The contest for the Most Ironic Use of the Term “Nice Guy,” When Applied to Yourself –otherwise known as the MIUTNGWAY Award – is heating up. The previous front runner – the Tumblr guy who compared his inability to get laid to the Holocaust – now faces a serious challenge from a Redditor calling himself DogmaDog.
The other day Mr. Dog wandered into a discussion of the SlutWalks in the Feminisms and offered his two cents: he declared them “stupid,” and suggested that they won’t really help victims.
And then he started in on his own tale of woe.
I know I’m going to be shit on for saying what I’m about to say, but please hear me out.
Not a promising start, Dog.
I’ve never raped a woman, and I’m the ‘nice guy’ who never took advantage of a woman.
Do you want an award for this?
But a girl I was infatuated with in high school blew me off and treated me disrespectfully. She ended up being raped one night, while intoxicated. I do not know how I am supposed to feel about it.
As Don Draper would say, “what?”
How do you think you’re “supposed” to feel? Did you accidentally dislodge the part of your brain responsible for basic human empathy?
Apparently, the answer to that is “yes.”
[H]ow do you suppose I am supposed to feel about this woman I knew who got raped? I mean, I’ve never taken advantage of a woman, but I don’t understand how my ‘friend’, this girl I went to high school with, could go out and party all the time, and in turn treat me, her classmate, as though I were an inferior person for not enjoying the atmosphere of drunkenness at high school parties.
As it turns out, you’re an inferior person for an entirely different reason.
That girl was a mean girl, no? And by being disrespectful toward men, and prejudiced toward men, wasn’t she asking men to behave badly toward her? The only men she gave attention and physical affection to were the ones who hurt her back.
So let me see if I get this: she didn’t go out with you, a “nice guy,” so she was therefore “asking” to be raped?
Naturally, this being the Feminisms subreddit, and not The Spearhead, some of the regular commenters took exception to Mr. Dog’s victim-blaming and his complete lack of empathy for the victim – especially strange, since Dog, who says he is suffering from an (unspecified) mental illness, considers himself “a victim, in my own way,” of prejudice towards those with mental health issues. This experience, alas, has not given him any sympathy towards other vicitms.
Indeed, it seems that DogmaDog didn’t misplace his sense of empathy after all; rather, he threw it out of the house and got a restraining order against it. Responding to someone who suggested he show a little empathy, Dog lashed out:
Your empathy can go suck a dick. Empathy does nothing to help my situation. I suppose that is just the excuse people give themselves so that they can feel like they are actually doing something.
You basically called me an inferior human being because I can’t or won’t empathize for my friend who was raped. Well, ask yourself this, smart-ass, have you ever really wondered what good your empathy does? It does nothing. …
In reality, you are doing nothing but attacking me, and I may or may not have a ‘complex’, even though I don’t know what that is, but I can guarantee you, I HAVE NEVER RAPED ANYONE!!!
The sound you hear is me banging my head, ever so softly, on my desk. Empathy is what connects human beings to one another, what allows them to understand one another on a deep level.
When people are suffering – as you are, Dog, in dealing with your mental illness – a little bit of empathy from someone else can make all the difference in the world.
If you can’t feel even a little bit of sympathy for this woman you were once “infatuated” with, you’re not a nice guy at all; you’re an even bigger asshole than those drunken high school partiers you disdain. You may never have raped anyone — as you’ve repeatedly insisted, as if this should win you a prize – but “in your own way” you’re thinking like an abuser. Your lack of empathy for the victim, your continued bitterness towards her for turning you down, your sense of wounded narcissism; none of this is healthy, for you or for anyone who comes into contact with you.
You need help, dude. Please, please get it.
Again with the, “it’s just good advice” about “don’t dress like a tramp.”
Ok… define for me please what it is that makes one a “slut” in appearance.
Explain to me why it is that such dress is something women need to avoid so that men won’t be dickheads.
Want to know the difference between an unlocked car and a style of dress?
Cars don’t have agency. Violating a car’s perimeter isn’t the same as violating a person’s autonomous self.
Tell me, if I am in Bakersfield California, and I choose to wear a Los Angeles Dodge’s shirt, am I “asking for it”, should someone beat me up?
What about wearing it in San Jose? Or San Francisco?
