Categories
a voice for men antifeminism memes misogyny MRA rape culture

The MRA Meme That Would Not Die: "Teaching men not to rape is like teaching drivers not to run people over!"

Found on A Voice for Men's Facebook page.  Clicm on pic for link.
Found on A Voice for Men’s Facebook page. Click on pic for link.

Yes, MRAs, you’re right: Teaching men not to rape IS like teaching drivers not to run people over.

Where you go wrong is in assuming that teaching people either of these things is ridiculous. Learning about consent is a good thing for men, and for women. So is learning to drive before you get behind the wheel.

That’s why driver’s ed classes — which generally promote a “no hitting people with your car” doctrine — are a standard part of the high school curriculum, and why would-be drivers have to take a driver’s test before they get their licence. Running people over during  the test itself is generally frowned upon, and may preclude you from passing it.

Should we assume that MRAs would also prefer it if men didn’t have to pass driver’s test in order to drive? Are they so insulted by the notion of anyone telling them what to do that we should abandon any and all moral and practical teachings aimed at boys and men?

Are they still pissed off at their mothers (and/or fathers) for insisting, when they were young boys, that they not run around punching people? Are they still angry that their parents forced them to start using the toilet instead of shitting their pants?

I suppose these questions are better left up to the professionals.

In the meantime, here are a couple more iterations of this ridiculous meme. The first one I found on AVFM’s Facebook page a while ago. I don’t remember where I found the other one.

antifemgraphcrosswalk2

 

feministlogic

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

146 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
because reasons
because reasons
5 years ago

Oh, goody, it went through with no problems. Phew!

I just feel like shaking these guys and asking “why do you hate women so much?” Because really, isn’t that the root of all this? If they didn’t hate women, they wouldn’t get their feathers all ruffled trying to discuss rape. They wouldn’t have a problem with feminism, either. 🙁 So much unnecessary hate. It hurts my brain and my heart.

because reasons
because reasons
5 years ago
M.
M.
5 years ago

Part of the reason these people scoff at “teach men not to rape” campaigns is that, in their mind, the men who rape have chosen to do so and will never be convinced to do otherwise, while the men who don’t rape already know not to do it and therefore never will.

Of course, the irony is every last one of the people who say that are pro-rape and likely to be rapists themselves (or are admitted rapists, in Roosh’s case). Well, half-ironic and half-totally expected, anyway.

@Flying Mouse

Ah, good, thankyou for the update links. I should have checked that before flying off the virtual handle, heh. ^^; Whoo, berserk buttons.

because reasons
because reasons
5 years ago

And in other news, this actually happened:
http://happyplace.someecards.com/im-just-a-bill/new-hampshire-lawmaker-rips-fourth-grade-classs-bill-for-a-new-state-raptor-to-shreds/

Yea, just some kids wanting to learn how laws are made, getting schooled by some asshat who like to take jabs at reproductive rights as often as possible, no matter the context.

J. Schmidt
J. Schmidt
5 years ago

Part of the reason these people scoff at “teach men not to rape” campaigns is that, in their mind, the men who rape have chosen to do so and will never be convinced to do otherwise, while the men who don’t rape already know not to do it and therefore never will.

If that’s true, their ideas aren’t coherent. We need to teach people how to cross the road safely because, even with the best driving lessons, mistakes can happen in the fraction of a second and that’s all it takes. Car accidents happen fast, and are accidents.

If men are raping deliberately, then it isn’t comparable to car accidents.

katz
5 years ago

Yea, just some kids wanting to learn how laws are made, getting schooled by some asshat who like to take jabs at reproductive rights as often as possible, no matter the context.

Welp, they’re learning how laws are made, all right.

because reasons
because reasons
5 years ago

@katz
Right?! Hopefully this will encourage them to get more involved and change the process…given how many douchecanoes are currently in charge.

Over in Congress:
Next on the docket, a bill to raise taxes on [insert any mundane item].
“Rabble rabble! All my taxes already go to fund abortions!”

zoon echon logon
zoon echon logon
5 years ago

Even if we ignore the many disanalogies, rape apologia and support for male victims of rape is generally incompatible*. Does a man who was raped while he was drunk and sexy† bear similar responsibility for what happened to him as someone who was hit by a car because he jumped out into traffic?

*Unless you also hold that men and women are radically different in that men can’t control themselves. This is both untrue and a pretty horrible and belittling thing to believe about men.

