Can men really grasp women’s reality re safety?

[Ritascornershop]

I have a 19 year old son who is very compassionate and left-wing (I mention that as he’s been indoctrinated in TWAW) but who can’t grasp the discomfort many women feel at men in women’s private spaces.

And recently a friend was telling me that a family member of his (who he has quite the blind spot over) broke up with his girlfriend. The gf had, before she met his family member, been sexually assaulted. She was naturally quite traumatized by the rape but trying to heal and met this guy and got in a relationship with him. The way my friend tells it. his family member broke up with her after a few months (during an argument) & family member “got so uoset” he punched a hole in the wall and broke a chair. She called the police and called friends. My friend seemed to feel she over-reacted! I think any woman would be frightened and that a woman who’d been sexually assaulted would be particularly terrified.

It does not seem a tricky concept to me, but both these men seem to not be able to wrap their heads around how frightening it can be to be vulnerable around larger, stronger, angry males. Is this something most men don’t get or are these two not trying very hard?

like the implied inferiority of women who don't want to focus on their career. Most feminists won't say it overtly but it's very clear.

Then they’re not feminists.

Men just don’t know what constant fear is like

Neither do many women, as evident from this thread.

You can't tell if someone on here who claims to be a woman is telling fibs.

Unlike real life.

Not saying that there aren't any women who hold that view. But, you know..

Men just don’t know what constant fear is like

Generally, I guess this is true - not constant fear. Must be awful.

Have you seen what some people, sorry - men, do to horses and ponies? Fucking disgusting, non?

Have you seen what some people, sorry - men, do to horses and ponies? Fucking disgusting, non?

No, what do some men do ?.....horrible bastards some men, not to be confused with men.

Ah I see you are a namalteaser. The key word there you see is "men" or do you seriously think that some of those hideous crimes are committed by women?

Google "horse mutilation" if you genuinely haven't a clue what I'm on about.

Ah I see you are a namalteaser.
Ah I see you are prejudiced.

Ok, so if we go with that argument we have three groups (of adults, not babies )

Women

Men

Non-men who seem like men but who do awful things so suddenly they aren't men any more.

If we discount this third category as some kind of aberration, then:
How many men does it leave
How do you move from category two to category three
Is there a cut-off of awfulness that makes you a non-man baddie
Why are men keen to distance themselves from the third category instead of trying to stop men moving from 2 to 3
Why is it women's problem and not men's?

If we have a category four, non-women who seem like women but who do awful things so suddenly they aren't women any more:

Why is it so small compared to category three?

Why is it men's responsibility to police the behaviour of other men? I really don't get this. I don't consider it my responsibility to police the behaviour of other women - should it be?

As has been mentioned on this thread, men are at risk from other men too. Why isn't it society's responsibility to police the behaviour of bad men?

Because part of what emboldens the bad ken is the fact that the good laugh along with their misogynist comments and rape jokes etc so as not to cause a scene*. If the good men called that shit out, the bad ones would feel a hell of a lot less confident in what they do.

• I have seen this happen many times

Why isn't it society's responsibility to police the behaviour of bad men?

What you call "society" is actually people. Let's break them into categories that are relevant to rape:

• adult men
• adult women
• children

Male misogynists, being the superset of men that contains rapists, do not listen to women. The clue is in the word "misogynist", a hater of women. Children cannot be expected to police the poor behaviour of adults and should in fact be shielded from it. Therefore the only people left in "society" who can police misogynist men are non-misogynist men.

Generally, I guess this is true - not constant fear. Must be awful.

You realise what we're talking about isn't acute, shaking-in-your-shoes fear, more a low-level, constant vigilance?

Therefore the only people left in "society" who can police misogynist men are non-misogynist men.

But you only break society down into 3 broad sub sets - men, women and children.

Excluding children there are then sub sets of men and women aren't there? Depending on the environment there are hierarchies and within those power will be distributed between men and women. Depending on the circumstances it might be that a woman holds the authority over a man or a number of men. It might be that a decent man holds power over a non decent man, maybe a non decent man holds power over decent men.

Why isn't it society's responsibility to police the behaviour of bad men?