What if I wear a Giant’s Shirt to a game in Los Angeles? Should that be justification for getting my head beat in?
As to the “how cool would it be to find women interested in your hobbies, re gaming… I presume you missed the event where, to prevent the harms of men being dicks to women; they banned the women.
As for the education thing, I’m really not an expert on the issue, I can only say what I’ve heard – that girls are advantaged throughout the education system and like you said, colleges are becoming dominated by women.
So… you admit you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Got it, so noted.
“… I still don’t see proof of your assertion that women are somehow looked down upon for their sexuality…”
Really? Did you miss the entire thread with Susan Walsh?
Ick. I hate it when clueless cupcakes agree with me and then prove themselves to be clueless cupcakes.
Here’s some shocking news for you Johnny boy: WOMEN ARE NOT INANIMATE OBJECTS. To compare RAPE to someone stealing a fucking laptop is dehumanizing, dismissive and psychotically misogynistic. They are not the same thing. I shudder to think what sort of doctor you’re going to make if you’re not smart enough to know something so basic.
Two: the way a woman dresses has fuck-all to do with “risky behavior”. Rapists are at fault. RAPISTS. Those who chose to commit the crime of rape are to blame. Keep repeating this to yourself until you understand how reality works.
That you don’t see proof that female sexuality is shamed is just proof that you’re a clueless cupcake who hasn’t the first clue what the fuck he’s prattling on about.
That’s okay though, there’s whole site designed to educate the terminally ignorant. It’s called Feminism 101. Have fun!
Okay, in fairness I found out that Giuliani actually does support federal funding for stem cell research. Good for him. However, though I can’t figure out the specifics right now, I’d bet that Obama’s funding is still more expansive.
Of course, Giuliani one of the most liberal Republicans in the entire party, and the radicals won’t allow him to take the nomination. As of now, I’d guess it will be either Romney or Perry, both of whom are unacceptable.
MRAL – thank you for the link!
“He might have been misguided, but it sounds like he thought he was warning them about a risky behavior. That’s not condemning women for having sex lives, anymore than saying “you shouldn’t leave your car unlocked with an expensive laptop in the back seat” is a condemnation of people who drive cars and use laptops.”
Why, hello there, tired analogy, how have you been?
“That’s not condemning women for having sex lives, anymore than saying “you shouldn’t leave your car unlocked with an expensive laptop in the back seat” is a condemnation of people who drive cars and use laptops.”
Are you a fucking moron? Not locking your car door actually makes it easier to steal. It may increase the likelihood of being stolen from. The officer pushed a myth that wasn’t true, a victim blaming myth that puts the responsibility for rape on women for daring to have a sex life.
“Other than that, sorry, I still don’t see proof of your assertion that women are somehow looked down upon for their sexuality. Do you have maybe a specific case in mind?””
You could read the front page of the blog and see a lot of it. Read comment sections on non-feminist sites about slutwalk.
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/08/15/hookinguprealities/why-you-dont-have-a-boyfriend-harsh-truth-edition/
Or this, or others.
“As for the education thing, I’m really not an expert on the issue, I can only say what I’ve heard – that girls are advantaged throughout the education system and like you said, colleges are becoming dominated by women.”
You heard mostly wrong, from ignoramuses. Women are not advantaged at all in primary schooling. They’re at the least heavily disadvantaged in particular fields in secondary schooling. At the graduate level they are also disadvantaged in numerous fields (That is to say, it’s not just engineering, mathematics, and computer-related fields where female grad students are disadvantaged relative to male grad students). It’s possible that women are advantaged elsewhere, and they certainly exist in higher numbers. Considering that women’s advantaging in education has at best a 4 year gap, which is denied and completely reversed in some extremely important and prestigious fields (Though not all prestigious fields, certainly), it’s rather specious and inaccurate to claim that women are advantaged throughout education.
“No gender bias that I can see.”
It’s extraordinarily difficult to see institutional bias that doesn’t affect you merely by interacting with the institution, so I bet not.
Wow, there’s a lot here. Ok, where to start…
That’s an interesting list, but I don’t see what it has to do with what I said. It says “don’t assault people”, which I agree with, so I don’t know what your point is. Where did I blame victims or say assault was ok?
