Categories
antifeminism antifeminist women misogyny rape rape culture

Rape culture deniers: Genuinely confused or just pretending?

Rape Culture deniers: Genuinely confused or just pretending?
Rape Culture deniers: Are they this confused about everything?

The We Hunted the Mammoth Pledge Drive is on! Please consider donating through the PayPal button below. Thanks!

So yesterday I posted about the repulsive, rapey banners that some frat guys hung from the balcony of their frat at Old Dominion University in Virginia. Banners that were so obviously problematic that the school administration immediately suspended the frat to investigate.

Here. as a reminder, are the banners in question:

They ruined three bedsheets for this?
House of Rape Culture

I also quoted Amanda Marcotte, who noted that, when faced with clear evidence of rape culture like these banners, rape apologists like to

suddenly pretend they are aliens from another planet and only learned human language last week and therefore are incapable of picking up on humor, implication, non-verbal communication and nuanced language. They pretend to ascribe to a form of communication so literal that even the slightest bit of metaphor or implication, to hear them talk, sends them spinning into a state of confusion.

After I put up my post yesterday, several rape culture deniers wandered into my Twitter mentions, as if to prove Marcotte’s point, posting pictures of banners put up by sorority women  at the school and demanding to know why I wasn’t attacking these women for their alleged promotion of rape culture as well.

https://twitter.com/WoolyBumblebee/status/636343927914786817

I suspect most of you are as nonplussed by this as I was. Because these banners don’t actually promote rape culture. And not because the people holding them up are women, not men.

The frat’s banners have a creepy, predatory edge to them. They are addressed not to the incoming freshmen women, but to the fathers of these women. They strongly suggest that any woman who walks through their doors — or is “dropped off” by dad — is going to be shown a “rowdy … good time” whether she’s “ready” for it or not.

They don’t explicitly use the word “rape” but given how completely they erase the agency of the young women in question they might as well just do that.

The rape threat is implicit, not explicit, but it is clear enough that most people seeing these banners can understand in an instant what they “really mean” and what the problem is.

The banners held up by the sorority women are a different thing entirely. They don’t put forth the message: “we are going to do things to you (whether you like it or not).” They are playful, not threatening, and tell prospective dates “we like sex, and if you get with us you might even get to do ‘butt stuff.'”

The first banner only asks that men pull out before they come; no one wants any babies. The second tells men they are “welcome” to use the back door, nudge nudge. Instead of saying “we will do things to you,” they say “you can do things to us.” Presumably in the context of consensual sex.

Just as rape =/= sex, talking about sex =/= talking about rape.

Is it creepy that when new freshmen men arrive on the campus they’re greeted with giant banners aimed at them and laden with sexual innuendo? Maybe, but it’s nowhere near as creepy as banners greeting freshman women (and their mothers) with not-very-subtle threats of rape.

I tried to get this point across to one of my Twitter interlocutors, the antifeminist Youtube gadfly WoolyBumblebee; it didn’t take. Some excerpts of the ensuing “discussion.”

wb1

Rape threats, even implicit ones, are rape culture. Mentions of sex aren’t. You’d think this wouldn’t be hard to understand.

wb2

 

Does WoolyBumblebee really not understand that if someone says “you can put it in my butt” they are not threatening to rape you?

It might not be the appropriate thing to bring up at, say, a dinner party. And if you say it repeatedly to someone not interested in sex with you, it would be sexual harassment.

But it wouldn’t be a rape threat.

WoolyBumblebee more or less conceded this point shortly afterwards. And returned to claiming (or pretending) she didn’t see the threat in the banners posted by the frat guys.

wb3

Around and around we go!

Or we would have if I hadn’t gotten off the internet to watch an episode of Mr. Robot.

The question I am left with, as I generally am in the wake of “discussions” with those who seem to be incapable of understanding the basics of human language, is this: Are these people really this literal-minded and obtuse, or are they just pretending? 

If the former, how exactly do they manage to even work a computer? Did they make bird noises at their laptop or into their phone for weeks on end before someone explained that’s not how Twitter works? Do they understand the difference between filing their nails and filing their taxes?

It’s gotta be an act, right?

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

364 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

@Dodom

You see, I can understand that shit. The Canadian government should either get their shit together. Hopefully things get better before shit hits the fan for you guys.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

Haha, grammar errors.

Anarchonist
Anarchonist
5 years ago

@Paradoxical Intention

Uh, thanks? But I don’t think I quoted you anywhere…?

You did, and for a good reason:

Anarchonist | August 27, 2015 at 3:17 pm
[…] What the hell kind of overtly melodramatic upside down fantasy land are you living in, where people treating others like shit are the innocent victims?

The kind of overtly melodramatic upside down fantasy land where rape victims are pressured to not press charges because it could ruin their rapist’s lives?

Like in Stubenville where most of the reporting done on the subject was talking about how the lives of the football playing boys were ruined because they raped a girl and video-taped it and put it on the internet for all to see?

[I’m not trying to chastise you for anything, but this kind of attitude that our dear rape apologist troll has is actually a huge part of rape culture. “Stop being so cruel to the rapist! Haven’t they had enough! You’re ruining their lives!”]

