is there a new cognitive dissonance thread?

[kickassangel]

if so, please link, i can't find it.

if not, i'd like to add some things

using personal experience to prove a point is not a great argument. we have to start with the bigger picture, then see personal experiences as a case study which exemplifies, but does not prove a point.

i'm not even sure that i view myself as a feminist. i view myself as someone who believes in equality (not just on male/female issues). the generalisations about feminism being a religion i find offensive, as they both ignore the patriarchal society we live in (and this assertion can be backed up by endless statistics & experiences), and assume that one particular viewpoint is religious.

is marxism a religion? what about other schools of thought?

feminism is a broad range of thought, and there will be changes and shifts within the arguments, just as there are in other sociological concepts. and there will be women who abuse, just as there are men who do so.

however, look at the structure of society, and it is impossible to say that it isn't patriarchal. just look at the possession of wealth, the media representation of people, the male/female ration in positions of power.

if it was as simple as some women 'not bothering' to push themselves forward, there would still be enough women to fill 50% of all key positions in society, and to hold 50% of the wealth, but that isn't what happens. so, it sin't due to a lack of women exerting themselves, it is due to the inherent sexism within society.

larry i believe that there is such a thing as collective responsibility & that it can bring about change.

back in the 80s, students boycotted barclays bank because they invested in s africa - look how that country has changed. not just because of the students, but if the general public hadn't made the govt aware of their unhappiness, i doubt if govts would have brought as much pressure to bear on s africa as they did.

now, we can't all go around campaigning about every single thing. sadly, there is too much injustice in the world. and our first priority should be to live 'good' lives ourselves. no point in marching for a cause, but yelling at your kids & kicking the dog when you get home.

i try to live by 'getting my own house in order' and then doing a bit more (how much more varies depending on circumstances). so i have done unpaid youth work, given to charities, helped the homeless etc etc.

also, (on a diff topic) i just read a few paragraphs about iceland in a magazine last night. they have a far more equal male/female role in govt (the best in the world) & have banned all strip bars, strippers etc. men can be prosecuted for employing a prostitute.

sadly, the economy there means the govt is unpopular, so the next elections could mean the women get voted out - they only came into power AFTER the economic crash, so are mopping up the mess made by men, and now getting blamed for it.

i try to live by 'getting my own house in order' and then doing a bit more (how much more varies depending on circumstances). so i have done unpaid youth work, given to charities, helped the homeless etc etc.

i kind of figure that if people go around with that philosophy, then there should be enough 'slack' to cover those that need help. it kind of works in all sorts of situations, e.g. a 'bring & share' meal - doesn't work if everyone brings double, doesn't work if everyone brings too little. works great if most people bring enough + a bit extra, and there's a few people who were last minute/hard up, so didn't bring much.

the same principle applies to most team work/ community situations.

it is also important to take care of yourself first, or you'll suffer from burn out & be pretty useless.

Larry I have to challenge your view of rape and rapists. You seem to have this stereotypical idea that they are all criminals, different to other, normal men.

If only that were true. If rapists had R's stamped on their foreheads and were easy to spot, fewer women would get raped simply because they'd avoid them. However, most rapists are ordinary men who in other areas of their lives are perfectly normal, functioning citizens. Most are not criminals, simply because most of their rapes are not even reported to the police and of the miniscule number which are, only 6% are convicted. Only the most ill-informed mysogynists believe that this is because 94% of women are lying. Some police forces estimate that 85% of rapes go unreported. So that's 85% of rapists so far, being considered normal men, not criminals as you assert, before you even start looking at why only 6% of rapists are convicted. The overwhelming majority of rapists out there are simply not criminals - or at least if they are, it's not the crime of rape that they've been convicted of, though they may well be convicted burglars or embezzlers at the same time, of course.

Rapists are normal men like our fathers, brothers, cousins, friends, husbands, sons and colleagues. They are allowed to operate because of our rape culture and the rape myth that says they are violent criminals, so if they look like my mate and if they don't look like a violent criminal, they can't possibly be a rapist. Many rapists do not even recognise that they have raped; they think they've been a bit forceful, or that she was a bit quiet. The onus is not on men to ensure that they are not raping a woman and so in the absence of her telling him he is, a rapist will choose to believe that they did not rape. And because they don't look like criminals, their assumption that they aren't rapists will never be challenged.

1 in 4 women get raped or sexually assaulted in their lives and of course that doesn't equate to 1 in 4 men being a rapist because it is well known that it is a repeat offence, but it isn't the same few blokes who are doing it all. There are a number of men out there who are using rape myths to get away with rape and it is very important that all of us challenge rape myths when we hear them. The more people out there know the facts about rape, the less easy it is for rapists to operate. Re-inforcing rape myths enables rapists and I'm sure that as someone who is not in favour of rape, you would not wish to do that.

