Facebook supports rape?

[MotherPanda]

Have we a thread on this yet?

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/04/facebook-hate-speech-women-rape?newsfeed=true

I am really shocked.

"Ordinary people do think women bring sexual assault on themselves."

You really think that?

Rhubarb - a lot of people do.

"Amnesty International's 'Stop Violence Against Women' campaign, shows that similar "blame culture" attitudes exist over clothing, drinking, perceived promiscuity, personal safety and whether a woman has clearly said "no" to the man. For instance, more than a quarter (26%) of those asked said that they thought a women was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was wearing sexy or revealing clothing, and more than one in five (22%) held the same view if a woman had had many sexual partners.

Around one in 12 people (8%) believed that a woman was totally responsible for being raped if she'd had many sexual partners. Similarly, more than a quarter of people (30%) said that a woman was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was drunk, and more than a third (37%) held the same view if the woman had failed to clearly say "no" to the man."

[[http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=16618 From a UK survey in 2005)

Link

Rhubarb, what does 'ordinary' mean to you?

I'm sure you don't mean it like this ... but it's not comforting to have you make a sad face at someone 'thinking' something you imply is wrong, as if the fault is entirely with them for being deluded. I get that you think it is sad and that is probably what you mean, it's just that so many people have said how they really have found these attitudes (and rapists themselves) to be 'ordinary', it seems harsh to suggest it is them who're somehow making you sad by saying such things.

Rhubarb, yes I do think many "ordinary people do think women bring sexual assault on themselves." Just a few clicks away from this thread, you will find this one can't believe this attitude re: rape and from women! which illustrates exactly that point.

It is one thing saying that ordinary "people" not men, note, blame women for rape and another to quote stats that actually show that the majority of people, so 3/4 think a woman is not to blame if she wears sexy clothing, 70% think she is not responsible if she is raped and 63% think she does not have to say "no" clearly.

So the majority of "people" don't hold the views you say they are. Whilst those figures are still shocking, they are not the views of the majority.

So do you think 'ordinary' means 'the majority'?

See, I would disagree with that. I think someone doesn't have to fall within the majority to be ordinary. I would say, for example, that it's quite 'ordinary' to be a British man, even though women are slightly in the majority in terms of the population of the UK. To me, saying 1/4 of people believe a woman is to blame for wearing sexy clothing, is to say this is an 'ordinary' view.

Earlier on the thread, Rhubarb was saying that there is something 'other' about rapists, and was leapt on for this. My gut feeling is that lacking the moral compass, conscience, respect for others that I was talking about in my last post is something 'other' - a pretty big other, ino. Of course, this is not something that can be seen, there's no mark of Cain that says 'this person has no respect for others and will hurt them without a second thought to get what he/she wants'.

I also think that lacking that moral compass/conscience/respect makes a man not ordinary. Ordinary, to me, involves having that care for others, the understanding that you cannot just take what you want, regardless of the hurt caused to another person. Ordinary, to me, isn't perfect, but it has that acknowledgement of the rights of others, and respect for others. As I said in my earlier post, none of my sons, nor my husband, nor any other of the men I know well and love would dream of forcing themselves sexually on another person - but the dses have been known to thump eachother over the xbox controller, or because the other one 'looked grumpy'.

SDTG - but what about men who sincerely believe, as do the people around them, that they are moral people? If they behave in a totally moral way with regard to everything but one act, how would anyone know they are any different from anyone else?

This is why IMO you cannot tell who is a rapist until he rapes someone.

Rhubarb on that basis though a person who is a member of the Green Party, or can speak fluent Russian, or likes eating oysters, is not ordinary.

Being ordinary is not the same as being a member of the majority. Otherwise no-one would be ordinary - as everyone can do something / does something that is not something that the majority do. Even jobs. Say most people in the UK work in offices - does that mean that non office workers are not ordinary? Say most people work in the private sector. Does that mean public sector workers are not ordinary? Of course not.

Ella do not put words into my mouth. I did not answer your question earlier so you cannot now tell me that I think ordinary means majority.

You quoted stats taken from a survery of just over 1,000 adults which shows that the majority of those adults questioned DO NOT think that women are to blame for rape.

Agreed that the stats could and should be better, but I am not about to get into an argument now over what constitutes 'ordinary'.