Ok, what does that look like? If it means having an unbiased justice system, making rape, harassment and general violence socially unacceptable, ensuring everyone has the same access to opportunity, safety and healthcare and having legal structures that recognise children's vulnerability versus adults' and women's vulnerability versus men's (I'll be specific - I mean women are weaker, slower, smaller, poorer and do the bulk of childrearing!) then great, we're in agreement.
Except a lot of what has to be done will involve men, men's groups, men's social norms, men's expectations, male socialisation, etc. Why? Because "bad men" are a category of "men", and men have set up the justice system, sensationalised violence, make rape jokes, consume porn, pay for sex from prostituted women and children, work to exclude women from certain work sectors, protect powerful men from prosecution, legislate against women's healthcare, and claim women are as violent to them as they are to women.

So tbh once they've put all that right then I'll feel more obliged to take responsibility for sorting out violent men.

FlyingOink

But what you are doing there is putting men, all men, in positions of power over all women and that simply isn't true within society as a whole.

Within organisations you will have women in positions of authority over men with responsibility for disciplining poor behaviour in the workplace, or women with senior roles determining policies within the legal system or in parliament and so on. Those women have more power in certain instances than does Fred, the bin man, whose boss makes sexist jokes for example.

Hearhoovesthinkzebras
Nope.
What I was doing there was listing specific examples where men's buy in would be helpful.
If you don't understand the difference between men as a class and Fred as an individual this might be useful : en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_analysis

But what you are doing there is putting men, all men, in positions of power over all women and that simply isn't true within society as a whole.

It is true within any society as a whole. On this very thread I've examples of men lacking financial privilege, or even the basic decency of housing, raping women with much greater financial privilege who tried to help them. I gave an example of a queen being raped by one of her subjects with no adverse consequences to him.

All men, with the very rare exceptions of men with severe physical disability, can put any woman in fear of rape. She will fear HIV and other STIs. Unless that woman is sure that she is infertile, she will fear pregnancy. That is the position of power that almost all men have over all women. Did you even read my earlier posts?

Any woman, no matter her power or status, if she finds herself alone with the wrong man (or men), will be raped by him, no matter his power or status. This is because our female reproductive biology makes us vulnerable to men's built-in rape weapons. This is really not hard to understand and it's at the core of radical feminism.

And before anyone says NAMALT, all men bar the severely physically disabled can invoke the fear of rape in women and could choose to rape because they have the equipment built-in. That only 6% choose to do so is irrelevant: women can't distinguish the 6% from the rest.

But you are choosing to only include rape whereas other posters have said about using misogynistic language or making jokes or myriad other ways that men exert power over women.

If you don't understand the difference between men as a class and Fred as an individual this might be useful :

But aren't you expecting individual men to do the challenging? It's not "men as a class" that you are expecting to challenge the misogynistic jokes is it? Those challenges are made up of a series of individuals challenging behaviour that decent people seem wrong. So why isn't it expected that all individuals make these challenges when they are in a position to do so? If I'm a manager in a company and I hear one of my subordinates make an inappropriate comment for example then it should be on me to take the necessary action. I shouldn't wait for a man to do the challenging.

But you are choosing to only include rape whereas other posters have said about using misogynistic language or making jokes or myriad other ways that men exert power over women.

Words don't leave me pregnant. What words can do is remind me, whether I want to remember or not, that men have the power to rape me. If a woman says "nice tits" to me, her words aren't underpinned by a threat. A man saying the same to me can escalate to rape and so will cause me to feel afraid. The woman is being rude and inappropriate, but she's not a rape threat.

Rape is the end game, everything else is the warmup. That's how I view sexual harassment and other non-physical male entitlement behaviours: as part of the mechanics of rape.

Hearhoovesthinkzebras
You are still ignoring all the specific examples I gave earlier.
No, challenging men isn't just down to female line managers, that's an absurd suggestion. If you think men talk the same way in front of women as they do in all-male environments you are sadly mistaken. It's actually far more likely that men will be in a position to challenge their peers. Every schoolchild who observes or suffers bullying that teachers don't notice is aware of the fact that in-group conversation is different to what is spoken about in front of an audience of others.

And painting Fred the binman as a powerless serf is not only about patronising towards working class men, it fails to take into account the power Fred might exert over his daughters, his wife, his elderly mother, the quiet guy that sits alone in the corner of the break room, the barmaid in the pub, I could go on. He's not a binman in a vacuum.
Refugee men hungry and homeless in a camp full of UN tents rape the women who are hungry and homeless alongside them. That's why we talk of men as a class. Regardless of an individual man's individual oppression, there are still structures and cultural norms that work in his favour and against his wife's or his daughter's.

Also this:
So why isn't it expected that all individuals make these challenges when they are in a position to do so?
misrepresents my argument - at no point did I suggest women should refrain from challenging anything and leave it all to the men.