Pecunium:
I don’t know what constitues “slutty” to you. To most people, it’d be overtly sexy, revealing clothes. But if you read my post above, I don’t necessarily agree with that officer. I said that he thought he was giving honest advice about behavior that puts women at risk. Whether he was right or not is a matter of debate, but how does “if you dress like this, you may be more susceptible to being targeted by predators” equal “shaming women’s sexuality?
It’s about the owner of the car vs. the owner of the body doing things which are risky. It’s not a perfect analogy, I’ll admit. Maybe a better one would have been “walking around a high-crime neighborhood flashing jewelry and wads of cash”. Or the ones you provide below:
Well, actually, yes, if you’re in the wrong part of town wearing certain sports t-shirts (not to mention gang colors), or at a game like you said, you are more likely to get beat up. Such things have happened. In some towns you’re even warned about this sort of thing, especially around major sports events. It doesn’t mean your attackers were right or justified, they’re still criminals, but your choice to wear those items put you at higher risk than you would have been otherwise. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand about that.
Wow, way to be an arrogant jerk. I admitted I wasn’t an expert on education, which is why I specifically said “this is what I’ve heard” in reply to Rutee, who hasn’t given any proof of her statements either. If she has proof that women are disadvantaged in elementary education, I’ll accept it.
I did, actually. Sorry, I haven’t been here for long.
Bruce McGlory – see my reply to Pecunium above. Also, I’d ask you to cool it with the attitude and the personal attacks. I haven’t attacked or insulted anyone here, the least you could do is extend the same courtesy.
Okay…
Sorry for perpetuating the Antz’ derail, but I feel I have to address this:
“TREAT UNPAID CHILD SUPPORT LIKE ANY OTHER DEBIT.”
Assuming you mean “debt”, you make the mistake of assuming all debts other than unpaid child support are the same. They are not. If you owe money to the government because you deliberately refuse to pay taxes, you will go to jail. If you owe money to a private person or an entity because you committed fraud, forgery or a criminal act, and you refuse to pay, you will go to jail. If you work off the books in order to avoid your financial liabilities, you will go to jail.
The Bankruptcy Code also treats different debts differently. Tax debts cannot be discharged ever, ever, ever. Neither can student loans (with a very narrow exception that almost never applies). Neither can judgments recorded against you for acts of deception or reimbursing crime victims. True, after the recent Bankruptcy Code reform, it’s tough to discharge any kind of debt, but still, without going into any of the boring detail, some debts are tougher to shake off than others.
Or do you mean that unpaid child support debt should be treated like a commercial debt? If so, why? Children aren’t commodities. They cannot be mortgaged, repossessed, sold or disassembled for spare parts. What makes you conclude that supporting one’s progeny is more like a commercial transaction than a civil and moral obligation more similar to paying taxes or repaying student loans? I’m sorry, but “Child support should be treated the same as credit card debt ’cause I said so” isn’t an argument. You have to explain your reasoning here.
You are also wrong in your belief that commercial debt collection stops with repossessing all your property and money. Although big companies that do business at bulk may leave the debtor alone at that point, the law actually provides for much harsher remedies than that.
=====================================================================
On women being responsible for thwarting rapists: Although it’s important to point out that the definition of a slutty outfit and slutty behavior is far too vague to be a guide, I feel that still misses the point.
We don’t generally don’t berate victims of other crimes for bringing it upon themselves through reckless behavior. Up to a point, you may say, but still: a man walking through a dark alley wearing a Rolex is unlikely to be deemed “asking for it” by many people. And that is because rape is still seen as a means of social control and just punishment for women acting in ways that don’t conform to everyone’s diverse ideas of proper behavior.
Whenever I hear these arguments, I remember how, shortly after 9/11, an article appeared in a New York newspaper purporting to give people advice on how to best avoid being victims of terrorism. Basically, it boiled down to being aware of one’s environment and exercising good judgment. Which sounds like good advice on the surface, but there was a rush of angry letters to the editor asking the perfectly legitimate question: In what way did people who simply went to work that morning, or boarded an airplane, failed to exercise good judgment? Okay, you can say that if you “choose” to fly or to work in a landmark building, you undertake a greater risk of becoming a victim of terrorism than if you instead opt for being a farmer in Buttfuck, Middle-of-Nowhere. But should people really be advised to go to such extremes and to curtail their lives in this fashion? Terrorism is horrible and wrong, and it will probably always be a threat; but the fact that it’s a threat doesn’t mean we respond to it by living in a bunker. I just wish people more readily applied the same logic to the relationship between sluttiness and rape.