I don't know whether you are interested in knowing this, you have been on feminist threads before where surely these facts about rape have been pointed out, but IMO it cannot be said too often because it doesn't matter how many times you point out these facts, people still keep trying to pretend that rape happens outside of normal society. It doesn't. Normal-seeming men rape women and it's the rape culture that gives them the sense of entitlement to do so and the opportunity to do so- because no-one can believe that respectable, boring Tom Dick or Harry from accounts (or whatever) is in the same category as a violent criminal. Which is why there's a jolly good chance of him getting off it goes to court at all.

Oh and I also have to challenge your statement that teh Jews killed Jesus. They didn't, the Romans did. He died in a Roman province, convicted by a Roman court and put to death by Roman soldiers, by a form of execution which was Roman and was actually not allowed under Jewish law at the time. The calumny that the Jews killed him, was just an anti-Semitic myth vigorously promoted by the Western christian church.

And yes Christians (and anyone else) who hear that myth ought to challenge it every single time they hear it, because it was one of the great lies which underpinned anti Semitism in the west for 2 millenia (which is why I had to challenge it, sorry, bit off topic but I think it's valid). Just as men should challenge rape myths. The idea that the rapist is "the other" is what enables most of them to rape and get away with it.

Really excellent and informative posts HerB.

HerBeatitude,

There is something I just don't get. I say a rapist is a depraved criminal and you want to challenge this?! Which aspect. Rape is a crime, therefore a rapist is a criminal. Whether you are ever convicted of the crime, if you commit one, you are a criminal. You seem to be implying that I said they were convicted. I didn't.

Personally I find the idea of forced sex pretty depraved. I assume you agree with that. Is there anything controversial there?

It is your second paragraph that 90% of men would not only disagree with but find highly offensive. Most of us not only respect women far too much but it is so deeply ingrained in us that we would not even be capable of it.

I do not accept we live in a "rape culture". Zimbabwe and Somalia are real rape cultures where rape is used as a tool of state oppression. We do have a problem with a low conviction rate for rape and the oversexualisation of society, leading some men, though none I know, to think it is OK to rape. The "rape culture" (for want of a better word) is, in my opinion (and I can only give my opinion) a corollary to the trivialisation of sex in modern society inter alia. As I posted before, does the fact my well brought up 17 year old goddaughter thoughtlessly wears a t shirt saying "I'm juicy, bite me" (until I took it off her)contribute to that culture or is she a victim? It is complex.

If I ever hear anyone objectifying women or making any humorous allusion to forced sex, I always challenge it.

However, what I do not accept and doubt I can be persuaded of (despite hearing some interesting and well made arguments on here) is that men in totality should be treated as a homogeneous group and take communal responsibility for individuals actions.

Someone posted very well before that all we, as individuals, can do, is live our own lives to the best of our abilities, and, if we have time, help others. That is what I try to do. If I am not actively involved in an anti rape crusade, it does not make me a rape apologist or make me believe any less that rapists are depraved criminals, convicted or not.

'I believe that most people just have their own lives to lead and no-one can actively campaign against every wrong.'

True, you'd wear yourself out if you tried to solve every single problem in the world. That's why you pick the one you care most about, and sadly it seems that enough men don't seem to care sufficiently about rape right now to make it a priority.

Is it easier for men to campaign against Apartheid or racism in the US or genocide in Cambodia or Zimbabwe or Darfur, or even mass military rape in Congo, because all of the above is done by 'others'? Is that why a phenomenon like rape of a neighbour or colleague while going out to work or walking in a park has to be the action of some 'outlaw/criminal' character? This article by scholars David Lisak and Paul M. Miller, 'Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists' is worth reading -- it's long but well-written (and sobering). Rapists are not readily identifiable. Most do not jump out at their victims from behind bushes, just as most pedophiles do not gain power over their victims by forcibly carrying them off.

Oh and btw, the myth of the rapist being "the other" is also the thing which makes women accept rape - they simply can't believe that what has happened to them is rape, that boring Tom or Dick or Harry is a rapist and has actually raped them, so they too go into denial about rape and may not face up to the fact that that is what is was, for weeks, months or even years. And that is one of the reasons why most rapes are not reported - because women too, believe rapists are the "other".

And yet our culture says that most allegations of rape are false. As soon as you mention rape, even well educated people start going on about false accusations of rape as if the 2-8% of false allegations are the major problem with rape, rather than the 85-95% of rapes which are never reported or convicted.