†Or too unobservant to notice a roofie, or trusted the wrong person, or accepted favors from the wrong person, or was flirting with someone he didn’t intend to immediately have sex with, or was in the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time, or whatever bullshit reasons these assholes think justify rape.

C.
C.
5 years ago

Cars have a legitimate purpose and an inherent flaw in that purpose is that careless people may end up being hit (if the driver can’t avoid it). As a society we have decided the convenience of cars outweighs the risk of accidents and we teach everyone how to avoid causing or suffering harm. By contrast, there is no accepted benefit to people going around raping careless people, so it is wrong to even label the victims as careless. Wandering into the street is careless because that is a designated space for cars and the normal operation of cars poses a risk. There is no designated space for sex without consent which a person could carelessly wander into and find themselves mistakenly victimized by a person going about proper, acceptable behavior.

skybison
skybison
5 years ago

[quote]Should we assume that MRAs would also prefer it if men didn’t have to pass driver’s test in order to drive?[/quote]

Well I did know a guy once who was, well not quite an MRA but did have some anti-femminist leanings and was a self-described Anarcho-Capitalist who was against government mandated driver’s licenses and laws against speeding or drinking and driving. Because if the police give someone a ticket for speeding, that government coercion and therefore the same thing as fascism and slavery. Instead you should just let the free market decide who can drive safely.

Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
5 years ago

Instead you should just let the free market decide who can drive safely.

I’d say that fines for unsafe driving could be interpreted as exactly that, as it would mean that only rich people could get away with being regularly unsafe.

Sarah
Sarah
5 years ago

But, your Honor, she didn’t say she didn’t want to get run over!

Sarah
Sarah
5 years ago

Also, yes girls and women are taught what precautions, people and devices they can rely on to be safer and reduce the risk of rape. And then PUAs call those “cockblocks” and teach each other how to get around them.

Tina S
Tina S
5 years ago

College is a terrifying experience if you’re a male?!? Pet a cactus ya big baby.

Boogerghost
5 years ago

Yeah, Problem One with this analogy is pretty obvious, and Problem Two is that the thing they’re comparing to recklessly running across a busy street outside the designated pedestrian areas is… pretty much existing while female.

It’s just like the “leaving a pile of cash out” metaphor or the “leaving your car unlocked” metaphor. You’re a female, so obviously your very presence just screams for someone to violate your bodily integrity unless you deliberately cloak your femaleness or have someone keep on eye on it for you. It’s assumed that anyone who could get away with violating you will want to do so. And then they’re shaming you for not assuming that too.

It’s hilarious that they’re trying to be snarky with the phrase “victim blaming” when really there’s no more perfect definition of that term than this meme. Hilarious and terrifying.

@Tina S Heeheehee, I’ve never heard that one before, may I borrow it?

Bear
Bear
5 years ago

I’m sorry, but … is that crossing guard Bill Cosby? *squint*

Flying Mouse
Flying Mouse
5 years ago

@M – It was perfectly logical to me. Why wouldn’t you conclude that the story ended with “slap on the wrist and much victim blaming?” That’s how things usually go. The only reason I remembered a news story from 2013 was that there was outcry and an effort to correct the mistakes, because those are rare.

That’s depressing. Might be time for a drink.

wordsp1nner
wordsp1nner
5 years ago

Sigh… at least one police detective in Australia thinks that being in a park alone during daylight is not allowed for women, and that if they don’t want to be murdered, they shouldn’t be alone in public.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/masa-vukotic-had-the-right-to-be-in-a-park-alone-victoria-police-must-apologise-for-saying-she-didnt

Mieze
Mieze
5 years ago

I don’t think they’re right. Most drivers don’t see someone crossing the street and immediately try to hit her, possibly run her over repeatedly and then speed away laughing and/or bragging about it.

Though if there were a driver like that it would most likely be an MRA.

M.
M.
5 years ago

… And he only said “Girls” and “Females,” never (as far as I heard, unless I missed something while I was facepalming) “Women.” Fucking asswit.

Kudos to the interviewer for at least trying to call him out on that and emphasising the word WOMEN, though.

totallyalphadudebro
totallyalphadudebro
5 years ago

“But officer, it’s not my fault! She just ran out right in front of my penis!”

