« Saying goodbye to the All Saints seniors | Main | Friday Random Ten: Beneath the Valley of the Random »

May 25, 2006

Comments

evil_fizz

So when women say stuff like 'I don't think it's ok for us to be raped' men who haven't taken a good hard look at themselves hear 'Let's kill all the men'. Because they aren't used to ever hearing any criticism of their views."

Time out a minute.

Are these really the sample sentences you want you use? You don't think you've selected an extreme example here?

I think Shannon's example might be a bit extreme, but surely you remember the leaps of logic everyone makes in undergrad? I do recall one or two classroom discussions like that, one in particular in which there was a mention of rape culture*, a definition offered, and then we were off about how anyone who thought there was some validity to the concept hated all men, presumed them rapists, and wanted to become lesbian separatists. Grand total of about four minutes.

*mostly being presented as a "this theory has been posited" sort of thing.

bmmg39

That's quite different in degree from disagreeing that people shouldn't be raped. It's true that people of all stripes fly off the handle, but not to the level that she suggested.

Lee

"Male-bashing" doesn't literally happen, in other words, at least not on campus.

Well, as you are blind to the bashing that you do in most of your posts, then I think you would be of the opinion that it literally doesn't happen.

Instead of being victim of physical violence, they are instead put at academic risk if they speak their minds, and they know it.

Or their professors hold opinions like:

"This is not a forum to question the basic tenets of feminism, or issues of domestic violence and abuse, or why I've banned anyone in the past. I'm going to be much more careful about monitoring what is posted here. This is not a free speech zone, nor need it be."

Not a free speech zone...

Or, like Warren Farrell, this happens:

When Why Men Are The Way They Are was published, I was eventually invited for an eighth (Donahue) show. But articulating men’s perspectives, even in balance with women’s, led to another six year hiatus. When The Myth of Male Power came out, although it was from the male perspective, it was so much up Donahue’s line of relationships and politics that three producers were vying to be the one to produce the show. I was scheduled, with a firm date. The producers convinced my agent to book me as an exclusive on Donahue. As a result, queries to all other American talk shows were dropped. Then something happened….

The taping kept getting "postponed." Eventually neither I nor my agents, Hilsinger and Mendelson, the most powerful in the book publicity business, could reach them. As I was trying to unravel the stonewalling, a Canadian show called. They were filled with enthusiasm. But suddenly it, too, kept getting "postponed." This producer, though, had previously booked me; I could feel the remorse in his voice; so I pressed him for an explanation.

Finally he caved, "If you promise to never use my name I’ll tell you." I promised. Hesitatingly, he started, "We wanted to have a balanced show, so we called a couple of feminists – big names – to be on with you. Instead of just refusing, they said in effect, ‘If you have this guy on, don’t expect us to bring our next book to you, or supply you with real-life examples to use on your show – we’ll do that just for Oprah.’ Another one used the moral appeal – something like, ‘Feminism is opposed to rape and the battering of women; so, if you have him on, you’d better take responsibility for making women even more vulnerable.’ Once the word got out that we were considering you, we got other calls, even one from a guy, sort of repeating the same mantra.

"Warren, most of us saw all this for the attempt at censorship it was, and as for me, I was excited by the controversy, but, well, it just took one of our producers who’s never met you and hasn’t read the book to freak out and, before we knew it, we were all afraid to stir up her indignation." Well, there you have it. Or,... there I had it!

That's what Feminists do, Hugo. In the media, and academia.

moderate_man

So when women say stuff like "I don't think it's ok for us to be raped" men who haven't taken a good hard look at themselves hear "Let's kill all the men".

I'm not getting your point here. Men understand women don't like rape because men don't like rape too. They don't need to take a long hard look at themselves to understand this - it takes only trace elements of empathy to 'get it'. I'm not liking your assumption here - that men by default don't understand women don't like rape.