My original point was to disagree with Elliott saying that nothing distinguishes the ordinary man from a rapist (and she did not define ordinary either so that's left up to us and we each have our own ideas of what ordinary is). Now Uppity appears to be saying that it is a rape myth that all men are seen as rapists.

Which is confusing for me as when I made that point much much earlier in the thread I was told I was perpetuating a rape myth.

We've got to remember that a lot of rapists do not even think they are rapists.

Oh look, someone else who seems to think that I have made a statement over what is 'ordinary'.

I give up!

"I also think that lacking that moral compass/conscience/respect makes a man not ordinary. Ordinary, to me, involves having that care for others, the understanding that you cannot just take what you want, regardless of the hurt caused to another person."

But loads of ordinary people are horrible. Loads of ordinary people act illegally and immorally to get what they want. Whether it's speeding, getting religion to get into a school, not being entirely honest with their taxes... These are things that ordinary people do, all the time.

Sorry, Rhubarb, it wasn't my intention to put words in your mouth. I just asked you a question so I could understand better what you were meaning.

I think, honestly, it is pointless to talk about what is 'ordinary' without defining terms. Meaningless.

Your point about 'all ordinary men are not rapists' is not the same as the point that 'rapists are ordinary men'. This is a logical flaw. I did explain it earlier and it has been said before. You're reversing a position that can't be reversed. So your claim is quite different from Uppity's.

But you said that the stats showed that ordinary people didn't think those things about rape because only a minority thought those things.

I'm sure that's what you said just up there ^ a moment ago

'Rapists are ordinary men' - This is a generalisation. We have all accepted that some rapists are not ordinary, but they are the minority of rapists - the ones who make headlines.

'All ordinary men are rapists' - This is not, not at all, the same statement as above. No-one has made this argument on this thread. It does not follow from Cath Elliot's statement.

If you imagine a Venn diagram, the circle of 'rapists' will be mostly inside the circle of 'ordinary men'. But the circle of 'ordinary men' will be much bigger than the circle of 'rapists', so most ordinary men are not rapists, although most rapists are ordinary men.

I hope that helps. I'm trying to be clear, sorry if it is obvious to everyone.

I have not defined 'ordinary' and neither has Cath Elliott or anyone else.

The stats show that a majority of the 1,083 adults questioned thought that women were NOT to blame for sexual assaults.

So if you are to say that "ordinary people think women bring rape on themselves" what are you saying exactly? Are you giving me an essay on what you define is ordinary or are you making a clear and coherent point?

Rhubarb, it would really help if you would clarify what you mean by ordinary and how it relates to the majority. You keep using the term 'majority' and it is really confusing me as to what you're trying to say with it, unless you mean it has some bearing on defining what's ordinary.

My point is just the simple one I made about the Venn diagram. But I am mostly at the moment trying to see your side of things, to understand where you are coming from.

No I think it is up to you to say what you mean when you say that ordinary people do not believe those things, when in fact 1 in 4 people do.

I think that if 1/4 of all people think something then it is a pretty ordinary viewpoint. In the sense of common, unexceptional, everyday, unremarkable.

As I said before, to me, ordinary isn't synonymous with the majority, and I would think if 1 in 4 people think or do something, it is ordinary. I did say that above, actually.

Rapists are different to the average man in the street. Because they are rapists. If they aren't different in any way then, qed - all men are rapists (who just presumerably haven't quite got around to doing it yet).

even with aquaintence rapists, there is evidence that the offenders (generally) exhibit traits that not easily associated with (sigh) average men in the street.

If rapists rape because they can, and they are not any way different from than the average man in the street, the implication is that the average man in the street who hasn't raped anyone, has not done so because he can't, i.e. because he has never had the opportunity.

"...rapists don't rape because they're somehow evil or perverted or look or act in any way particularly different from the average man in the street" would be much better.

These are all quotes that were made much earlier on in this thread by other posters and I thought it worth repeating them.

Lenin - honestly? No. Never.

As I said to you earlier. I have slept in the same bed with men, on the floor of their rooms, been put to bed by men, snuggled up with men, did everything apart from sex with men and not once, not ever have any of them thrown a hissy fit or taken advantage. They were your average man on the street who showed respect.

We all have different experiences which is why experiences are not useful in themselves in a debate. Because they contradict each other.