So many evil men...can't stand it

[SplitHeadGirl]

First of all, I know fully well that men will get upset at what I think and am about to say, so I would like to clarify that I am talking about EVIL men, not the good, wonderful dads and granddads and husbands and nice single blokes out there....the ones who I KNOW (my brain, not my gut, tells me so) are in a majority, but who seem to be few (is it their deafening silence?)

But any fool can see that the sheer amount of men, who are prepared to do unspeakable things to women and girls (and boys as well as other men, not to mention the vulnerable and the elderly...wow, the list goes on) is just overwhelming. I read today about Anene Booysen, and I was absolutely heartbroken, but yet not shocked. For men to be so diabolical to women is not shocking anymore, and that is men's greatest tragedy.

I have two little daughters, and a little son, and I fear for them at the hands of men. Not women...just men.

I feel like I am thinking out loud with this post, so no worries if no one feels they can respond. I just wish I didn't feel so helpless at the tsunami of male violence.

Yes I'm slightly that posters are pretending they don't know what we mean by the discussion of privilege.

AFAIK I've never been openly, overtly, consciously racist to any black person ever.

But I know damned well that as a white person, I benefit from the fact that some white people have.

That is how privilege works. I benefit from other people's racism, even if I am not racist myself. Men benefit from other men's sexism, even if they are not sexist themselves. You people pretending to be outraged by what I wrote, know this because we have discussed this many, many times on here.

If you don't agree with that, that's fine. But please, spare us the hypocritical posturings of the phony outrage and the pretence that you don't know what we mean and what we think. It makes you look as if you're only here to score points, rather than enter an honest and interesting discussion.

You know how boring feminists find point scoring...

Oh dear Basil. I must be reading your posts with the assumption that you're being unreasonable.
Sorry about that.

The changing of the law so that forced sex in marriage became illegal (rape) in 1991 whereas is wasn't before is interesting.

My understanding of the situation was that those who opposed this change in the law opposed it not because they were rapists, or rape apologists, or pro rape, but because they genuinely felt that rape in marriage would be difficult to successfully prosecute. If police are following up a rape in marriage report on which they are unlucky to be able to get the CPS to prosecute, then that's time they could be spending on cases or rape outside marriage where the chance of a conviction were higher. It's difficult enough to prove rape, let alone a rape by someone you've had regular consential sex with.

I recall a very senior female legal eagle arguing this point in the run up to the debate and she was against the change in the law for that reason. I don't it was all men who didn't care or wanted to carry on raping their wives.

Out of interest, how many rapes within marriage are reported, how many are prosecuted and how many have resulted in a guilty conviction, over the last 22 yrs??

Is the issue the use of the word "enjoy", which can mean to 'get pleasure from' but can also mean 'be granted the right of'? For example:

I enjoy films.
I should have quiet enjoyment of my rented property.

Yes and?

What's the problem with that Inde?

Is it because I used the word enjoy? It has just dawned on me that that may be the issue - do you think I mean by that that Pan actually enjoys raping women and getting away with it?

I mean of course, enjoy as in enjoy the privilege, not as in enjoy doing it. I'm happy to clear up any misunderstanding if that's what your problem is with that statement.

In the same way, I enjoy white privilege - that doesn't mean I enjoy it as in I'm dancing around happy that I've got it - it's that passive use of enjoy, as in enjoying the legal use of my garden or whatever.

X-post Basil.

That's OK BBB, I don't mind if you think I'm unreasonable.

Cross posted with PitofStupid, I realise that's possibly the issue...

Brenslo it's true that some of the opposition at the time came from people who thought it would be pointless so it would be better to continue to concentrate on non-marital rape.

But much of the opposition simply came from people who felt it was very distasteful to acknowledge that men sometimes rape their wives. It made people uncomfortable to be brought face to face with the fact that rapists aren't just nasty men in dark alleys with knives, they're also just plain old blokes who may never have worn a balaclava in their lives.

Also of course, it sent a massive message about the fact that women own their own bodies. The men they marry don't suddenly have ownership of women's bodies.

That was deeply unsettling for many people. It still is.

Speaking as a single father here, I totally agree with you OP. I know a lot of people like to play the sexism card in these scenarios but it is a statistical fact that men are more likely to abuse children than women. I for one wouldn't cope if any of these horrid things happened to either of my DCs.

You did also suggest he was being defensive about his privilege BBE, which suggested ( to me anyway) that he was happy with the situation where the majority of rapists got away scott free.

Anyway I don't think this thread has done anyone any favours. I suspect given that it kicked off late on a Friday night had a lot to do with the accusations and insults that were being thrown around IYSWIM. I think it is a discussion that is worth having but not under those terms ie that men were totally evil which is more or less what the op said.

Just to clarify. I mean what the op said later in the thread not in the original post.