A man who doesn't understand this is a sociopath who needs to be in the custody of a mental hospital and is a very real danger to women. I've never met such a man who fits that description, but I do know they exist (but in very small numbers).

Imagine if I said women in general need to take a long hard look at themselves if they don't understand that men don't like being murdered (how absurd is that?). It's obvious. I think I would need to take a long hard look at myself if I thought women didn't 'get' men when they fear & hate murder.

Sorry to labour on your point, but I found it very extreme, and a bit of a 'put down' for men.


moderate_man

Any actual shrinks in the house?

Well the rather sweet irony to this discussion is the fact that Hugo prefaces it with the following:-

This is not a free speech zone, nor need it be.

...and we're discussing here essentially free speech and how to encourage it.

......

....

..

.

(thought I'd let that irony soak in a bit!).

Any ideology that's worth any salt should be able to stand up to the rigours of intellectual debate. Strong ideologies are grounded in truth. They fight not with words, but facts. Facts give the proponents of such ideologies great confidence in a debate. Without facts, you're on shaky ground.

Incidentally Hugo, you stated:-

Women are regularly beaten and raped -- even on college campuses -- but I know of no instance where a man found himself a victim of violence for making a sexist remark in a college feminist setting

Do you have any facts to support this claim?

Little Lion

Dr. Schwyzer is right to point out that the language of his students is imprecise, hyperbolic and possibly manipulative. But defining gender-neutral rules of engagement in the classroom is what he should consider doing; the hostile, accusatory attitude that underlies his desire to "put a stop" to what he hyperbolically characterizes as a "key anti-feminist strategy" will demoralize his male students. If only he could set the rules for discussion without suggesting that his male students were violating the rights of his female students! Deviating in this manner from gender-neutral practice in the classroom is a key anti-male strategy.

Hugo

Moderate, I'm claiming a negative, that no man has ever been beaten in a woman's studies class. Asking me for evidence about that is like asking for evidence that the sky isn't falling. The burden of proof is generally on those who claim that something did happen, not that something didn't.

My classrooms are free speech zones. My blog isn't, and that's an important distinction. Viewing or commenting here is not a right, it's a privilege I extend; I after all am the one paying $8.95 a month to Typepad for all of this. (I sound like Ronald Reagan in 1980, "I paid for this microphone!") My students are not required to visit here, and while some apparently do, I suspect most don't.

Look, the topic in this post is what it means when male students make remarks about "getting killed" in feminist classrooms. That is the only topic, and I will delete comments that drift away -- from here on, I'll do so without warning or apology. Free speech is not a topic here-- send me a vituperative email if you like, or go on an MRA friendly website, but leave it out of the comments section.

Another Jeff

I don't disagree with any of these; I'd just like to know why the "don't kill me for this" is being characterized here as an exclusively male preface,

I know I for one have tried very hard to avoid implying that. What I *have* said is that this tactic, when used against women, by women or men, invokes a lot of socialization that it wouldn't in other situations. If that phrase were used by a woman toward a largely male audience, it would likely invoke a different sort of socialization - again, probably avoiding criticism, but at the cost of not being taken seriously as a full participant in the discussion. But that's largely irrelevant.

and, further, why the "clairvoyant" suggestion is that it's done to discourage women from speaking.

Honestly, I think the question of whether it's an intentional attempt to silence women or an unconscious one is also irrelevant.

I've never claimed clairvoyancy - if I've ever said it's "done to discourage women from speaking," I meant that (a) it has that effect; and (b) the speaker knows, at least subconsciously (yeah, I know that's a whole nother can of worms), that it will help avoid criticism. My point is that when people do this, they should be informed of the effect it has, and asked to stop it.

The analogy that keeps occurring to me (and hopefully this won't sidetrack the discussion too much - if it's a bad analogy I'm not going to insist on it) is that of somebody who cuts in line. Maybe they knew what they were doing and were being rude; more likely they just didn't understand where the line ended. Either way, though, once it's called to their attention, the proper thing to do is to acknowledge it and take their proper place in the line.

evil_fizz

That's quite different in degree from disagreeing that people shouldn't be raped. It's true that people of all stripes fly off the handle, but not to the level that she suggested.

