanding

it's a stupid game.

[Shankapotomus]

31. I won't challenge that assertion

one way or another but if women feel that is the case they can take action right now.

If indeed all men are potential rapists (and I'm not saying they are) it is because they evolved that way.

If they can evolve that way, they can de-evolve that way.

What women can do (since men are predisposed to not cooperate) is stop sexually selecting males that have traits that make them more predisposed for aggression, violence and rape. And only select docile males that have traits that make them genetically disposed to be cooperative, egalitarian, gentle, ambiguous toward sex, and non-competitive.

Stop rewarding aggressive, violent, competitive males with Alpha male status by allowing their genes to reproduce.

Instead of women trying to be more like men, who are, after all, over-aggressive, uncooperative, violent, competitive. Maybe women need to select males more like themselves.

Maybe what women need is not to adopt the corrupt, aggressive, masculine ethos in their effort to be equal to men, but instead move masculinity closer to the caring, cooperative, egalitarian, uncorrupted, feminine ethos?

Maybe instead of women serving in combat and war (a destructive activity), women should be fighting to get both genders out of uniform and bring them both into the peaceful and cooperative domain of civilian life. If you keep men at war and only join them there, no matter how equal you may be, the world will become a lot more aggressive, giving credence to and only entrenching the old patriarchal system. And you will still get aggressive males.

But if you say, "War is a destructive activity, appropriate to neither sexes. The military, industrial complex should be dismantled worldwide", and instead start pulling men out of those aggressive roles, you will have less use for aggressive males and, over time, men will evolve out of that role.

[randome]

57. Or we could simply work more on equal rights for all.

Eventually, a blending will occur and some of the more disagreeable traits will disappear.

[Shankapotomus]

60. If the assertion is

"All men are potential rapists", how can you work on equal rights if one half of the population is supposedly disposed to be uncooperative by nature? The disagreeable traits won't disappear by magic. They have to be selected out of the gene pool.

[randome]

63. No, but de-evolving or gene pool manipulations sound very time-consuming.

Look how far gay rights have come in just a few years. I know it's something that should have been decided decades if not centuries ago but just a few years ago, it was the status quo. Now the entire game has changed.

The same thing can happen for male/female relations. In fact, I think an argument can be made that relations between the sexes will improve BECAUSE of gay rights. More people in the younger generation will be open to 'experimenting' and this may improve the way they relate to others as human beings.

[Shankapotomus]

67. Certainly more power to you

if other options for improving gender relations pan out. I think relations will improve because of gays rights...and women's rights, as well.

However, I remain skeptical that any "relationship" with a "potential rapist" by nature can ever be a truly genuine or healthy one. The possibility of rape seems a pretty strong threat with which to negotiate a relationship. And yet if it's true, it would have to be genetically based and the only way to remedy it for sure would be to select it out of the gene pool. In that case it would require a consorted effort among women to redefine what is acceptable masculinity and stringent reproductive preference process to make sure rapist genes do not reproduce.

[Squinch]

68. Let's review, again, the meaning of the phrase. This has been said many times before

but it seems like once more won't hurt.

It does not mean that women expect all men to be rapists. It does not mean that anyone thinks that half the population is disposed to be uncooperative by nature.

It means that women need to ascertain that a man is trustworthy before she trusts him. She needs to not leave her drink unattended unless she knows the man well, she needs not to get in a car with a man she doesn't know, she needs to be careful about the men she allows to have unsupervised access to her children. This is because she doesn't know which men are unsafe just by looking at them.

DUer wryter2000 put it well: do you give out your social security number to strangers? Of course not, because all strangers are potential identity thieves. Do you really think that all strangers are identity thieves? No, you don't. And yet, you're still not going to tell me your social security number if I ask you. In the same way, you do not put yourself in a vulnerable position with a man who you don't know.

I don't know why this is such a difficult thing to understand.

[Squinch]

59. Who knew? Turns out we have ALL the power! All women need to do is stop those pesky wars!

And stop making males aggressive!

"women should be fighting to get both genders out of uniform and bring them both into the peaceful and cooperative domain of civilian life"

Women should be fighting for this? Really? Why didn't we think of this? And how is it that we missed the fact that we are unilaterally able to stop wars? Did we just not realize we were wearing the ruby slippers, and we just have to click our heels together to get both genders out of uniform?

"If you keep men at war and only join them there, no matter how equal you may be, the world will become a lot more aggressive, giving credence to and only entrenching the old patriarchal system. And you will still get aggressive males."

Women are "keeping men at war?" Really? This is women's doing? Shoot. I thought men had something to do with it too. I feel bad now that I thought they had a hand in it.

Jeez. Silly us. We women should have stopped those wars YEARS ago!