Talk about cognitive dissonance.

'Most do not jump out at their victims from behind bushes'

the really scary thing is that even when they bloody do they can frequently get away with it by saying the woman accosted them and asked them for sex

Yes, rapists are horrible criminals. No, they can't be identified according to appearance or personal habits or accent. I think what people are saying here about rapists not fitting any particular mould ("The Criminal Type") is that rape itself has been narrowly viewed by the criminal justice system to include only clearcut cases of strangers dragging women off into the bushes, whereas date rape, rape by acquaintances while all were the worse for alcohol, rape by a boyfriend or date who tells you he needs to come into your flat to make a call or use the loo can be and have been interpreted by judges and prosecutors and by the rapists as women sending signals that they actually wanted sex, whereas the rapists actually wanted to rape and used any old excuse to gain access.

Want to add, I sent my oldest DD off to university in the US with my heart in my mouth because of the prevalence of date rape by the overwhelmingly middle class and well educated male student population. The existence of campus security, 24-hour rape crisis counsellors, while nice to have, tells much about the culture of male entitlement/acceptability of anti-female violence that exists among young men there.

There is no need to be involved in an anti-rape crusade, march through the streets, etc., Larry, if you feel that's not for you and you're already committed on other fronts. However, while I laud your concern for your niece with the appalling t-shirt, I feel the message you sent to her might not have been 100% the right one -- yes, be concerned for your own personal safety, but a big no for the implication that any individual young woman is at fault for being raped because of what her t-shirt says, any more than she would be at fault if any other crime were to be perpetrated against her (bag-snatching, jewellery theft, home invasion). I hope you take the opportunity to point out to boys (maybe you have nephews?) and even male colleagues the message that rape of any woman or girl is unacceptable under any circumstances? When sexist remarks are made or jokes told, what do you do? There are always opportunities in this sex-and-sexism-soaked society to add even the one voice of opposition that might make someone else think a bit.

I guess the question hidden in all of that was, "what was it in the t-shirt situation that had you concerned?"

I didn't want to comment on the t-shirt earlier because it seemed irrelevant, but you've mentioned it twice now.

"But then there is a generation of girls who go around in t shirts saying things like "I'm juicy, bite me" (this was one I took off my goddaughter). Of course, they have every right to wear them and I am NOT saying that this is any excuse for rape. However, if you talk about the cheapening of sex in general and rape in particular, are they not also responsible for creating that climate in society?"

Couple of points:

1. you can't really talk about "sex in general and rape in particular" as if they were a continuum. Sex is something that people do together for fun. Rape is a violent act committed either to terrify the victim or because the rapist cannot be bothered to check that his partner is awake/conscious/not crying etc.

2. Your god-daughter's t-shirt seems a flirty phrase. She will be wearing it because she finds it funny, or likes the design, or likes to draw attention to herself. She will not be wearing it as a licence for anyone to do anything more than talk to her. Even if she were wearing a t-shirt that said "fuck me now" it is not actually the same as giving consent to anyone to have sex with her.

3. Women's clothes are irrelevant to the issue of rape. While I can understand you not liking her wearing it (how old is she?), it is not more likely IMO to make her a victim. People who rape are not waiting for a girl to happen past with an apt message written on her, women are raped in their pyjamas, or trackies, or business suits, anything.

4. Grown women being flirty or chatting men up or wearing cheeky slogans by their own free will are not giving people a licence to rape either. They are expressing their positive sexuality and are not "victims" unless someone decides to victimise them.

i think larry said it was a complex situation, and not just that girls shouldn't 'flaunt' themselves.

and it IS hard.

after all, i know that if i left my handbag by the side of the road, with money easily visible, and walked off, then it is HIGHLY likely that my belongings will be stolen. in theory, we should live in a society which is honest enough that i could do that, but it would be v naive to assume that, so i do modify my behaviour (a very minor example of cog. diss.)

similarly, i don't go out wearing clothes that display/highlight my sexuality, flirt, chat, get drunk, tell guys i'm a great shag, and walk home alone singing 'i feel so horny'. in theory, i should be able to do that without some guy getting the wrong signals, but it would be naive to assume that i could behave like this without at least some unwelcome advances.

Heck, women wearing burquas are raped in Saudi Arabia, and then executed for their 'crime'. ('Crime' = wrong place, wrong time, right orifices)

Well, I have certainly done the latter, kickass :o Minus the horny song at least.