Oh, there are definitely people who think that rape is an acceptable social tool (i.e., gang rapes as punishment in Pakistan), but I think you're unlikely to find them in Hugo's classroom. But I would be willing to bet that he does occasionally get the "Rape's not that bad" or "Well, she was in wrong part of town at night wearing a miniskirt!"

This of course, does make me wonder what Hugo's male students are following up their "I might get killed, but..." What exactly is it that they're saying that they think is so offensive or confrontational? And why, in a setting where there is no credible threat of violence, do they use this kind of language to put others on the defensive?

There's been some disagreement about whether or not Hugo's students are used to being brow-beaten or whether they're actively trying to avoid angry reactions. I'm not sure that it necessarily matters why because it serves the same purpose. By saying "I'm gonna have to run for it," they are saying that anyone who wants to respond to them will have to consider their feelings first and their argument second. But I think civility and courtesy should be givens in the classroom, and hence these appeals to "Don't hurt me" serve to shut others up and pre-emptively tell people they're not allowed to be angry.

Toy Soldier

Moderate, I'm claiming a negative, that no man has ever been beaten in a woman's studies class. Asking me for evidence about that is like asking for evidence that the sky isn't falling. The burden of proof is generally on those who claim that something did happen, not that something didn't.

Hugo, I do not think Moderate was asking for evidence about men being beaten up. He was asking for evidence that “Women are regularly beaten and raped -- even on college campuses” because of statements they made in class. As a recent college graduate, I can attest that I have never known of any man or woman who has ever been beaten in class or as a result of something said in class, so I cannot understand your implications. I can, however, understand your male and non/anti-feminist female students as I have been in classes where certain groups of students (conservatives, gays, blacks, whites, liberals, etc.) felt they could not speak freely without being attack. Whether it was a religion studies class, sociology, women’s studies or typical general education courses, many students I have known refused to speak openly for fear they would either be verbally assaulted or possibly failed as a result, both of which I seen and experienced.

It appears that instead of looking that the environment you have created and/or allowed to exist in your class that would make these young men feel they cannot speak freely, you jump to the conclusion that they must have ulterior motives and wish to silence the women in the classroom. As the instructor, you could look for things you could do to make your class more open to male criticism of feminism. You could also simply ask the young men why they feel they must use prefaces. You appear to be avoiding questioning your role in this, but with such a specific group of students feeling this way semester after semester, it simply cannot be chalked up to more woman bashing.

And if at the end of the semester those young men still use such prefaces, then there is probably something to their expectation that they will be verbally or physically attacked.

Little Lion

In the classroom (and elsewhere), there ought to be a distinction between feelings and behavior. Feelings (in particular, feelings of anger, feminist or otherwise), are beyond the moral sphere, since they are essentially beyond conscious control. Everyone has a right to their feelings: they're involuntary, and private. Behavior, which includes speech, is at issue in the classroom. This point of view is one way to constructively deal with exaggerated pleas for a fair hearing. The defensive ploy of some students to ask to be heard without getting killed isn't a scholarly attitude, but it need not be denigrated as an anti-feminist strategy, let alone a key one. It might be the voice of inexperience in unfamiliar territory. Is the intention to foster critical inquiry, or to put male students on the defensive? Why not ask them what they mean by getting "killed" in your class? You could say what it means to you, and what you've observed in your class when others have said similar things. Point out that it's inaccurate, that the premise is wrong. That would be helpful and informative. Or, you could accuse them of employing a key anti-feminist strategy, if you'd rather have them cower in wounded ignorance. I rather doubt that, though, as if the blog were the proper repository for such suggestions.

moderate_man

Moderate, I'm claiming a negative, that no man has ever been beaten in a woman's studies class.