You must have missed the part of your comments that I quoted. I see I was too nuanced, perhaps I can make it clearer:
cynickal: I already answered that above. It was about the car’s OWNER doing something risky, not about the car itself. But your snark and hostility are noted.
No, which is why at this point I’m not engaging you anymore. I’m not having a discussion with someone who resorts to attacks and insults in lieu of a point. And if this is how you normally interact with people, I feel sorry for you.
That’s a good point. I suppose they could have tried to team together and overpowered the terrorists? But yeah, it’s not an easy answer.
He might still be told that he was doing something risky, or that he shouldn’t walk through dark alleys wearing a Rolex in general. Though you’re right, I doubt anyone would say “you got what you deserved, rich boy” if he got robbed.
The other thing that wouldn’t happen is that if he reported it, nobody would question whether a crime had been committed. His previous wearing of Rolex watches (or other types of watches) in other places would not be brought up as relevant to the assault he’d experienced. Etc.
I have a question – in cases where a man is a victim of rape, do you ever hear people discussing his clothing choices as relevant to the situation?
tatjna – that’s a fair question. I can’t think of any cases where a man was a victim of rape, so I don’t know. Then again, men’s clothing is not generally considered ‘sexy’ or ‘revealing’ as much as women’s.
But this is already moving off-topic again. The original issue was Rutee’s claim that the Slutwalks were a direct response to women being “shamed about their sexuality”. I said that an officer warning them that dressing a certain way might attract predators (a debatable claim, as we’ve seen) does not constitute “shaming”. Furthermore, this was the basis of Rutee’s argument that “we still have to deal with the same “Women can’t have sex” narrative all the time, everywhere” which she has yet to substantiate as far as I’m concerned.
I think the mugger in question might be more likely to say “You got what you deserved, rich boy.” Just as a rapist would would likely say “You got what you deserved, you slut.” The key difference is that the mugger is far less likely to have a significant portion of the population agree with that statement.
Right, because women in burqas (who get raped) are dressed slutty because they reveal…their eyes. And young children (who are raped) are dressed slutty because they reveal…where their secondary sexual characteristics might develop years later. And sleeping women are raped thanks to their slutty pajamas. And married women are raped by their husbands on account of their slutty wedding rings. And girlfriends are raped on a movie-night-date due to their slutty sweatpants and bunny slippers. And elderly or disabled women who are raped by their carers probably used slutty mobility devices.
So if we don’t dress like any of that — not fully covered, not young, not in pajamas, not wearing wedding rings, not wearing bunny slippers, not using mobility devices — we’ll be safe! Yep, that’s some quality fucking advice there!
Dressing a certain way will not attract (or protect against) predators. So the officer is saying something untrue, and is saying it in an effort to make young women dress and behave in a way he deems appropriate. So he is using an opinion about their “slutty” clothes — and the accompanying threat of someone trying to rape them, and them being perceived as deserving of it — to control their behavior.
Perception of unworth/bad behavior as social control. If that’s not “shaming” I don’t know what is.
So, why isn’t men’s clothing considered sexy or revealing? Why are women’s bodies about sex, and why aren’t men’s?
Because the answer to those questions will lead you in the direction of what everyone here is getting at – women are sexualised by society, and women’s sexuality has been a tool of social control one way another for a very long time. Look up the madonna/whore dichotomy. Consider why women were traditionally expected to be virgins on marriage. Consider the way women are portrayed in media as objects of desire, then go read the comments on any mainstream article about women’s sexuality. Witness the number of uses of ‘skank’, ‘ho’, ‘slut’. Read this article:
http://days.maybemaimed.com/post/6436018453/when-sex-positive-is-a-euphemism-for-male-gaze
So woman are considered to be inherently sexual by most of society, yet if we exercise that sexuality we get labelled ‘slut’. And that police officer condoned this view by suggesting that the way a woman dresses may contribute to her likelihood of rape. Which is bollocks, by the way – how someone was dressed has no statistical significance in studies of reported rapes.
