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.
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.
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
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?
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?
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!?!?!
@ 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.
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.
“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.
Yes. And also for making them take diarrhea medicine, if Paulie is anything to go by.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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…
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.
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.
@ 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.
Here you go:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19820110&id=qcVOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1g4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6736,2822333&hl=en
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.