You don't need to claim it. We know it already.

Of course no man has been physically beaten in a class for daring to raise any controversial point. Nor has any women (cite examples if I am wrong) when expressing a view. If anyone was physically assaulted for expressing an opinion in a class, then that is something for the police and psychiatrists to deal with. I really, really don't understand your need to exaggerate here with this extreme hypothetical situation you describe why men are reticent to express particular points of view.

I've already stated now many times why men don't speak up in those kinds of situations.

They are not afraid of being beaten up by women in the class.

I promise you, that is not the case.

Here's the key thing I've been saying:-

They ARE afraid of being verbally attacked and shamed by these women, and possibly losing any kind of acquaintance/friendship they had with them, and being ostracised, and being hated by these women..

That may or may not result in him getting a bad grade, but at that moment in time, right there, when he wants to speak out - I bet you anything his main worry is not to cause deep offence to the women in his class for fear of the consequences.

In feminism, like any belief system, there are many sacred cows. There are many holy items and covenants. There are lines you do not cross. You cross those lines, you pay a penalty. It should not be so in a University environment, but it is so.

Question, Hugo: do you really believe feminism doesn't have that strangle-hold over the male opinion? You don't think it's "toe the line or you're a misogynist"?

Also, Hugo, you stated before:-

Women are regularly beaten and raped -- even on college campuses -- but I know of no instance where a man found himself a victim of violence for making a sexist remark in a college feminist setting

Can you please substantiate your claims?


Another Jeff

They ARE afraid of being verbally attacked and shamed by these women, and possibly losing any kind of acquaintance/friendship they had with them, and being ostracised, and being hated by these women.

In other words, what they want is the privilege of being able to say what they please and not have anyone make them uncomfortable in their disagreement.

I bet you anything his main worry is not to cause deep offence to the women in his class for fear of the consequences.

I would completely agree with this. It's not so much about not being offensive as it is avoiding the consequences of that offense.

What the "disclaimer" language says to me is "Look, I suspect I'm going to offend you, so I want you to not be offended without me actually having to *do* anything about it."

Teunis

As a male victim of both sexual and physical assault from women, perhaps I can post a different response....

... but then again perhaps not. I think perhaps you're right. At least in your context - the male response is a little too far over the top.

The violence and assaults I dealt with were all in a community with heavy "male dominance" - and I strongly suspect that's the root of it. When I lived in a culture of equal rights (they actually claimed female dominance *grin*) it wasn't a problem. In the culture of equal rights, any side could speak up without worrying about risk - and usually did, happily and proudly.

note: http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/sexual_assault/malesurvivors.htm
for some of the other posters here: violence both sexual and physical happens against men. It really does. We're not allowed to talk about it, we're assumed to be guilty if it happens - and ridiculed heavily. But it really does happen. One of the most common voices I encounter (especially within feminist groups) is that sexual assault only happens against women.

moderate_man

One of the most common voices I encounter (especially within feminist groups) is that sexual assault only happens against women.

Yes, and it's interesting to note how taboo a subject male victims of female violence is in feminist circles. It's almost like feminists believe that females are somehow morally superior to males - that's just supremicist rubbish. It's as bad as saying whites are superior to blacks, or using other arbitrary attributes (race, colour) as a measure of character. Truth is - women are as violent as men, certainly in intimate circumstances like relationships. Statistics bear this out. If you look at DV stats, incidences of violence are perpetrated equally from both genders. If anyone wants sources, I can provide - from UK Home Office stats and other neutral sources.

The Gonzman

What the "disclaimer" language says to me is "Look, I suspect I'm going to offend you, so I want you to not be offended without me actually having to *do* anything about it."

Nonsense. The presumption of any class in a university dedicated to inquiry, examination, and intellectual rigor would presuppose to an intellectually honest person that such questions or statements would not somehow offend. If the class is, however, dedicated to proslytizing and indoctrination, we have a different story.

