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.

I'm sorry, I don't follow?

What are all quotes - all the paragraphs or just the last one?

I don't think anyone said that the majority of people have those beliefs Rhubarb but a sizeable minority do and that within that minority, a proportion will be "ordinary people". In fact, I think if this survey had omitted stranger rapes from the equation, a considerable proportion of "ordinary" respondents would
a) Dispute that rape had actually occurred at all and
b) Argue that for it to have happened, the woman must have been naive about men's ability to exercise self-control and in any case, should have fought harder if it wasn't what she wanted to happen.

There are lots of "ordinary" Mumsnetters who won't accept that rape is rape and there are threads to prove it.

I am not about to get hung up on the definition of ordinary because there isn't one, whatever your Venn diagram might say.

The definition of ordinary is not the point I was making. You brought up some stats. The stats were taken from 1,083 adults - not a huge number then? The stats showed that the majority of those questioned did not think that women were to blame for their rapes. The stats questioned the statement made by others that seemed to suggest that actually most people did think that.

It shows that those people are in the minority. Which is good. Not good enough but good. However you now want to say that even though the stats show that those attitudes are in the minority, they are still ordinary. This you can tell from a survey of 1,083 people.

rhubarb, with respect, what you describe are experiences (or anecdotes). What others have cited were statistics. The stats are pretty shocking IMO, and one anecdote (I could add another myself, I've never been raped and count myself lucky) does not change teh stats.

I look at the stats and I have to accept that a depressingly high proportion of women are raped, and raped by men who they and everyone else thought were ordinary, decent men. It is awful. I'm not about to pretend those women are somehow stupider than me, or less observant than me, and that is why they were raped. I'm not about to pretend I have better abilities to 'spot' a rapist than other women. My experience is simply one shared by 3/4 of women.

rhubarb, I am trying to tell you that your point makes no sense if you refuse to tell us what key terms within it mean. I'm not just being picky here.

All the paragraphs Ella, are all the quotes from various posters who tried to make their very valid points early on in the thread.

Thanks - sorry, so what was the point you drew from them?

I'm getting confused as to whether it's the statistics you reject, or my interest in understanding what you mean, or what. I'm probably being slow here.

I don't think the word "ordinary" helps in this context. What is "ordinary" is highly subjective.

Perhaps we could instead frame this as what is "generally socially acceptable." For example:

It is generally socially acceptable to think it is a good thing to be kind to and look after the needs of elderly and disabled people.

It is generally not considered socially acceptable to allow elderly or disabled people to be denied medical treatment if they become ill.

However, there are all sorts of values, moral issues and behaviours that fall somewhere in between. Even where they are not views held by the majority of people, if a significant minority hold them, they may still be tolerated by others - so are "generally socially acceptable."

So, although not eating meat is something practised by a minority of people, it is generally socially acceptable to be a non-meat eater.

Similarly, although seeing victims of rape as somehow responsible for their assaults may be a view held by a minority of people (say 1 in 4 from some of the research cited above,) it is generally socially acceptable to hold that view.

If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't have pro-rape sites protected on Facebook, you would see people who wear pro-rape tee shirts or make jokes about rape being roundly challenged for their choices and you would see mass boycotts of tabloid papers that print articles suggesting that women "asked for it," or otherwise were to blame for their attacks.

But, you don't get that!

Ella - I do not think that whatever it is that is 'other' about a rapist, is visible or detectable by another person. And even if they are moral in every area of their lives, and/or believe themselves to be completely moral, they are clearly not, if they are prepared to rape someone.

I do believe that, whatever it is that a rapist lacks, or whatever it is that is 'other' about him, makes him not ordinary, whether or not he makes headlines or believes that he is a rapist.

EllaDee - with respect. When I mentioned that experiences didn't make an argument I was told off for being dismissive of people's experiences so be careful with that one love.

I get the impression you are out for a fight. Today is Friday. I have spent the last 2 days on this thread. I have come back time and again and my points, my arguments have not changed. You want to know what I mean? Go back and read through my posts - or to save you trawling through read what I have written about it in my blog. You are wrong to imply that most people believe women are responsible for their own rapes. They don't. Your stats show that those attitudes are in the minority. If you think that still means they are ordinary views then that is your opinion, it is not mine.

I would like to hear from Uppity what she meant by her last quote as it seemed to tally with what I and the other posters I have quoted were all saying much earlier on to much disagreement.

Rhubarb, if anyone seems to be spoiling for a fight, it seems to be you. It is very wearing.

Kri - yes, that makess sense to me.

SD - I sort of see what you mean, in terms of whatever makes a rapist a rapist not being visible. But I am not sure how it works when a man doesn't believe he is a rapist. I do think it's more complex than saying there's some external moral code we all ought to recognize. I'm not convinced there is - or if there is, I'm not convinced we can all recognize it even if we should.

A man who's never questioned the idea he has a right to sex with his wife would, for much of the last century, have been very shocked and upset to find others considered him in any way 'lacking' or wrong. We disagree now, but the problem is, how do we change attitudes in people so all rape is considered wrong, by everyone?

Comparing holding pro-rape views with vegetarianism is flawed.

One is a way of life another is an opinion.
Is racism socially acceptable?
Homophobia?
Of course not.

rhubarb, if you think about it, you will see that I am agreeing with you that experiences do not constitute data.

Your argument seems flawed to me. I've explained why. If you want to keep hold on it, of course that is your right. But I'm more interested in discussing the topic, if that's ok by you.

Yes it is very wearing to be going round in circles, I agree.

Both racism and homophobia have been socially acceptable. In parts of the world (even in some parts of the UK - my dad's living room for example ) - they still are.

You and I may find this awful and offensive. But that is kind of the point, isn't it? We also find rape awful, and the attitude that women's bodies are not under their own control, offensive. Sadly - as with racism and homophobia - we can't pretend everyone will share our views just because we believe they are right. We have to start working on how to convince people - not just recognize and convict those who don't agree with us.

Ella - yes I know you are agreeing and I am saying be careful, because making that point earlier on got me into trouble. But I guess you will be forgiven won't you?

Your argument seems flawed to me also Ella.

Would you say the average man in the street is racist? Homophobic?
These are not socially acceptable views and those who hold those views are in the minority. Yet you would not say that racism is an ordinary view.

There is a danger, again, of accepting minority views as "ordinary" which seems to imply that it's ok to hold such views. They are not ordinary views and it is not ok to have those views. That is why there is such a stink about the Facebook groups. Because more people than not do not hold that it is a socially acceptable view.

x-posts.

We are not talking about other parts of the world, we are taking about the UK and in the UK it is no longer socially acceptable to be racist or homophobic.

Many people are shocked and horrified at Facebook, many large companies have withdrawn their ads, that should stand as an example that the views held within those groups are not considered 'ordinary'.

Misogyny is not seen as unacceptable in the way that racism and homophobia now are. Misogyny isn't even prohibited in the MN Talk guidelines.

I hope that soon it will no longer be socially acceptable in the UK to laugh at rape jokes, or to accept rape myths. At the moment, however, it is. We are therefore less far on with misogyny - or rather, this element of misogyny - than we are with some aspects of racism and homophobia.

This is not remotely surprising, is it? It would be odder if three strands of prejudice co-incidentally happened to become socially unacceptable in exactly the same way at exactly the same time.

Hence my point.

Proles, we are talking about pro-rape views.

Lenin, again these are individual experiences but in the general media those views are regularly challenged and it is the media which has the biggest influence on this society.