Yup, ladies must take responsibility for their actions (existing while female), but men are just dicks on wheels (“if I see a tunnel, I’m speeding right for it! I’m a hunk of machinery, I can’t step on my own brakes”).

Oh, the never ending douchebaggery.

Shaenon
5 years ago

Yes, if you’re such a persistent, aggressive asshole that literally everyone in your class wishes you were gone, you might have to sit out of a group discussion, at no impact on your grades or the rest of your educational experience.

Way back in prehistory when I was in college, there were students who wanted to commandeer every class discussion to rant about their favorite political theory. There were students who wanted to natter on about random thoughts that popped into their heads. There was one student who wanted to spend class standing on her head whenever she was in a “headstand mood.”

All of these people were tolerated until they started to interfere with the students who were actually there to learn, at which point they were asked to shut up or leave. Is this controversial now?

Megarom Stingscream (@EVE_Megarom)

Considering the history of jaywalking adds another level of silliness to this meme.
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

misseb47
misseb47
5 years ago

“The photo of the crosswalk with a crossing guard holding a stop sign is just perfect for this. I’m not sure there’s a better illustration of telling drivers not to run people over.” Yep. Of course the irony is completely lost on them again. The MRAs who made these pathetic memes forget that drivers ARE taught not to hit pedestrians! that they are made to read a rule book that not only teaches you who to give way for, how to overtake, how to park, how to do a three point turn, but also teaches you to stop at things called pedestrian crossings and to give way pedestrians on the road you are turning into. In fact it is mentioned no less than 13 times in the rule book (in the Australian ones, at least). Also, people have to pass a knowledge test before people can get behind the wheel. Not forgetting the driving test, of course. So it is strongly emphasized that running over people is wrong and that those who do so are held accountable and go to jail. Of course, you will get some people who drive like entailed morons, but without those laws, traffic deaths would be much higher. MRAs are also forgetting that pedestrians are also taught to take precautions while crossing the street (while at the same time forgetting that women already take precautions to avoid rape). Accidents do happen and people sometimes run across the road. But we don’t victim blame people getting run over, do we? But rape is never accidental, yet victim blaming is extremely common. So why can’t we teach men (since they are the vast majority of perpetrators) not to rape? But that would be misandry, of course.

Lady Mondegreen
Lady Mondegreen
5 years ago

Are they still angry that their parents forced them to start using the toilet instead of shitting their pants?

Don’t be silly, David. Paul Elam is still angry that his mother forced him to take diarrhea medicine instead of shitting his pants. But he and the rank and file have probably forgiven their mothers for the toilet training thing. Probably.

Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

Since we’re talking about rape apologia, and this popped up on my Twitter feed, I felt it’d be apprpro to share:

https://twitter.com/thereaIbanksy/status/578631996441661440/photo/1

Ice and Indigo
5 years ago

You have to like how the student’s go-to justification for making his fellow-students nervous was ‘I’m not a sheep’. That tells you so much, so fast, about where he’s getting his ideas.

But since we’re talking animals … I hear tell there’s an animal that (at least according to folk belief) always runs in the opposite direction from the one you try to pull it. It’s supposed to be so reliably and reflexively contrarian that you can ‘lead’ it forward by tying a string to its leg and pulling back.

It’s a pig. Think he’d be happier calling himself that?

LBT (with open writeathon!)

RE: Alan Robertshaw

It’s always worth fighting back (not that you should have to of course but anyway) for three reasons:

Part of my frustration with the encouragment to attack is that… well, YOU try punching your beloved grandfather in the face at the slightest provocation. Try explaining THAT to your family when you’re eight. (Oh, and don’t forget, dude’s ex-Navy who fought Nazis in WWII.)

Like, I understand why this advice exists, but all of the people who ever attacked me were people I had extremely strong mental blocks about attacking. (Relatives, romantic partners.) And I think that’s a good thing! I’d be kinda alarmed if I was just suddenly a-OK with punching my husband in the face the moment something went badly! It only seems practical when you’re being assaulted by a stranger, which is the minority of rapes.

In the case of incest, you’re basically fucking hosed. You can’t escape your attacker, except by running away, and then they just ship you straight back, because what else are they going to do with you?

yutolia
yutolia
5 years ago

Hmmmm, according to that picture, my boobs and legs are whores, but my feet are prudes. How can I figure out who I am now!?!?!