And in the meantime, all that aggression from males is our fault too! We need to start working on stopping that male aggression! How is it we haven't gotten around to that yet???

If only you'd told us sooner.

[Shankapotomus]

64. Not at all

The assertion of the OP was all men are potential rapists. That strongly implies that all men are disposed to be uncooperative to the feminist agenda by nature. If men are uncooperative to the feminist agenda by nature, women cannot count on men to fix the problem.

So I'm not implying it is women's fault. I am implying that, since "all men are potential rapists", women can't really rely or trust most men to repair themselves.

I would never imply the cultural mess was the fault of women but I am interested in how you would solve the problem, if you take issue with my idea.

P.S. Also, I would strongly assert that it is the male ethos that keeps the world at war, not the female.

[Arcanetrance]

69. If your saying my post says all men are potential rapists I'm afraid you missed the point.

Not all men are potential rapists but all men suffer from the acts of the few that do rape. Look at it like this there's a group of people out there that you know want to hurt you. Your not sure who they are as the blend in with the general population. Now do you than go through the world without worry no you judge everyone regardless because they could be part of that group. All these women seem to be saying is that when they go out they can't relax and they want that right to go out in the world and not have to go well will today be the day.

[redqueen]

77. Thanks for this. nt

[KitSileya]

71. Because we expect more - and believe men are capable of more.

There are a lot of things all humans have the potential to be, and the negative ones usually comes from desperation and opportunity. All humans are potential murderers, if they get desperate enough. All humans are potential thiefs. These crimes are committed by both men and women, and even though the majority of murderers are men, enough of them are women that we can't dismiss the possibility. However, society frowns upon thieves and murderers, and punish them, and we have as our norms and values that you shouldn't steal or kill.

When it comes to rape, that is a crime that is treated differently in society. While many decry violent rape, enough judges and politicians and football coaches and journalists etc blame the victim, and for example, enough studies show that a large number of men would grab the chance to rape an unconcious woman if they knew they could get away with it scot free, that we women know that in this crime, we do not have society and culture on our side. 99% of all rapists are men. This is a man's problem. We women believe and expect men to be capable of more, to be capable of not only not raping, but of changing culture and norms to make it unnacceptable to rape. We believe men are better than they apparently think themselves, because apparently they believe only women are saintly enough to change rape culture. We don't believe that.

And if you don't see how misogynistic it is to put the onus of changing men on women, then I recommend you think again.

[Shankapotomus]

73. No argument there

As far as putting the responsibility on women, I only posited that because I was under the impression the operative thinking was men were genetically incapable of fixing the gender issues.

But the ladies of this thread sound so reasonable, I now have to ask what then is the problem between men and women at DU? You would think all the men would be on board with this. My actual purpose of entering this thread was to discover what is creating all the pushing back between men and women at DU on the feminist issue.

[Squinch]

74. If you REALLY want to understand what the problem is between

men and women at DU, this thread is a start, but you'll have to watch some more.

As you say, the sentiment behind using the phrase is perfectly reasonable. It is a way of teaching women to keep themselves safe because our impressions of people are not always correct.

Now that you see the reasonableness, wait and watch for a while. I guarantee you that there will be another thread within a month, accusing "a certain handful of feminists on DU" of saying that all men are rapists. It will be the same names making the same tired comments, the same "don't tell me what you meant, you accused me of being a rapist!" and the same accusations hurled at those women for doing something they never did. There will be the same outrage, the same high-fiving about their collective cleverness in catching the feminists up in their own words - words which were never said.

I agree with you: you woud think all the men and women- don't forget that it is often women who are being willfully obtuse on this subject - would be on board with this. But many insist, in thread after thread, that they are not.

Edited multiple times because it is early and because I suck at proofreading.

[Shankapotomus]

75. Thanks for such a good response

at this hour.

Now I can't help but wonder, if this abuse from some men comes from a widely distributed demographic of men or is it possible with any accuracy for women to select the good men out of the population for interaction and not reward the bad men with the same interaction. Because it seems that obviously mysoginistic and abusive men are nevertheless being rewarded with relationships with women while more obviously docile men are culturally regarded as unfit for women by a lot of women. For example, I can't believe I'm saying this, Ted Nugent has a wife.

So it would seem, at least in regards to some men, the signs that they are not the best choice are clearly there and yet they get selected anyway. In this regard, we seem to be dealing with a leftover evolutionary pre-disposition in women to favor these thugs.

Or do women have to forever go through this torture of trusting the wrong guy and getting abused?

[Squinch]

78. Women are subject to the same stresses and variety as men.

Sadly, if I had to guess, I would say there are as many anti-feminist women as there are anti-feminist men. There will always be a part of the culture which thinks that that is what God intended. And I'll bet that Ted Nugent's wife, and more importantly the woman who raised Ted Nugent's wife, are militantly anti-feminist.