TBH I think it's unlikely (for young women at least) that they could go out for the evening without receiving "unwelcome advances" of some kind, even if they were sober, accompanied by others, and wearing a floor length poncho. Thing with unwelcome advances is (I'm thinking chatting up in a bar etc) you say no thanks or tell them to F off depending on the situation, and then expect them to do so. If some guy gets the wrong signals (which IMO is code for "fancies you whatever you're wearing"), I would expect that to manifest itself in flirty behaviour, offering drinks, making comments etc. I would not expect it to continue after you've said no or moved away from him, or to take the form of groping, explicit comments or worse.

If I get the wrong signals about some man I fancied, I would try and make a move on him in a way that he liked. I wouldn't be interested in chasing him or assaulting him after he'd told me where to go - why would I?

Yet this is what guys do all the time and pretend to have "misread the signals". No man who was seriously interested or on the pull would behave in these ways to someone who'd already given him the brush off, and honestly believe it was consensual. They do it because they can, because they want to get one over on you, because they want to assert themselves at your expense.

Also, many people seem to be unable to tell the difference between dressing sexily to look attractive for one person (e.g. the man you have gone out to meet), and dressing sexily as having issued blanket consent for anyone to use you as a fuckdoll despite your resistance. If I go out wearing a low cut top or short skirt or whatever to look nice, or to make DP smile, that doesn't indicate that I am "up for it" with some bloke on the tube or in the street. Yet judges and juries constantly accept that someone's clothes gave the attacker reason to believe she consented.

Yes that's right, she consented to sex with you way back in the evening whilst in front of her mirror, before she'd even met you or known of your existence

I really give up.

With the exception of KickassAngel, who actually reads and responds to what I write, the rest of it is assummptions and point scoring.

I said I took the t shirt off her. I said it was inappropriate and did not show self respect. I never mentioned a license to rape. Bizarrely enough, rape was not involved in the conversation.

Elephants, that T shirt is not "flirty", it is an invitation to strange men to, euphemistically, bite her. It is inappropriate and I hope that, if you have a daughter, you will not be encouraging her to wear something like that, as it objectifies the wearer.

I will say it again. Rape it always wrong. No woman (or man), whatever they wear, ever gives anyone a license to rape.

However, if you go beyond the crime itself and start talking about a "rape culture" and how what people wear (for instance the male t shirt mentioned in the other thread), then what females wear is also in the equation.

That is me signing off. Thanks for those who engaged and gave me something to think about.

But you mentioned it in the context of a discussion about rape, Larry. Why? What are your assumptions about the t-shirt, or was it something to do with the readers of the t-shirt message, that evoked the protective response in you?

Is the t-shirt an invitation to men only? Why wouldn't a woman or child try biting her? Are you saying men as a whole are more inclined to take a t-shirt slogan literally than women might be?

What exactly is 'objectification' anyway?

(need a link to the male t-shirt please)

"However, if you go beyond the crime itself and start talking about a "rape culture" and how what people wear (for instance the male t shirt mentioned in the other thread), then what females wear is also in the equation."

In what way Larry?

(In what way does wearing a T-shirt saying "Bite Me" imply a literal invitation to do so, unless you are some kind of maniac? I don't take people's T-shirt slogans as personal invitations, but then, I'm not utterly mental.)

And what "point scoring" is going on? Do you just mean that you don't like what people are saying because it might actually force you to acknowledge the link between the crime of rape and the way society treats male perpetrators and female victims?

Do you think Stephen Lawrence's murderers were just random murderers who stabbed him because they were just bad people, or do you accept that the culture of racism in which they had been raised, may have informed their actions?

Crimes don't just happen in a vacuum.

"It is your second paragraph that 90% of men would not only disagree with but find highly offensive."

Of course you find it offensive. Most women find it offensive as well. It is horrible to think that any normal man, who you get on with, who is a personal friend, who is someone you get on with's brother, who is a valued colleague, might be a rapist.

Unfortunately, it's true. Most women are raped by men they know and trust. The reason they are raped, is precisely because they know and trust these men enough to be alone with them so that these men have the opportunity to rape them.

And in many cases, the reason they do not report the rape, is because everyone else they know, knows and trusts that man too. And they know that his life is valued more than their's and that he will be believed, and they won't. Because they're seemingly normal men, not violent criminals.

To be clear, I'm using criminal in the sense that you've been convicted of a crime. I'm not sure you can use it of someone who hasn't been.

And criminals certainly don't get away with their crimes in a vacuum. Just look at the administration of 'justice' in the American South in pre Civil Rights days for an example of a whole section of a society getting away with crime against another because racism was perfectly acceptable, as if going around with black skin was some sort of invitation to have a crime committed against you.

HB - just wanted so say thank you for your excellent posts about rape myths/rape culture on this thread. Sadly, I think you are spot on.