So dress is not a factor and yet this myth persists that a woman in revealing clothing is asking for sex and the subtext of that is that if she’s raped, she brought it on herself for being a slut (which implies she deserved to be punished for displaying her sexuality).
Confused yet? Imagine what it’s like to ~be~ a woman, to experience this attitude as part of your daily life, then to try to explain it to people over and over again and have them argue back at you with the same arguments you’ve heard before, that support the status quo. Perhaps it would be less surprising that people get het up about it.
Bagelsan: If I told you “it’s unsafe to walk around this neighborhood alone at night”, would you perceive it as me trying to control your behavior?
“I have a question – in cases where a man is a victim of rape, do you ever hear people discussing his clothing choices as relevant to the situation?”
I have what I think is an even better analogy: In cases where a man is a victim of a false rape accusation, do you ever hear people discussing his less-than-saintly (though not illegal) behavior as relevant to the situation? I find it funny, for example, that those Duke Lacrosse Players hired strippers, told those strippers to perform unthinkable acts, circulated an e-mail about skinning a woman with a razor and ejaculating on her corpse — and people still call them “innocent kids”. And I certainly have never heard anyone admonish young men that they should try harder to avoid false rape accusations by acting less rapey and leading more virtuous lives.
“Then again, men’s clothing is not generally considered ‘sexy’ or ‘revealing’ as much as women’s.”
JohnnyB: a bikini is more revealing than a low-cut top, and yet, beaches don’t have any higher rates of rape than surrounding areas where women are dressed less revealingly. Furthermore, the fact that rape is a crime of opportunity, that rapists plan their attacks, take steps to avoid leaving behind evidence and make calculated efforts to evade capture prove that, contrary to popular opinion, rape isn’t caused by an uncontrollable sexual urge. If men indeed lost their ability to reason upon seeing cleavage, they would pounce on women in broad daylight, in public places, in front of police officers. But they don’t: and this proves that rape is, to a large extent, a way to punish a woman for a perceived social transgression, at least in cases where the victim ostensibly gets raped because she dresses like a “slut”. As with my discussion of terrorism, the way to address that isn’t to lecture women on how to cower and conform to moral standards that rapists impose on them, but to challenge the popular perception that men are in a position to punish “slutty” women by raping them.
Unsafe for who, Johnny? Just people like me? And based on what?
tatjna: Those are actually quite good points. I didn’t think of it that way, so it’s something to ponder. And it’s good to see that some people here are still able to have a polite discussion and not throw a hissy fit when their views are questioned. 😉
BTW, for what it’s worth, I never said nor implied that women (or men for that matter) “deserve” to be attacked for what they’re wearing, and I’d never support someone who believed that.
On the subject of sexy-looking women being “slutty”, I recall a story my mother told me about the time she started college in a certain Eastern European country in the late 1960’s. By the way, I should say at this point that while leftists are often associated with communism here in the West, Eastern European communists were (and still are) actually staunch moral conservatives of a surprisingly fundamentalist mold. Anyway, at that time, in order to be admitted, it was not enough to pass entrance exams: one also had to undergo medical examinations to prove one’s good health and to demonstrate “good moral character”.
A few days after those entrance exams, my mother’s roommate, a rather plump girl with luxurious bosoms, came home crying. The university revoked her admission on the ground that she did not have good moral character. The basis for that determination? The entrance committee observed that she had a voluptuous figure and concluded that she was promiscuous. They based this decision on an old folk belief that a virtuous woman should look more androgenous, but that fucking makes women’s breasts grow and their hips get wider. The more sex you have, the more voluptuous you look. One committee member went so far as to insinuate that this girl probably had had children out of wedlock. So let’s recap: A girl got thrown out of college because she had slut-sized breasts. The university did ultimately reinstate her, but it took a dossier of reports from several physicians (1) certifying that she was a virgin and (2) explaining in great detail that breast size and the width of a woman’s hips are determined by genetics and, to a lesser extent, nutrition, rather than whether or not she is sexually active.
Johnny_b, we have another commenter here who just LOVES the flashing cash in a bad neighborhood and getting mugged analogy when talking about how women dress. Or waving steaks in front of starving people, that’s another classic. Try harder.
Ah, the old voluptuous = whore trope. I know it well.