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ LBT

Yup, you hit on some wider issues. Theoretically there are simple solutions but in practice it can be much harder.

Firstly the family thing. It’s easy to say to an abused woman “just leave him” but of course there are both practical difficulties (and go where?) and psychological ones (BWS etc.). In a situation like yours (and, for what it’s worth, you very much have my sympathies) you have all the same problems plus the fact that you may not be believed (family denial can run strongly) or blamed (“well, you must have done something to lead him on”).

The acquaintance assault one can be addressed though. I often say “Don’t die of politeness”. Predatory men rely on the social conventions that women “shouldn’t make a scene” and certainly not resort to violence, to manipulate women into more vulnerable situations. Most women who are attacked/raped by people they know report that they knew something was wrong, even if it was just a general feeling of uneasiness, but still felt inhibited in actually doing something in case they seemed rude/paranoid. Men rely on that.

There’s also a general inhibition about using violence. Most people, even trained soldiers, fear killing more than being killed. There are techniques to overcome this, but they take special training. Interestingly though, I find women can overcome the inhibition on violence easier than men. They don’t have the baggage of ‘posturing’ that men do when it comes to fighting so they are better at causing real damage when it is necessary.

That is of course a very simple summary of a complex topic.

LBT (with open writeathon!)

RE: Alan

Alas, we were unable to escape that grandfather until he croaked. At least we didn’t cry at his funeral.

The dynamics of incest generally require a family be willing to cooperate with the main perp. Incest doesn’t break families, usually; the family is already broken, enough that a perp knows he can rape a child and not be stopped. Our grandfather attacked at least four people which we have confirmed proof of, and everyone knew he was the stereotypical pedophile. But they cared more about the family image than safety, so he was allowed access to kids until he died.

There was no leaving. We did, and ended up homeless. It was worth it, but I can’t blame other people for not wanting to go through that. It takes a lot more than “don’t let politeness kill you.” When you’re dependant on a family who are willing to leave you with rapists, you survive anyway you can.

I’ve read a fair number of incest survivor’s stories. When they talk about escaping, not one mention being able to escape through fighting back. Maybe it works for acquaintances, but in incest, it seems to be extremely dangerous.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

“The dynamics of incest generally require a family be willing to cooperate with the main perp. Incest doesn’t break families”

One thing that amazes me is how some mothers knowingly allow their children to be abused. I can perhaps understand where a woman is in fear of the abuser herself or maybe even so desperate for approval/attention/support etc that she allows it to happen but I’ve seen a few (thankfully rare) cases where women have actually sought out men to abuse their kids. Now that’s one mindset I can *never* understand.

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

Are they still pissed off at their mothers (and/or fathers) for insisting, when they were young boys, that they not run around punching people? Are they still angry that their parents forced them to start using the toilet instead of shitting their pants?

Yes. And also for making them take diarrhea medicine, if Paulie is anything to go by.

Leda Atomica
Leda Atomica
5 years ago

comment image

sunnysombrera
5 years ago

I think, Alan, that what I meant by not fighting back due to fear of being killed is that yes, perps rely on silence and “submissive” behaviour but the question is what will they do if the victim doesn’t “follow the script”? He may bail and run off. OR. He may become enraged and use brutal force, in a last ditch attempt to exercise control over his victim. There are enough stories of dudes killing women purely due to verbal rejection, is it not reasonable to expect that you don’t know if he’ll hunt down and kill if you scream and punch him? And you don’t want to take that chance?

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

Hi SunnyS

That’s what I found surprising about the research. As you say, there are so many examples of men hurting women just for humiliating or even just rejecting them. I initially imagined that fighting back would escalate the situation. However all the studies show that that’s not the case. It’s back to the ‘cost/benefit’ aspect and the unwillingness of attackers to risk harm to themselves.

As to what happens afterwards, this is an important aspect though. This is recognised in most of the standard models of attack (Intent, positioning, interview, attack, aftermath). The aftermath bit is important. In the short term it may be enough to cripple an attacker if they’re someone you’re unlikely to encounter again. When the attacker is known to you though (and knows how to get to you) then you may have to consider other options; some of which are quite final.

