Uncomfortable feelings about the teaching of "consent"

[Tootickyandsnufkin]

I hope I explain this ok. I'm not entirely sure this makes sense, or if I'm expressing something obvious.

Consent comes up a lot on here/MN. Usually the discussion is around whether consent is confusing etc. Everyone is familiar. I hope isn't is prompting the usual debate. But I guess maybe that where it goes.

The idea of teaching "consent" to boys/young men bothers me. I wonder what it says about men that they have to be taught. Then i think about what else we teach our children. Thinking on the go....I guess we work to develop empathy in many areas but how do they develop naturally otherwise? isn't there some sort of innate compassion that stops people, eg, committing acts of violence? Or is it consequences that shapes behaviour. Which of course there is generally a lack of in terms of non consensual sex/sexual acts.

And if we try to teach our sons about consent, are those who have ignored a lack of consent simply those who weren't adequately educated?
Is it depressing to think there are a huge group of boys/men for whom its an educational issue? Or is that a very negative way to think?

How much effort have groups of men put into reducing male violence?

Here was me thinking we spent billions of pounds on maintaining a large and capable military force to keep our citizens safe from violence. My bad.

Holly

What I do hate is the fact that women have, for centuries been treated as second-class citizens who do not have a right to control their future or their body

Is this how you feel in 2017 ? That you have no control over your body, or that you have less control over it than "men" ? Which men ? Which men have more control over their future than you ? All men ? Most men ?

Sparrow

really? is that what you genuinely get from what people have been saying?

You said (One of many examples) :

Men rape women in their millions across the world

The noun "Men" is used here to denote a group who behave in a terrible way. Not "some men" or even "rapists" but doggedly just "men". The intention is clearly to teach that all men are the problem. Guilt by association. Once the veneer is scraped away far ruder statements and generalisations about "men" are made.

You're getting your posters mixed up...

So basically you need all statements to have a NAMALT attached so as not to offend, otherwise you won't engage?

Apologies for mixing you up.

So basically you need all statements to have a NAMALT attached so as not to offend, otherwise you won't engage?

But NAMALT would never be used because as I said - i believe the purpose is to make men feel ashamed of being men.

Do you genuinely think that the word "men" in that example is meant to mean "all men"? It means men as a class. Of course it doesn't mean every single man. Why does it get you so wound up that language is used in this completely normal way? It's not meant to make men ashamed of simply being men. It is meant to make men think, and be aware of the issue and to care about it. Even to actively think of ways they can combat it. What is wrong with that as an aim?

I live in an all male household. The very, very last thing I would want to do is to make those males feel ashamed of being men.

It is genuinely not always easy to talk to men about the imbalance of power between the sexes and the fact of male violence. Because most men have never had to think about it. Most women experience it on a daily basis, to some degree or another. They are very used to seeing it. They don't necessarily analyse it, because female socialisation makes us think 'that's just the way things are'.

Anyone who actually asks why is that the way things are, tends to have something of a lightbulb moment.

It is meant to make men think, and be aware of the issue and to care about it. Even to actively think of ways they can combat it. What is wrong with that as an aim?

The justification for it seems to be based on the idea of privilege theory. No other group would be subject to the same treatment where you take the worst behaviours of the minority and ascribe them to the whole. It isn't about making men think - it is about making white men feel ashamed - because you deem that they have all have some power they need to give up. You would never say that "blacks need to get a grip on this witch craft rubbish". If we take FGM as an example or more widely the way women are treated in muslim countries are treated, that is not something that white men in this country have anything to do with. However no qualifications are typically made to account for the fact that it is men with brown skin who are to blame, because that would be racist, so we'll just go with "men".

Datun

If you are teaching your boys that women are very likely to be frightened of them, so they shouldn't sit beside them or if you can help it, anywhere near them on public transport, they should cross the street to avoid them and try not to look at them... do you not think that at the very least this will make them uncomfortable about females ?

growapear You are the only one here who is making this a racial issue. Trump's election to the most powerful office in the world is illustrative of the fact that white males are still perfectly capable of getting their voices heard.

