I’m still officially on my Man Boobz staycation, but I felt I needed to mention yet another example of a woman saying that men can stop rape … and getting rape threats in return.
Political analyst Zerlina Maxwell went on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News earlier this week and made the terrible mistake of suggesting to a hostile audience that men aren’t really doing any favors to women by telling them to arm themselves against rapists. Instead, as Salon notes, she said this:
“I don’t think that we should be telling women anything. I think we should be telling men not to rape women and start the conversation there.” She told Hannity, “You’re talking about this as if it’s some faceless, nameless criminal, when a lot of times it’s someone you know and trust,” adding, “If you train men not to grow up to become rapists, you prevent rape.”
Indeed, increased rape awareness has contributed to a dramatic decrease in rape over the last thirty years.
But apparently a lot of men were shocked – shocked! – that a woman would suggest that their patronizing advice was less likely to prevent rape than rape prevention education aimed at the demographic group that is responsible for the overwhelmng majority of rapes. That is, men.
So, naturally, the angriest of these men decided they would show Maxwell just how wrong she was … by threatening her with rape on Twitter.
Here’s just one example:
Rape culture in action.
Maxwell’s supporters have stepped up to defend her and her remarks, and have started a hashtag — #TYZerlina — to continue the discussion. If you’re on Twitter, join in .
Here’s the Fox News segment in question featuring Maxwell:
I know Dawkins and love lots of things about him as a fellow biologist and atheist but, fuuuuuuuuck, just shut up about matters pertaining to marginalisation you can’t grasp, old timer. I get it – you don’t believe you’d feel uncomfortable or slighted in that situation and can’t understand why I would. That’s OK. You don’t have to understand my perspective. It’s not OK to proceed to tell me I shouldn’t feel the way I do though or that the only reason I do feel the way I do is because I assume the worst in men. It’s not OK to throw around psychoanalysis designed to dismiss my feelings as the products of irrationality just because you don’t share them with me.
WWII term? What on earth are you talking about? And what sort of twit hangs around a forum where they’ve made themselves unpopular, digging in deeper, and trying to ramp up the aggression, and then going wahhh you’ve been nasty to me, I’m all hurt?
Oh yeah, trolls.
Someone who’s really trying to have a normal conversation would have had the maturity to bow out by now. But then … we’re not really talking mature, here, are we? You’ve lost it far too quickly.
Yeah, Cassandra, he’s sort of given himself away, focussing on you, and doing this ME ME ME derail.
Just when I think I’ve seen all the stupid there is to see, someone comes out with a time cube <- Dawkins
HI Kitteh,
I agree with you on evo psych, particlarly for rape. That is like trying to suss the evo reason for violence. I am not suggesting there cannot be one. Chimpanzies are violent, whereas bonobos are not, so selection for violence can occur. But humans appear to choose to be violent for reasons that nothing to do with reproductive success. For example, choosing to carjack someone to make money…I don’t see any reproductive selection in that act.
WARNING: The aformentioned opinion is not that of a biologist, just some guy. Those of you who actually understand biology, please pile on the corrections. 🙂
Does this make him a tool kit or the Swiss army knife of tools?
I wish ithiliana was around with her access to academic journals, because I’d love to know if anyone’s done a study on the psychological reasons why people troll.
@CassandraSays:
Hey, that really hurt!
So anyone read ‘The God Delusion’ here? I tried but it was boring and I didn’t finish it.
Swiss army knife, in that he does many things but none of them particularly well.
I don’t think Dawkins’ shitty attributes justify dismissive attitudes towards real issues he speaks to anymore than I find his assumptions about how much damage an individual is allowed to incur from a particular form of abuse based on his thoughts and experiences is helpful to survivors of any kind of abuse.
I’ve actually never much liked Dawkins. There’s something about his tone that just grates, especially when he’s speaking rather than writing. He’s just so smug.
Well, if nothing else, Poxy just confirmed that ze isn’t new around here. Knowing who MRAL is = been here before. The overall troll package points to MRAL.
marinerachel — idk if I was clear in my sleepy state, but I agree with your various points (Dawkins is a shitty person, trying to police how hurt someone is allowed to be is wrong, etc) and I’m sorry for any and all hurt I caused. And also sorry that religion was used to hurt you.
And now I’m going to bed since I’m sure I’ve ceased making sense! G’night guys!
An evo-psych interpretation would be, ah, interesting.
LOL!
marinerachel, to reiterate: I am not dismissing the harm done by religious abuse. I do think Dawkins makes a sweeping statement, in that he brackets any and all religious upbringing as abuse; frankly on the subject of religion or faith I think he talks more bullshit than anything worth hearing, or anything anyone else hasn’t said better. His sheer bigotry on so many matters put him into the category where I don’t value his opinions on anything.
Even when I agree with Dawkins I still often think that he’s being a jerk in terms of how he expressed his ideas. Also, he often wants to provoke and irritate people, so I think it’s a bit silly to be offended on his behalf when people do indeed react to him with irritation.
@The K…
passive-aggressive.
@Argenti:
Does it occur to you that I might have been lurking?