The fact that people feel the need to deflect angry criticism in an environment supposedly dedicated to critical thinking could even more reasonably be argued to say as much, if not more, about the audience than the speaker. The fact that you even refuse to consider this as a possibility, and ascribe some sort of malice to it, speaks of your inherent bias.

Occam's Razor again - (Yeah, I know - logic is so patriarchal) - people exhibiting a fear response tend to do so because they have reason to fear a thing, either through past experience or current circumstance; not through some spurious theory of a gestalt of "The Great Male Conspiracy To Keep The Woman Down." While this may be the source of a specific individual's use of it, to suggest it is a blanket explanation for it all is so outrageous as to be laughable, especially when a much simpler theory which fits all the known facts is available. The ad hoc assumptions and a priori reasoning you have to use to reach such a conclusion amounts to a crackpot theory: Namely, it requires the belief in more than one miracle.

Antigone: Don't know what UND is University of Notre Dame? North Dakota? - I went to Indiana University, which is a hotbed of political correctness, in fact all the state schools are here.

Antigone

Gonz, I think you misunderstand what "patriarchy" is. You keep referring to it as a conspiracy: it isn't. It's a self-perpetuating system.

Sorry, I suppose I should be more clear: University of North Dakota, Grand Forks. We recently hit the news because of our mascot: The Fighting Sioux. This isn't a hot bed of "political correctness" but it is the best goddamn aviation school in the country (I dare anyone to contridict me THERE)

evil_fizz

The presumption of any class in a university dedicated to inquiry, examination, and intellectual rigor would presuppose to an intellectually honest person that such questions or statements would not somehow offend. If the class is, however, dedicated to proslytizing and indoctrination, we have a different story.

I completely disagree. I'm sure that someone can launch a wholly coherent, reasoned argument about how, for example, homosexuality is a sin against god and nature. That doesn't mean that gay students won't be offended. To pretend that anything said in the course of academic debate can't be offensive is patently silly. (It also presumes that people won't misspeak or say things that are offensive without thinking.) No college class I've ever been to is nothing but highly logical, well-thought out discourse. Ridiculous and offensive things get said all the time.

The Gonzman

Gonz, I think you misunderstand what "patriarchy" is. You keep referring to it as a conspiracy: it isn't. It's a self-perpetuating system.

I used the word tongue in cheek, after the almost apocryphal debate I got into at the old MND board with a particularly doctrinaire feminist who insisted my use of logic was "using the tools of the patriarchy" and "Patriarchal" and insisted I have a - I quote - "dialogue of feeling rather than reason."

Perhaps a bit sarcastic, but I don't think inaccurate. I do, however, know the way "patriarchy" is used in the context of feminist discourse, tempted as I am to point out that the "dictionary definition" is far different (As many times as I have had similar "dictionary definitions" of such things as "feminist" etc. flung as a squelch at me). I will however hold to my principle that to do so is intellectually dishonest, and forbear.

Sorry, I suppose I should be more clear: University of North Dakota, Grand Forks. We recently hit the news because of our mascot: The Fighting Sioux. This isn't a hot bed of "political correctness" but it is the best goddamn aviation school in the country (I dare anyone to contridict me THERE)

Since i loathe flying under the best of circumstances, let alone piloting one of the blasted things, I have no knowledge, let alone grounds to dispute it. I am aware of universities a nd colleges which are more neutral in official policy, and even some who lean to the conservative side, but far fewer combined than the ones which are dominated by Political Correctness. It's the New Establishment in academia by and large.

The Gonzman

I completely disagree. I'm sure that someone can launch a wholly coherent, reasoned argument about how, for example, homosexuality is a sin against god and nature. That doesn't mean that gay students won't be offended. To pretend that anything said in the course of academic debate can't be offensive is patently silly. (It also presumes that people won't misspeak or say things that are offensive without thinking.) No college class I've ever been to is nothing but highly logical, well-thought out discourse. Ridiculous and offensive things get said all the time.

