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?

Interesting possibility. I don't know, but I don't think so. I've no evidence for that, I just don't believe there is anything innate in men that makes them rape.

I wouldn't be able to be a feminist (ie., wanting equality) if I did think so. Personally.

I didn't think you were minimizing the impact, btw. I would hope education can help both the unthinking and the deliberate. If nothing else, educating society to condemn the unthinking might stigmatize the deliberate more.

I think doctrine is right that there are probably people out there who think that way about rights and wrongs.

It's horribly sad, isn't it, this conversation? (Like, duh, I know ... but it does feel bleak)

I need to preface this reply with a statement that I have learned to live with 'class' statements wrt gender issues, because I want to be able to discuss those issues and acceptance of the 'men as a class' formula is required.

It makes me uncomfortable. There are myriad adequate, and more accurate, ways to make those points without the lazy and - to my mind - prejudicial use of "men". It takes two or three more words. We have the gift of language; it pains me when it is purposely debased.

In natural language and in mathematics, "men are rapists" has a different meaning from "rapists are men".

The first, despite my learned silence on the matter, is offensive to - yes, to men as a class. The second is a statement of fact, inoffensive to all but the odd female or cross-gender rapist.

I wish feminists wouldn't do this. When misogynists use "women" to mean something unpleasant about women-as-a-class, they're rightly accused of stereotyping. Likewise, "blacks" or "whites" (as an aside, ref an earlier post, I have been personally vilified for oppressions perpetrated by my white-ancestors-as-a-class; it felt most undeserved.) There's really no excuse for it, unless it really is intended to piss people off and make feminists sound like man-haters. I don't understand why it's deemed necessary.

Red, this argument goes in circles:-

The only common characteristic is that rapists are male. Therefore, as women are exhorted to prevent their own rape and blamed for not avoiding rape, I ask the question of how?

Why not ask the question of why rapists are not exhorted to prevent rape?

The only way for any woman to ensure 100% that she will not be raped is to avoid being alone with a man.

Yes, and that would be ridiculous. This ridiculousness stems from the idea that any man could rape any woman at any time. It's not a solution because the problem has been incorrectly framed.

I get incredibly frustrated when women are blamed, quite often by men, for failing to avoid being raped. Hence, the "all men are potential rapists".

When you argue that all men are potential rapists, you're forced to concede that any woman risks rape by being in the vicinity of men. You have fundamentally agreed that the only way she can stay safe is by avoiding men, thus giving women the burden of avoiding rape.

Is the statement "all women are potential rape victims" the same as "all men are potential rapists"?

(not being combative, just don't have the philosophical vocabulary to put it any better)

Thank you Garlic, my point is and was the same as yours.

Sorry I know I am being the tedious old bore at the party, and the conversation has moved on now, but I still don't see what Annie said that got her blocked. She said she just wanted to debate but she also significantly misrepresented what they said and we don't know in what terms she offered a "debate" on it. She also said "yet again" in the OP.
When things happen to me again and again I have to take some responsibility for them.
Sorry if I am being annoying pedantic and forensic but I have to admit I am very curious about what has happened here because Annie is presenting this - on a very busy and popular site - as a failure, in fact a typical failure, by feminists to engage reasonably, and I think this is potentially damaging

Yes, I thought that after I hit post, PQW.

Surely society expects women to view men as potential rapists. If I was sexually assaulted by a woman people would question her behaviour as some how odd. They would be questioning her mental health, previous criminal behaviour, if she was acting in partnership with a man or being influenced by one etc. If I got raped or sexually assaulted by a man, people would be questioning what I wore, said to him, was doing etc. So their assumption is that I should be viewing and responding to all men as people who might rape or sexually assault me.

PromQueenWithin
The statement "all women are potential rape victims" is logically true but incomplete, as women, men and children are raped.

I should therefore take my own advice and avoid dark and dangerous places... which, of course, I do.

As pointed out elsewhere, most victims of stranger violence are men and so perhaps men should focus on avoiding their own dangers (rather than finger wagging at women), and most importantly NOT BEING RAPISTS.

PQW, really good way of putting it.

OMC, as I think you know, the dark and dangerous places trope applies to a very small proportion of rapes.

I don't know what the % of male on male rape that is stranger related is, but I suspect that avoiding prison would keep you safer from male on male rape than avoiding dark and dangerous places.

Please substitute "trope" with, err, a better word (group?) as that sounded disrespectful. Apologies.

TDoA

think we're agreeing?
Stranger attack is much more likely to be assault rather than rape, and much more likely to be on men from men.

[While yes, I told my daughter to avoid going home with strangers, I also warned my sons]

RAPISTS rape; most of them are men; most are at least known to the person raped, ergo avoiding strangers isn't much good.

I rather liked to "Don't be that guy" campaign

doctrine - going back, but yes, I'd say those two statements you mention are the same type of statement, equally valid to make.

curry - to be fair, I didn't interpret it that way, I saw her as saying she was bewildered, and now so far as I understand, we're having the debate she wanted to have in the first place.

We can't judge what happened in that group unless any of us was in it.

I have nothing to do with feminism because of this kind of thing.

What kind of thing, Vivienne?
MRD, fair enough, we don't know.

Well I saw the thread Annie is talking about and nothing on there would scream at me "ban her" (unless they have deleted her posts too). So I can't see what she said to get banned and that does seem unreasonable.

Malenky sorry I didn't get back to you last night - RL got in the way! I agree with what you say about victims of rape seeming very passive. Abuse has been traditionally defined by abusers. Rape it seems is no exception.

scallops - oh, please don't apologize!

Interesting what you say about your persepective of the thread.

I've been thinking about this sort of thing for a good while. It bothers me that often, disagreements between feminists (or between feminists and other women who don't identify that way but say they would if feminism were different) are presented as entirely negative and avoidable.

I don't see why we shouldn't disagree. Of course at times it will get tedious, but to me 'solidarity' doesn't mean blindly agreeing or not being given the space to question, it means accepting that despite our differences, we have a lot in common that holds us together.

Yep I agree. I also think that there is a very obvious difference between someone asking questions or arguing their corner and trolling. And even if there isn't it can be established pretty swiftly with fairly minimal interaction.

I think there is also a link with disagreements within feminism being seen as negative or avoidable and the role if women as appeasers.