But it's a discussion that will never be had because there will be too much faffing about and talking about the tone of the discussion rather than having the discussion itself.

Yes I can see that one could read it like that Inde but that's certainly not what I meant and I think the rest of that post makes it clear what I meant tbh. However, I'm happy to clarify that.

And yes I agree with Kasey, even if the OP had posted in the most measured tones, she'd still get the howls of outrage. I just don't think we're allowed to name the problem without being accused of hate-speak.

And on that note I'm off to a bonfire party.

I think even if no husband has ever been or ever is prosecuted for marital rape, changing the law to make it clear it's a crime was the right thing to do.

Yes I can see that one could read it like that Inde but that's certainly not what I meant and I think the rest of that post makes it clear what I meant tbh. However, I'm happy to clarify that.

Thanks

And on that note I'm off to a bonfire party.

Enjoy!

What a cop out! No if OP didn't come out with such statements as a man has never done a good thing, or was in anyway factually right she would not be getting questioned so much.

Again I point you to the actual stats. Under 4% in the UK of people will experience violent crime, it stands to reason therefore that less that significantly less than 4% will commit violent crime, likewise the statistics for rape, 3% of men in the US (I can't find stats for the UK but i'm guessing similar) commit or attempt to commit a rape. This is not even close to a lot of men, this is a tiny minority.

Sources of data:
www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22275280

Now just so we're clear. 3% is too many. Education and increasing equality DOES help, with ALL crimes, hence why crime rates for all types here are so low to LEDC's for example.

But the fact is that the data proves that it is a tiny, tiny, minority of people. There is absolutely no justification for making out as such, at least if you live in the UK, that males are particularly violent (more than women yes, but not your average male, just a small percentage) or dangerous.

All this "most men are rapists" and "most men are violent" or whatever similar terms used do, is get peoples backs up and create divisions where there needn't be any, but are because someone comes out with something like men enjoying the privilege of being able to rape. Nothing to back that up, just there to annoy people and play up to stereotypes. It does nothing for anyone.

Kim147,

I have no issue with any of that, but my distaste was triggered by the OP's comments that we are living in a scum pit of men, and that good men should somehow be ashamed because of rapists.

I don't recognise that world. I don't live in a scumpit of men. I live in a house with my DH and 2 DSs, a house dominated by football and motorbikes and gangster movies and techy stuff I can't work and plastic dinosaurs and lots of love and laughter. I wouldn't swap it for the world.

there are so many lovely, kind and decent men though, who have done so much good for the development of civilisation. I think they outnumber the bad ones.

kim it is acceptable to say the things you have listed,as they are true.
However I do think that there has been many, quite frankly, vile posts aimed at men in general, and also at a female poster who dared to speak against the op.

I think that BBE's comments are well-informed, insightful, and extremely well worded. It does seem that a large number of posters misunderstand them however as she has frequently been accused on this thread of saying things she absolutely has not said. Every word of them appears measured and considered and reasonable to me. Maybe having a law degree helps.

She has not accused every man of being a rapist at any point. She has not accused anyone of actually raping, nor enjoying in the sense of liking raping.

It is however a bald fact that most violence that is perpetrated in the world is done so by men. That absolutely does NOT mean that all men are violent. It is not at all the same thing.

I'd wish to check on something odd said upthread. Scallops reckons:"No Basil is meaning that all men benefit from the violence some men commit."
When challenged on that, she replied :“"Lordy. You should win prizes for that quote scallop." (me)Really? That is just the basic dynamics of how oppression occurs. Some oppressors are violent against against a group of people with some common factor e.g. Sex, colour/race, sexuality etc. The victims become the oppressed class. Those not in the oppressed class benefit.”

Well, most men I know have female loved ones in their lives – I have five close/intimates, a few others less close, and more I just quite like, or rely on for stuff. This lego-land theory of oppression takes no account of the intricacies of human relations. By that I mean whatever harms my female group harms me, and the closer they are to me the more harm done. This isn't specific to me, it's structural in a modern society - it's for all or at least most men.
So whilst I am not in the oppressed class, for this example, I am nonetheless disadvantaged by these actions.
So the notion that I, and other men with female loved ones, actually benefit from their oppression is absurd. I can see how theorists would wish to ignore such things, as it doesn't fit comfortably. It appears to assume that all men are simple, atavistic, selfish souls with an inability to see beyond their own financial/sexual/control interests, but this is not the case, which some feminist theorists wish to gloss over and so produce a simple oppressed/oppressors model where all men are bastards. Except for their own loved ones of course.

I'd disagree duchesse. Many of BBE's posts have been inelegant at best, a bit clumsy and rather 'entitled'. Possessing a law degree is no guarentor against such things, it may surprise you to know. I know, I have the misfortune to work with a few of them.