I don't think so - for example, when I took debate we were often forced to adopt the pro or con of some outrageous propositions, and to argue them to learn both how to construct and demolish arguments, and to recognize rhetorical tricks.

The example of using a religiously based argument in an inappropriate setting is a little extreme, again, though, much depends on context. In a "gay studies" class, it would be patently inflammatory and I would hold a student claiming "freedom of speech" to be a disingenuous assbag deserving of scorn - in fact, I'd question the professor who let them stay. By the same token, in the same class, a student who question the root cause of homosexuality as being "All inborn all the time" is not being disruptive; the book is far from closed on that particular question.

However, put that same "sin against God and Nature" thing in my old Debate Class where Father Sams announced such a thing as the topic of tomorrow's debate, red team takes pro, green team takes con, and I would acccuse the same gay student of being thin-skinned and hypersensitive, and him being the troublemaker.

Rational discourse on any subject requires context - if you were to make the argument "Gender is a construct, and men are inherently warlike; therefore women deserve equal rights before the law" I could rationally, and quite civilly, attack both your premises without disagreeing in the slightest in your conclusion; and in fact if you required me to accept your premises before I would be given any credence for believing your conclusion, I'd say YOU were being uncivil, offensive, and intellectually dishonest.

And because college classes are not always civil, it does not follow to me that they should not be; that's fatalistic to me. Though I no longer am in the profession due to economic constraints, I am a teacher as well. I'm a devout libertarian free-marketer (NOT an anarcho-capitalist, thank you), but if students who was as fervent socialists as our host was somehow felt unfree to question the foundation of my theory in my class, I'd be horrified and first look to myself before I shifted the blame for it off on them.

Toy Soldier

In other words, what they want is the privilege of being able to say what they please and not have anyone make them uncomfortable in their disagreement.

The same could be said of the female students in the class who are used to presenting their ideas without them being questioned. In my experience, whoever makes up the majority of the class often does not wish to share the podium. They are used to having the privilege of expounding on ideas without restraint, and anyone challenging that is often met with sighs, groans or the more common verbal attack.

I completely disagree. I'm sure that someone can launch a wholly coherent, reasoned argument about how, for example, homosexuality is a sin against god and nature. That doesn't mean that gay students won't be offended.

The same could be said of male students in a feminist class. I am sure someone in the class will launch into a wholly coherent, reasoned argument about how “the Patriarchy” is an oppressive force against women engrained into men’s expression of masculinity. That does not mean that male students will not be offended. And just like the gay students who would take such comments as a warning to keep quiet, male students would respond to such comments in much the same way. Gay students would likely then preface any criticism with "I know I'm going to get killed for saying this, but..." just as male students would do in a feminist setting.

evil_fizz

I'm a devout libertarian free-marketer (NOT an anarcho-capitalist, thank you), but if students who was as fervent socialists as our host was somehow felt unfree to question the foundation of my theory in my class, I'd be horrified and first look to myself before I shifted the blame for it off on them.

I suppose it depends on what your pedagogical purpose is. There are times when a debate about first premises is constructive. Other times, much less so. If the purpose of the class is to talk about third world markets from a libertarian-free market perspective, isn't it something of a waste of everyone's time to spend a third of the semester discussing the validity of the libertarian-free market perspective?

That does not mean that male students will not be offended. And just like the gay students who would take such comments as a warning to keep quiet, male students would respond to such comments in much the same way. Gay students would likely then preface any criticism with "I know I'm going to get killed for saying this, but..." just as male students would do in a feminist setting.

