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

[AnnieLobeseder]

...for daring to disagree with them on something they've posted.

Are they really so bloody-minded that they can't handle debate on their philosophies? I realise they get a lot of nasty trolling spam, but there's a world of difference between MRA nastiness and another feminist wanting to debate feminism!!

Is it just me?

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.

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?

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.

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 yet I've not, larry.

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.

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 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 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.

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 still reckon "rapists are men" a worthwhile statement: while not exclusively true, it is overwhelmingly correct. The disputed statement, "men rape" is not an overwhelming majority, so it looks incorrect to me.

Larry offered "Women kill unborn babies" (problematic interpretation of 'unborn babies' there, but point made all the same.)
Women are child-batterers. (Approx 75% of violence against children is perpetrated by women.)
Women scratch and bite.
Women are manipulative.

I'm going with the child-battering as, while it's not a direct equivalent of the rape statement, it's equally emotive.

Prom,

All the points you make above could also be brought into my preferred discussion, getting the same message across, but not making the boys feel worthless. I also suspect that the introduction that you find acceptable would switch off 80% of the boys and the rest of the lesson would be ignored.

I've xposted while faffing around the kitchen! Will catch up.

"Women kill unborn babies" Actually this is not true. Technically there is no such thing as an unborn baby. "Unborn baby" is a loaded term invented by holders of a certain ideological position. It is a foetus.

Why on earth would it make the boys feel worthless?

I'm heading out of this discussion as it's making me feel a bit sick, but just to be clear:

Saying anything more specific than 'men rape' will have one (or both) of two results:

1. It puts focus on the victims, as if rape were a crime without a perpetrator.
2. It suggests rape is something specific to a subset of the male population, as if there were something other than the act of rape itself that defined a rapist. There is not.

Teaching boys should be about the same language and concepts as teaching girls, when it's applied to their own sex lives.

Teaching them that we live in a society of gendered violence is merely necessary and basic.

The two things should not be carried out at the same time.

a lot of psychological evidence shows that the more a message goes out that everyone is doing it all the time 'all men are rapists' or 'men rape women' the more likely people tending that way will act on it..

eg 'everyone fiddles their expenses'

if you say 'everyone under-claims expenses' people are more likely to miss a claim or two.

similarly with economic disadvantage..the message 'all women are disadvantaged in the workplace' causes both acceptance and underperformance .. which then adds to disadvantage. which means communicating disavantage as in 'most employers like you are addressing inequity' is more likely to generate positive policies.

It is risky to normalise rape as an inevitable feature of being male (like we did with man fighting on a night out/at football grounds in some sections of society in the 80s)

that gives a comfortable get put space for men 'its something I can?t control inside of me' / because of external stimuli connecting with the inevitable rapist in me.. so that some of the personal blame can be avoided.

we shouldn't give up understanding why it happens but to communicate almost that 'real men rape' is a big mistake on behalf of radical feminism. . They don't and rape is NOT normal or automatic for men.. lets keep on that.

"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".

This is a terrible way to start a lesson about decent sexual ethics.

1 - why start with "most men will never rape". We do not know this. A huge number of rapes go unconvicted. We don't know if the same men get off again and again, or if many men do the odd unconvicted rape. We just don't know. A lots of rapes happen.

1. And anyway, why is there this constant need to reassure, "don't worry boys, you're all great"? (this is what they will hear) Why is that the most important message?

1. I cannot remember that ever happening at my school. We didn't have lectures about not doing things that started with "most girls will NEVER do x". It wouldn't have worked if we didn't understand clearly that we were absolutely all included in being told not to do x. I think that starting with "most men will never rape" begs the question in fact.

1. "a minority of men do not seem to understand that sex should always be clearly consensual". It is, imho, a mistake to position this in terms of understanding. Maybe some don't understand. Some do. The lesson today is partly is about helping the boys to understand; but what they will go on to do in life is about understanding first and, as importantly, then choosing to do the right thing.

Saying anything more specific than 'men rape' will have one (or both) of two results:
1) It puts focus on the victims, as if rape were a crime without a perpetrator.
2) It suggests rape is something specific to a subset of the male population, as if there were something other than the act of rape itself that defined a rapist. There is not.

Saying 'rapists rape; rapists are men' does neither.

When the UK gets around to following other countries' lead in widening the definition/naming of rape to include weapons other than a penis, more women will be rapists. That may well be a whole other kettle of fish, but I guess you could say atm that 'women inflict sexual assault with objects'.
I don't like that, either, but it follows the logic of 'men rape'.

It's just occurred to me that this may be entirely about the UK legal definition! Is that so? "Men rape" because only men can rape, in law?
In Canada, say, where there is only sexual assault, do feminists say "Men commit sexual assault" despite the fact that most men don't, and some women do?

Notdead makes a valid point in that, the purpose of making a statement may have several purposes, the way that it is received is always in the power of the listener. So the messgage that it was a male passage of right to go to football matches tanked up with drink, and then fight the opposition fans was normalised by those that jeard that message thinking it was "normal"

Maybe we should use reverse psychology and say most men NEVER rape, as this will promote the idea not to?

I think the major problem is that some feminists want to use the rape for politicle purposes in terms of it promotes their ability to distinguish clear women only issues, in the same way as "Glass ceiling" is seen as a female issue.

The Glass Ceiling isn't a female issue. It is an issue that predominantly affects women but it is most definitely an issue with the workplace being designed by men, for men without childcare demands (much simplified).