Rebutting the Straw Men/Owning up when "it's a fair cop, guv.

[LurcioAgain]

BertrandRussell has started an interesting thread in Chat asking women who consciously reject the label "feminist" why they do so. One thing that strikes me is a lot of the reasons being given are in fact "straw men", and that maybe a rebutting the straw men thread would be nice.

Aim of the game (of course I can't control the direction the conversation takes, but I hope people will be on board with this) - keep the conversation couched in reasonably accessible terms, keep the posts short enough not to be overwhelming (so probably only one straw man per post!)

I certainly agree that male violence against women is a feminist issue and I do understand that it is just stating how the world is.

But it's the impression I get from feminists on the FWR board that because of this all men are potential rapists and if I can't see that I'm stupid. I don't think that all men are potential rapists and that is one of the reasons why I don't identify with feminism. I know earlier on the thread it was mentioned that "not all feminists think that all men are rapists" but many many do and tend to bang on about it.

I interpret it as any man could be a potential rapist rather than all men.

Please tell me I'm wrong if you think I am rainbow but IMO all men have capacity to be rapists. Same way as most people have capacity to be murderers. Doesn't mean that everyone you meet is going to do it in their life time. Or perhaps I'm being pedantic.

That's interesting, Rainbow, because reading (presumably) the same threads, the message I've taken away is that most posters are not saying that all men are potentially rapists (well other than in a biological sense that they possess the relevant equipment), but that you can't tell the difference between the ones that are and the ones that aren't - it's meant as a riposte to the sort of victim blaming that says "well, why did she go home with a strange man she'd only just met in a night club?" Answer - because she was assuming that he was a nice kind of guy and we all know that most men are okay - and this particular one, who happened to be a rapist, didn't come with the mark of Cain tattooed on his forehead.

YY Seneca

Mide7 - yes that it what I mean. It's the demonising (if that's a word - my phone doesn't like it) of men for having a penis that I find so objectionable.

Yes - not all feminists do, I know.

Mide, you are male, I think? Do you get a "all men are potential rapists" vibe from MN feminism? Or feminism in general?

Thanks, hope you don't mind me asking.

I haven't been raped. I've been assaulted though, from a few times I've been touched inappropriately - a guy next to me at the cinema when I was a teenager and similar, to a couple of more serious things by an ex-colleague and a group of men who accosted me one night when I was on my way home alone. I'm not including the times I've been followed home or intimidated here, just actual physical stuff. I don't spend my time thinking that I'm a victim, or that all men are rapists, or that I'm always in danger, but I do reserve the right to put my safety first, ahead of other considerations.

For example, a female friend recently mentioned a creepy guy asking for her number and I replied that a creepy guy had asked for my number as I got off the bus and followed me part way home the other night. Various men I was wth thought it was unreasonable to call the guy creepy and assume that he was doing anything but being friendly. They then said a lot of 'what is the world coming to when a guy can't even be nice'. I'd just like the understanding that personal safety is more important than validating a man's belief that he's a nice guy. I'm often coming home late from work, and it's not always safe so I'd like the benefit of the doubt that rather than judging every nice guy I work with to be a rapist I'm making an informed decision from someone's behaviour late at night that they might have the intention of doing me harm. I don't know how many times I've been unnecessarily guarded, but I do know I've been wrong the other way on a number of occasions and seriously thought 'what can I say or do to get me out of here unhurt?'

I'm not are if that makes any sense to anyone but me, but while I don't think Al men are rapists, any given man could be a rapist, and when I'm by myself at night I trust my judgment to keep me safe. If that means I don't smile back at a guy who is genuinely just saying hi, then if he really is a nice guy I would hope he understands that if I don't smile back he's a bit miffed bit if I do and he turns out to be a really not nice guy then in his mind I've just encouraged him and got myself in potentially a dangerous situation. I have a lot more to lose is all I mean.

My posts are all so long! Sorry, on my phone so didn't realise. I do go on!

I must be really stupid, i don't really know what a feminist is and a straw man? All i can think of is Edward woodward in the wicker man and its not a good thought at all.