You really are splitting hairs at this point all men, some men the point is enough men for it to be a problem. I'm not on board with every nuance of feminism but for crying out loud sexual violence is about as open and shut a case as it's possible to get. On this one I am firmly on the side of women.

The military is not an example of men reducing male violence against women, it's an example of how male violence is a multi billion pound industry.

I did have a snigger at the thought of the army patrolling our streets stopping men beating people up.
Strange ideas on this thread now

The military is not an example of men reducing male violence against women, it's an example of how male violence is a multi billion pound industry.

The military is a perfect example of what men do to combat violence from other men - violence that of course would affect women as well, I think this is blatantly obvious.

If you are asking what men do with regard to specific male on female violence in society - well again, they arrest them, they forcibly incarcerate them. Are all men who are in jail for violence against women there and because a woman put them there and stops them getting out ? I know a few prison officers and i have the utmost respect for the extremely difficult and dangerous job they do and I always think of these men when i read on here that men basically do fuck all to end male violence and thank god for e.g. poster Bertrand Russell whom is really taking it to them.

Sorry Bert your name was first in my head. No specific offence intended.

Ok so we do live in a patriarchy where men are in control and do everything?

Oh, do tell me more about the military, it's so nice to hear such expert opinions on it.

Ok so we do live in a patriarchy where men are in control and do everything?

A lot of them are doing a hell of a lot more than you about male violence, mate.

You seem to have a fatalistic attitude that male violence will inevitably happen, and the only thing you can do is arrest and punish men afterwards. Or, go to war to stop men from other countries being able to do violence here. What about reducing and stopping the violence from happening to begin with?

What about reducing and stopping the violence from happening to begin with?

Great idea - it's 2017 and to think that all the slaughter especially of the last century could have been solved by reading Andrea Dworkin et al. What's the big idea ?

How very fucking dare you growapear I went thundering out of a friend's flat upon hearing a woman's scream and helped her see off the man assaulting her. I don't fight and have little to no training in this area so I was shitting myself the whole way through, so don't you make assumptions on what I will or won't do to tackle male violence. You really are an unpleasant specimen.

"Perhaps I should I teach my daughters - cross the street if you see a man and you are alone because he might be a rapist following you ?"

You won't need to teach them. They'll learn for themselves in good time, once they've had experience of what it is to be a pubescent girl or woman alone on the street.

"The noun "Men" is used here to denote a group who behave in a terrible way. Not "some men" or even "rapists" but doggedly just "men". The intention is clearly to teach that all men are the problem. Guilt by association. Once the veneer is scraped away far ruder statements and generalisations about "men" are made."

"The working classes have stopped voting labour"

"The middle classes were the ones who used fish knives, not the upper classes"

"Flyover America got sick of being ignored so voted Trump"

Do you think in all those examples, every single member of the respective group of people is meant. ALL members of the working classes have stopped voting labour, ALL middle class people have fish knives, EVERY SINGLE VOTER who lives in flyover country voted Trump?

Or do you accept that in the English language, when we use a term in the general way we talk about "men" and "women", there has never been the assumption that every single member of the group is included in the group term?

"Great idea - it's 2017 and to think that all the slaughter especially of the last century could have been solved by reading Andrea Dworkin et al. What's the big idea ?"

Well, do you know what, it might be a start. To actual do some self reflection on the nature of male violence. Couldn't hurt.

ask

"women can't drive".

What's offensive about that ?

"Women are useless at football."

"Men are dangerous to women"

"Women are dangerous to children"

etc. Oh - i don't mean all of them, so it;s OK.

This is getting sillier and sillier. You don't expect anyone to actually spend their time explaining what's wrong with those statements. You're just looking for a fight and not interested in honestly discussing the issues.