@marinerachel:
He claims that when the first time he said that “religious indoctrination >> sexual abuse”, the audience applauded enthusiastically. I wouldn’t have expected that.
Feel free to re-lurk, no one seems that interested in having you here.
(NB to all non-troll lurkers, please feel free to un-lurk, I wouldn’t want to put anyone nice off. *puts out tea, biscuits and nametags*)
I agree with him that religious indoctrination is as unacceptable as slapping a political label on a child. I don’t disagree with his assessments of belief or faith either. I think he’s off his nut when he dictates how much trauma an individual can experience from a particular form of abuse. I’m embarrassed when he tells people why they should or shouldn’t feel harmed based on his personal experiences and with a complete lack of willingness to examine the reality many of us have more social obstacles than he ever did. I wish he’d just shut up on matters that are the result of marginalisation he doesn’t experience and cannot see because this is when the awful snide, condescending, dismissive, privilege-blind old man that everyone is kind of embarrassed for if they aren’t directly hurt by him emerges.
He’s basically the only person who will speak up for those of us who have been really seriously harmed by religious indoctrination and to a lesser degree by sexual assault though (we’re assumed not to exist by most and a lot of us thought there was something wrong with us prior to reading The God Delusion and discovering we’re not the only one) and the fact he goes about presenting the matter in such a profoundly offensive way is disheartening. This is worsened by constant jabs from others about how he sucks at and is wrong about everything. Not only do people think we’re full of it but the one person speaking to the matter that pertains to us is providing critics with ammunition against us. It sucks.
I totally get and respect that people hate him. I hate that, should he speak to my feelings, they will be automatically dismissed as without value by many.
But I don’t think arguments of desperate defense attorneys (or excuses by family members of perps, for that matter) are good evidence for societal beliefs.
Then you aren’t thinking it through. An advocate is required to put in the best defense they can. When an attorney is desperate they appeal to the emotions of the jury. They are asking for a form of jury nullification by showing them something they believe to be acceptable, in fact, even though it violates the law.
That argument is a direct appeal to the societal norms: “good girls don’t get raped, and bad girls get what they deserve.” If he can convince them she is, “a bad girl” then she deserved her rape and the men who raped her were the victims.
That he thinks it has a chance means he thinks the social norms make it possible such an argument would prevail means there are, “grey areas” when it comes to people who choose to rape children.
Oh, wait: I just said that they are not good evidence I see now that what you are doing, when facing a refuting comment is to make a “no true scotsman” defense.
Nope. That he thinks it might prevail (and one wonders how you know the attorney in question is “desperate”, as opposed his being one who has accurately read his jury… nice job of tilting the playing field), means there is that social grey area you want to deny.
I wouldn’t have expected that either. I constantly get told I’m full of shit and my feelings on the matter are invalid.
Dawkins is rolling in his wealth right now, safe from criticism unless he chooses to expose himself to it. He’s got nothing to be offended by. I’m not offended for him. I’m offended for me and everyone who shares my position who are reminded that we’re not taken seriously every time we hear that Dawkins is wrong about everything, yo.
I don’t know what goes on in his head and have no reason to believe he’s intentionally irksome. I get the impression he’s just too arrogant to realise how pompous he comes off and that people have good reason to be annoyed by him.
Lurking long enough to know about Mr Al but not long enough to have picked up any idea of how to behave in a comments thread? Riiiight.
I think that much like Hitchens he likes getting up people’s noses just to prove that he can sometimes. Also, I’m pretty sure that when people say they don’t like Dawkins they don’t mean that they think he’s wrong about everything. I think he’s right about a lot of things and he still irritates me because he’s a pompous, arrogant old man.
marinerachel – part of the problem is his arrogance, definitely; part is that he’s weak on things like theology and church history, and more interested in polemic than anything else. So yeah … it’s a damn shame that he should be one of the few (only?) people in a position to be heard on the issue of religious abuse, because he belittles all those other abuses and marginalisations, and because there’s pre-existing hostility because of his general doucheyness. At the very least, bringing religious abuse in with sexual abuse and then saying sexual abuse wasn’t so bad was an incredibly stupid thing to do.
Cassandra: I have a friend who keeps trying to get me to try the “coffee sticks” from Korea, where you just add water to get cappucino, etc. Generally Korea makes great coffee, but I’m just not buying the idea that the instant kind with “milk” included is worth drinking.
They are a pleasant beverage, and comforting, in the way a decent cup of instant cocoa can be. They will never be what we tend to think of as, “coffee”, but so long as one isn’t trying to use them as one would, “coffee” they can be very good.
They add to the variety in the world.
I feel like that issue is a perfect illustration of where Dawkins goes wrong – he’s so insensitive that either it doesn’t occur to him that a lot of victims of sexual abuse are going to push back really hard because they’re hurt by his comments, or he does realize that and think it’ll be great publicity.
Those coffee sticks sound a bit like the tubes of Nescafe “just add water” cappucino and latte we get here. Tried ’em, didn’t like ’em – too thin and not that much flavour.
I think that’s my issue with a lot of instant drinks, if you follow the instructions you usually end up with a drink that’s too thin and weak for my tastes. You can improve that by using less water, but then you end up with a really small drink.