Im just not intellectual enough for these boards.

Actually, that is my problem with feminists, they make me feel REALLY stupid.

I think there are two ways people use the 'men are potential rapists' line:

1. In war time situations, and situations where ordinary customs break down, very many men who ordinarily would not become involved in rape and other atrocities do so. In that sense, rape is a weapon of war. So it is important from a humanitarian perspective to understand the combination of obeying authority and othering people that causes people to lose empathy and why for men in particular this frequently in war turns to acts of mass rape. In that sense, all men are potential rapists in the same sense that we are all potential Nazis. It isn't some implausible scenario. Huge sections of societies have become involved in collaborating in atrocities, and they were ordinary people. And rape in war and genocidal situations is part of the understanding of rape internationally.

And I don't think I can be alone in wondering if I were a German citizen in the thirties, how would I have behaved? It is a question prompted by many TV shows and forms of media, including kids' TV shows like Dr Who. I don't think it is particularly different for men to ponder on how they would behave in situations where people were being sexually victimised. And sometimes that applies to women too.

1. In everyday civil society, when women are raped, many people will say, you shouldn't have got a lift from your friend John, gone out to the pub with that man, stayed late at work with your boss etc. That gives the impression that we are supposed to be behaving at all times as if friend John, our male boss and every other man are potential rapists.

I certainly am.

And no I don't particularly. All men could be rapists because they have a penis but they doesn't men all men WILL commit rape. Like I said up thread, I believe all people have it in them to kill someone but that doesn't mean everyone will. Hope that makes some kind of sense.

It's how you perceive the language used I guess.

I came to see if anyone would be willing to admit any fault and am unsurprised to see that it's simply an iteration of the we're right and you're wrong story.

By the way, I was once molested by a much stronger girl at a party many years ago. So you can drop all this nonsense about it only being men that are sexually predatory.

A straw man is where I construct an argument, say that that is your position and proceed to argue against it, without first checking that it is your position.

So if I said "LEM, let me just disagree with your positiob

I actually think straw man is the wrong title for this thread (sorry Lurcio!) and maybe "myths about feminism" or something would be better.

Ha, me too LEM
I really interested in feminism and participate in some feminist activism and could be called a radfem but I don't feel smart or perfect enough.
It doesn't stop me from posting a lot though.

LEM, a straw man is also sometimes called an Aunt Sally. Maybe you've heard of that?

It is when people claim you are arguing something you are not arguing, and then explain why the thing you never argued is wrong.

"only being men that are sexually predatory."

Again, no one said "only". That is a straw man!

Almond- the first part of your post is what I'm trying to get at. Ordinary people do extremely horrible things to each other for a number of reasons.

There is always that thing to say the nazi ( or murderers or whatever) must be monsters. I don't think they are, ( they committed acts of monsters maybe) just ordinary people who for whatever reason did terrible things.

Oh, come off it. It's hardly a feminist point if you believe it isn't only men.

Be brave enough to admit you don't know everything.

"Myths about feminism" sounds like a good title.

Ms I don't think anyone is saying that women can't be abusers. But that sexual violence is a hugely gendered issue.

I still would like to know what victim feminism is if someone can answer it.

Original - straw man is a debate term I think. It just means a false argument so if you say you are pro life and I present a false argument such as all pro life people support abortion in all circumstances so you must therefore support law term abortion on the basis of sex you could call out my argument as a straw man. Something that looks like a real argument but is a straw man not a real one. I've now made you defend law term sex selective abortion even though you may not agree with it. Does that make sense? There's probably a better way to explain it.

Isn't an Aunt sally one of those fairground ladies like on Worzel gummage?

None the wiser if im honest.

I like men - does that make me bad? Is that what i should be aiming for?

It doesn't give anyone the right to accuse a gender of being predisposed to a particular type of violence. Unless, I should say that all of your daughters could grow up to be violent perverts because I met one once who was a woman too.

So if i argued vehemently that Father Christmas was real? that would be a straw man?