Olive O'Sudden
Olive O'Sudden
5 years ago

In this analogy that attempts to place onus on women to avoid being raped, highways=public spaces, pedestrians=women, drivers=men, and cars=exposed, penile erections being driven around at 80 mph. Simply, yet another stupid analogy that attempts to obscure the agency and responsibility of men and imagine rape as just a natural consequence of physics. And even if it were the case that there were exposed, erect penises being driven around by men as a matter of course and there were unfortunate, accidental collisions with the unguarded orifices of other people who are carelessly wandering around in public, that wouldn’t explain the insistent assaulting action of an occurrence of rape: When you accidentally hit someone with your car, you don’t typically then repeatedly back up and hit them over and over until the car runs out of gas.

And just a note on equating highways with public space and pedestrians with women: Highways aren’t designed for pedestrian safety, they’re specifically designed for the exclusive driving of cars. Public spaces are NOT designed for the exclusive, high-speed conveyance of exposed, erect penises. We also require drivers to obtain licenses and obey the law, and we punish drivers who drive intoxicated or cause damage to people or property either intentionally or accidentally with their vehicles.

Spindrift
Spindrift
5 years ago

Also, aren’t a large portion of rapists repeat offenders? How is that represented in this analogy, are they just men who spend more time on the road? So they’re on the road more, hit several women (or the same one multiple times), and refuse to drive more carefully?

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

Hitting pedestrians is nothing like rape and fuck this analogy.

Amen to that, from someone who was hit by a careless driver who pulled out to pass a stopping schoolbus. This meme sucks, and so does the idiotic thinking behind it. Drivers are taught to not hit people; that’s what driver’s ed is for, duh. Just as every kid is taught to look both ways before they cross.

I’m sure an MRA would be only too happy to blame me for being a stupid kid, running out in front of that car the way I did. But there’s a couple of problems with that: (a) it’s highly illegal to pass a stopping schoolbus, and was even when I was 14, and (b) no reasonable person could have seen that guy coming until it was too late. In fact, if I’d been just one step ahead of where I was, he’d have missed me and I’d have made it safely across the road to retrieve my inadvertently forgotten lunch, and suffered nothing more than some minor embarrassment and razzing from the other kids. As it was, I was struck in the left hip by the car’s headlight, and flew several feet through the air. I wound up with a broken pelvis, which is still deformed to this day. It was instrumental in my decision never to get pregnant or have kids, BTW. I’m just thankful I wasn’t one step back, because then I’d have wound up paralyzed; two steps back, and I’d not even be here to type this.

MRAs: idiots yesterday, today and always.

Spindrift
Spindrift
5 years ago

I’m picturing a bizarro universe where “A Voice for Cars” is full of posts about how slutty pedestrians exist simply to be run down by cars cause of biomechanotruefax. There’d be lots of “virgin” shaming of men who haven’t mowed someone down yet. MDTOW (men driving their own way) would complain about how running down pedestrians is too much work and drive around public parks and other pedestrian zones to shout about how they’re totes leaving and “you pedestrians will be sorry when I’m not here to run you down with my car!”. Not sure who the manginas would be, either responsible drivers or men who take public transport or something. They’d complain regularly about how car owners have to sign up for the draft, even though there’s not been a deathrace in decades! And they’d be frightened of pedestrians crawling out from under their vehicles and jacking their liquid fucking black gold.

It’s not a perfect analogy…

fauxaaronAaron
5 years ago

Nobody asks “What was he wearing?” in a vehicular manslaughter case, even if the victim was wearing all-black and the accident took place in the dead of night.

Catfish
Catfish
5 years ago

But…. we do teach drivers not to hit people. It’s kinda in the 101 of driving.

Yes, it’s possible to place oneself over a considerably higher likelihood of getting injured by various means but… Even then running over people is generally an accident. Rape is never an accident.

Fucknuts.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ fauxaaronAaron

Actually in England victim’s clothing is a factor in both civil and criminal road traffic cases. It can amount to a defence that the ‘reasonable driver’ would not have seen a victim until it was too late to do anything about it. In civil cases wearing dark clothing can amount to ‘contributory negligence’ reducing damages awarded.

Of course, RTAs are not analogous with rape cases. You can’t ‘negligently’ rape someone.

“Contributory negligence” did once crop up in a rape case, but the judge involved was a well known maverick and his comments were highly controversial. I’ll see if I can find you a link to the case.

creepy cupcake
creepy cupcake
5 years ago

Drivers are taught how not to run people over. That’s why you have to pass a test before you are allowed on the road. DUH.