Odd. As a general rule, I don't find people who are offended by someone's remarks to preface their own with "I might get killed for this." It's said as a way to pre-empt someone else's response.

shannon

I choose the women don't like to be raped example of a basic basic piece of feminism, that is questioned by anti feminists(in practice I mean- most anti feminists are always talking about how women lie about rape,how getting a woman drunk and having sex with her isn't rape, how all these poor innocent men are being accused of rape and how that is loads more important than stopping rape). Not to mention, the people of color existing together is a true life example. I have heard more bellyaching about black people sitting together, black people having frats and sororities,etc,etc(and almost no discourse on real racial problems from whites) on campus than one should have to listen to in their entire life. It's all a ploy to get attention off real problems.

Basically, he's trying to deflect attention from whatever horribly rude and offensive thing he is about to say unto whether the women are nice enough to him after he has said something offensive and stupid. If his views are logical and rational, he should be able to defend them without resorting to this sort of trick. Like when I say things that are likely to be unpopular, I stand behind my words. Maybe Hugo should talk about how powerful groups tend to try to co opt oppression and pain, and how we have a responsibility to say "hey, am I trying to dodge responsibility for my actions and views?" If you want to offend your classmates, own up to it. People who are as young as college students today are have acted with integrity, so I think it is an insult to them to think they can't make a choice in this matter.

Not to mention, sometimes we don't need to waste valuable classroom time with some views. Let's say we're discussing black history, and some guy busts out with the old "shouldn't blacks be grateful for slavery", the teacher should reiterate the brutality of slavery and move on, because there are many people who come to class to learn about reality, you know?

bmmg39

Another Jeff: "I know I for one have tried very hard to avoid implying that."

I wasn't implying that you have. I'm not speaking about any one person in particular.

"What I *have* said is that this tactic, when used against women, by women or men, invokes a lot of socialization that it wouldn't in other situations. If that phrase were used by a woman toward a largely male audience, it would likely invoke a different sort of socialization - again, probably avoiding criticism, but at the cost of not being taken seriously as a full participant in the discussion."

Again, I'm not reading any difference in when a woman says it to men or vice versa or any other combination or scenario. Perhaps that's where we differ.

"I've never claimed clairvoyancy - if I've ever said it's 'done to discourage women from speaking,' I meant that (a) it has that effect; and (b) the speaker knows, at least subconsciously (yeah, I know that's a whole nother can of worms), that it will help avoid criticism. My point is that when people do this, they should be informed of the effect it has, and asked to stop it."

If we disagree on the simple question of whether it has that effect, we can't get to the sub-issue of whether or not it's a conscious thing.

evil_fizz: "But I think civility and courtesy should be givens in the classroom, and hence these appeals to 'Don't hurt me' serve to shut others up and pre-emptively tell people they're not allowed to be angry."

Those absolutely SHOULD be givens. Obviously, someone who makes such a preface believes (s)he won't be treated civilly and courteously.

shannon: "I choose the women don't like to be raped example of a basic basic piece of feminism, that is questioned by anti feminists(in practice I mean- most anti feminists are always talking about how women lie about rape,how getting a woman drunk and having sex with her isn't rape, how all these poor innocent men are being accused of rape and how that is loads more important than stopping rape)."

Do you see what you just did? You did what you're accusing those men of doing: listening to someone say one thing and "hearing" something completely different.

Yes, deliberately getting another human being drunk so that sex can occur is rape (assuming the other person is NOT drunk, right?). As per your other point, yes, some women DO lie about having been raped, and false accusations ARE a problem, though not "loads more important" than stopping actual rapes (but perhaps JUST as important -- would you, Shannon, like to be accused of a serious crime you did not commit?).

There needs to be calm dialogue, and discourse such as what Hugo says happens in his classes is what we need. But it only works if we all stop "hearing" things that weren't said. That goes for everybody.

bmmg39

In my zeal to demonstrate how my point ties in to the main discussion, I left an important sentence off the end of the next-to-last paragraph: "But these problems aren't mutually exclusive. It's not as though we need to ignore one in order to treat the other with the gravity it deserves."

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Regular reads

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004