Historically -and up until very recently in historic terms - the most aggressive man in town was often also the best provider and the best protector. When women didn't have options, it was simply sensible for women to choose those men. It was especially sensible for mothers to push their daughters toward men like that, so that they would be sure their daughters were protected from the world at large. And, in the days when a woman could not financially survive without a man, and was considered sexual fair game if she didn't "act like a lady", the world at large could easily squash a woman like a bug.

That was not that long ago. My mother was raised in a time and place where those forces predominated. Thankfully, my father was a wonderful man. But the most important thing a girl wanted from her mate, whether she admitted it or not, was financial and bodily security.

In that atmosphere, the prettiest and most culturally compliant girl was usually the winner. Which meant she got the man who could give her the most security, which generally meant the most aggressive and powerful man.

I think there are still some women who are - again, consciously or not - operating under those same assumptions. The poor things. (I mean that sincerely. I can't imagine how difficult it must be, and destructive to the psyche, to feel this way.)

But, happily, I think the information age is inevitably changing that. It is no longer aggression that creates success, it is access to information. Women and men can both do that equally. Physically weak men can do that as well as physically strong men. (I think it is very interesting, though, that the recent ado about sexism in the tech world is a conflict between the haves and have-nots in the arena of access to information. Old structures are trying to impose themselves on new paradigms.)

We are much more free, and much more likely, to choose "nice guys." We don't need physical protectors, so we can choose the ones who make us laugh and feel happy. We don't need to be married to survive, so we can go into our relationships with much more leverage. Though that threatens many men, it is actually of benefit to everyone.

The troglodites are still out there, male and female. And, especially among the young, they may predominate. But the world is changing, and I think will continue to change till the situation you describe is no longer common.

[Shankapotomus]

81. Awsome response.

I appreciate the attention to the subject you are giving so early on a Saturday morning. I don't find anything to contend with in this response.

I'm surprised there are any issues between feminists and men at all on DU. You're understanding of the issue seems perfectly reasonable.

[Squinch]

88. Thank you for saying so!

[redqueen]

79. When a woman is involved in a relationship with a man, it is not a "reward".

We are all raised in the same misogynist society. The same patriarchy. The vast majority of us, men and women, internalize the same misogynist beliefs that men do. Some shake it off, most don't. Those women who don't are perfectly fine with misogynist men. They will find them more attractive than evolved men. They will proudly support and perpetuate misogynist ideas (Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schaflly, FemRA's, etc.)

Until we smash the patriarchy, yes, women will continue to keep being raised to believe this fucked up system is 'natural' and awesome, and will continue to perpetuate the cycle, right along with misogynist men.

[Shankapotomus]

83. As I responded to Squinch,

I don't know where the push back from some men on DU is coming from. Not only do the feminists I've encountered on DU seem to have a good understanding of the issue, they also, as you have illustrated, are perfectly amicable to acknowledging the role some unenlightened women play in perpetuating patriarchy and misogyny (not that they bare any special responsibility.) In addition, you've acknowledged evolved men do exist. I don't see a problem here (not that it's my prerogative, as a man, to rule on feminism's problems) other than the one coming from misogynists and those who don't understand feminism. Of course, there could be other variants of feminism at DU that present a far more intractable stance, it would be good to know yours and Squinch's were the more predominate tone.

[geek tragedy]

35. It's common sense. Something sorely lacking in many discussions nt

[aikoaiko]

42. Every DUer could potentially write "all men are rapists."

That's my deepest insight

[BainsBane]

52. because a random selection of the keyboard

might one day result in those words typed.

[baldguy]

46. The thread was hidden.

But not before the author got a lot of recs for it.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

49. Only men that women don't find attractive are considered creepy and rapey...

But a rapist has many different appearances.

[BainsBane]

50. what?

How on earth do you come to this conclusion?

[Arcanetrance]

51. That's a load of crap about woman considering only the unattractive creepy and rapey

There's a link up thread that explains the thought pattern better I think you should read it

[bettyellen]

72. no, you have to BEHAVE creepy to get a rap as a creeper

if you're pissed off more conventionally attractive women *generally* like more conventionally attractive men you should, like the rest of us, just accept that's how shit works.

[Deep13]

53. "Potential" just means it's possible.

And yeah, it is physically possible for nearly all men to rape women. Fortunately, controlling ones occasional urges is also possible.

[AnnieBW]

65. I'm a Feminist, and I love Men

Most men are fine, decent guys who love and respect women. There are, unfortunately, a minority of them who are sexist pigs and potential rapists. Every one is different.

[etherealtruth]

84. I am an ardent feminist

... I love men!

I think that the characterization of feminists as "men haters" was constructed simply to diminish feminism.