Sigh. I've been deleted and blocked by yet another feminist page on Facebook....

That was to prom.

larry - I'm glad you prefer my suggestions to your initial thoughts.

I think if you believe there's any need to discuss what is 'innate' about rape, you need to think carefully about what you're going to teach impressionable young men. At the very least.

I wouldn't start with 'how not to be a rapist' because it presumes it's normal.

If we'd got on to discussing rape, and the eternal 'oh but isn't there a grey area innit', I might get onto 'no, there isn't a grey area, this is how not to be a rapist', but the idea of starting a biology lesson with it does genuinely creep me out quite a lot.

Isn't it a depressing idea anyway? Because surely as teenagers boys aren't likely to be very sure of themselves - they need to be told the basic stuff about 'make sure you are enjoying it, make sure you feel comfortable, make sure your partner is confident it's the right thing too', just as much as girls?

I mean, getting boys and girls speaking a different language about how they approach sex (I know rape is not entirely about sex, but in the context) is going to be a recipe for disaster.

Malenky,

You seem determined to take issue with me about a variety of things. I have just spent three days in a school "observing" on my way to a second career as a teacher. They spent several biology (well, the "B" bit of general science) discussing puberty and all the emotional and sexual connotations, including contraception etc (and consent). You may well argue that biology is an inappropriate forum for this but you should take that up with the DofE, not me!

As to your second question, my preferred lesson fits far more into your idea of teaching the whole class continuous consent. The idea that "men rape" would be a very poor way to introduce that lesson.

I am not in the least saying that it is innate for men to rape, although we could have a far longer discussion on what "innate" implies and I might argue that most criminal behaviours are "innate" but, as parents, we socialise our children away from them, both by example and direct teaching. That can be debated ad infinitum, though, and is maybe not that helpful to this discussion.

I'm not an English language expert - I don't think I need to be.

I didn't think I'd misinterpreted your post, I was just shocked by it.

Why would you discuss rape in biology? Isn't that fairly revolting?

I think it would imply rape was somehow innate or to do with sex. It's a proper subject for PSHE, not biology.

Why would you need to teach boys not to be rapists?

You'd teach the whole class about continuous consent. Obviously, surely?

You seem to be clinging to this idea that it is somehow innate in men (or some men) to rape. I'm really sure it isn't.

Malenky,

You may be the English language expert but I can write clear and accurate English. Your response to my post misinterprets it. It does not even read like a reply to what I have written.

How would you start your biology lesson? "Well, boys, let me tell you that men rape and now I am going to teach you how not to be a rapist?" or "most men will NEVER rape. However a minority of men do not seem to understand that sex should always be clearly consensual. This lesson, we are going to discuss that in detail". I know which lesson I would find acceptable to me and which would be offensive.

And yet I've not, larry.

I remember being taught at primary school that white people oppressed black people. We got taught this was going on all over the world and we did assemblies about it (this would be early 90s). I don't recall us ever thinking 'oh no, I must be a horrible person' - why would we? We were just being taught we had a responsibility because it was us. I don't remember anyone thinking that meant we were innately evil or had no choice.

And most dogs will chase cats if given the chance. I have seen it plenty of times, including our own dog growing up. I am amazed that you have never seen it.

How on earth does that statement teach a boy that his sex is 'intrinsically criminal and has to be educated not to be'?

That really upsets me.

Surely anyone with an ounce of compassion would recognize rape is not 'intrinsic', it's a disgusting abuse of power?

Do you honestly have such a low opinion of teenage boys?

Prom,

Would you defend the term "men rape" if used to an adolescent boy that you were trying to teach? If not, then I think it is offensive. And, if so, what kind of affect do you think it would have on his self image, teaching him that his sex is intrinsically criminal and has to be educated not to be?

And, how can an accurate description be "unacceptably weak"? I can see that some use the term "men rape" to shock and provoke debate. Personally, I think it achieves the opposite of its intention as, rather than getting men who will never ever rape to try to address the causes of why some men still think rape is ok, it alienates virtually all men, and certainly all fathers (and I suspect most mothers) of boys who are being brought up to be kind and respectful in all areas of life.

Btw, I've seen a zillion childrens' books where 'the dog chases the cat'. I've never actually seen a dog chase a cat.

I don't write to publishers in outrage demanding the statistical survey, I just assume most people these days train their dogs to stop chasing the wretched cat.

Maybe I would be less fussed about the wording of 'men rape' if I could be equally secure in my assumption that rape was a thing of the past, or a rare thing?

Yes, it can be argued all sorts of ways, prom.

I defend 'men rape' because it is so, so, so rare to see people naming perpetrators. That's purely it.

There is no shortage of people discriminating against women for being 'emotional'. The problem isn't the general statement 'women are emotional' itself - the problem is that this statement is the tip of the iceberg; below it you find a mass of discriminatory attitudes and practices that contribute to make this statement a dangerous one for women.

OTOH I do not see how 'men rape' is making a dangerous statement for men. If rapists of women were always, or usually, caught and punished, while rapists of men were not, it would be a hugely dangerous statement, because it would ignore the gendered victimisation of men by men.

However, that's not the situation. 'Men rape' is a useful statement because it highlights the fact that rape isn't something that 'happens to' women, it's something that men do to women.

small minority that is..

Malenky,

Interesting comment. I would really take an everyday meaning of a plural term to mean that it at least applied to a statistical majority. If I said "lions eat meat", surely that would imply (and always would have implied) that the normal diet for most lions is meat. And if I said that "lions eat men" it would not imply that a small majority of lions were man eaters but that most if not all lions ate men. Certainly "the man on the Clapham Omnibus" would take it that way.

However, I will research further, seeing as you seem to have a depth of knowledge on the subject.....

Incidentally, the confusion over what 'men rape' means is because the language is in flux. We seem to be moving from a sitution where 'men rape' would be understood as a general statement rather than a comment on the behaviour of all men, to a situation where people have begun to expect statements such as 'group x does action y' to mean 'every member of group x does action y or the statement is untrue'.

If you wanted to fossilize language in the (pointless) manner of prescriptive grammarians, I think you'd have to argue for the first meaning not the second, since it has precedence.

larry, that's fundamentally how language works.

It's called (ironically) 'privileging' a term. It's been going on at least since people started writing down texts. There's not a lot of point in arguing against it now, unless you have an animus against a specific discipline and want to take a pot-shot at that.

I think that language has to have a proper meaning. Changing what language means to fit a particular discipline is dangerous, especially if you take that language out of the context of that discipline.

"men rape" is not true as MOST men don't rape. Even as a "class description", it is untrue. "Women kill unborn babies" is literally true. However, it is an unhelpful and offensive statement for any number of reasons.

I don't think anyone can be offended by "some men rape". It is both true and accurate and does not intend to slur an entire sex with being criminal. So, why not use language accurately?

scallopsrgreat
Why are people so quick in wanting to hide the gendered aspect of violence?

OK
Men rape.
Men and Women are raped.

Better?

Ooh, thanks! Frothers were a MN initiative that fizzled out, unfortunately. I froth all over Facebook and Twitter in my real name now, but am happy to see the blog does still get read sometimes - the issues are even more urgent now, as you must know all too well.

You could make a sideline in Properwords?

I like "properword"