I mean, yes, I already knew all that, but the way I put “believing that bad people should be called innocent even when their victims and their own fuckin’ words condemn them, as long as a group of privileged people (generally judges and juries) have not given their take on the subject is siding with bullies” made it sound like I ignore the fact that this is exactly the way the world works in many instances.

I worded things badly, and you corrected me. My apologies.

Anyway, Vetarnias is tedious, wrong and their obsession with the infallibility of “the law” only reminds me of a much funnier, albeit fictional, character.

Anarchonist
Anarchonist
5 years ago

as long as a group of privileged people (generally judges and juries) have not given their take on the subject

And often, they are treated like innocent victims even in that case. Blargh. I’ll just shut my trap for good now. i don’t particularly like the taste of my foot.

mrex
mrex
5 years ago

@Scented fucking hard chairs

Going back a bit… I don’t understand how mocking him for getting angry at the word “Canadian” is racist. If anybody had posted assholish anti-French “Jokes,” sure, that’d absolutely be racist… But “Quebec is still a part of Canada”?”

I think it’s a bit like misgendering a Trans person is transphobia. He doesn’t identify as Anglo, so it’s not our place to mock him for it, or tell him that his oppression isn’t “real”. Sure toxic troll is boring and toxic, but you’d think that as feminists we would know better, especially since feminists are being constantly told that our oppression isn’t “real”, or that we should STFU because “things are worse elsewhere/for other people”.

Same goes for MRAs. Just because they wrongly blame their oppression on a nonexistent matriarchy, doesn’t mean that they don’t face legitimate oppression such as classism, racism, or even sexism/toxic masculinity. And so on and so on. 🙂

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
5 years ago

Actually, I do have one serious question for the troll, because I’ve seen a lot of right-wing types making similar claims. I just can’t figure it out, though, and no one has been able to adequately explain it yet (at least not without devolving into blatant, unabashed racism).

When you wrote this:

Vetarnius wrote:
They are nothing less than a threat to Civilization, capital C</b….

Are you actually serious, or are you just being hyperbolic?

Because I can’t see any mechanism whereby those ISIS fucks can do anything but slightly annoy “Civilization, capital C.” Yes, they can kill a bunch of people, but they are far too few to actually collapse any first-world nation, and they never will be.

You liken them to a rogue state later in that paragraph, but they can’t even rise to that level – and even if they could, they still wouldn’t be strong enough to collapse any first-world nation (and they would have given up one of their primary military strengths: their mobility).

So what the fuck are you on about with “threat to Civilization” crap?

Is it really just your terrified belief that all muslims are eeeeeebil?

Because that’s the only explanation I’ve ever gotten from everyone I’ve ever asked.

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
5 years ago

Crap.

Fourth paragraph, second sentence should read:

…and they neveralways will be.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

The whole secede thing is of course interesting to me as a Brit. Not sure how much you’re bothered about Brit politics but that’s a big thing here.

There are many Scots who certainly wouldn’t identify as British. We’ve just had a referendum for independence. The vote was for staying part of Britain but my a tiny margin and in the General Election the Scottish National Party took all but 3 of the seats.

The Scots do seem to keep their independence seeking to non-violent means though.

The Welsh separatists engaged in some property damage (mainly burning down buildings) but again it was mainly a political campaign. The Welsh now have their own Assembly (as sort of mini parliament) and they seem to be happy with that for now.

There’s a minor strand of Cornish nationalism but it’s not particular popular and our terrorist groups is pretty rubbish. So far all they’ve managed to do is blow up a hair-dressers (the building they were actually after was next door)

Northern Ireland though is a *BIG* issue. We’ve had literally thousands of deaths (much more than 9/11). There weren’t just limited to people directly involved like soldiers, police and members or the Royal Family. PIRA considered all non-PIRA legitimate targets. We had plenty of bombing campaigns against civilians, including children, and shootings of entire families were common.

[One of the reasons we shrugged of the 7/7 attacks was that they were barely a pin prick compared to what we normally got]

Things are relatively calm now. We’ve signed a truce with the main terrorists and there’s now a power sharing agreement in place. There are still some groups who don’t agree with that so we do have the occasional killing.

Feelings do run high though. It can be easy to dismiss people’s feelings and say, ‘well what does it matter? Would you be better off with independence?’ but self determination is as much an emotional as practical thing.

Unionists (i.e. people who want to keep everyone as British) often make the economic arguments that people are better off being British, but that’s not really the issue.

So I can understand the Quebecois thing and why it can be a major issue to people who live there.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ Gaebolga

FWIW here’s something I wrote in The Guardian comments a while back. It actually turned into a really interesting discussion about counter-factual military history, but I digress:

It’s true that terrorism is not an existential threat to the UK, but then again neither was 1930’s Germany. Had we not got involved in the war Hitler would have probably been happy to just keep continental Europe (and Russia if he was feeling cocky). We would have kept the Empire and had a single European entity to train with.

We’d have been much better off adopting an isolationist position and abandoning all those foreigners to their fate. After all we had about as much in common with your average Polish person as we did with someone in Syria, Iraq, Kurdistan etc.

We did get involved though, at great cost, and the world is arguably a better place for that. It might be the same with taking on the new fascism.

So basically my position is ‘interventionist’ even if there’s no actual benefit to ‘us’. I know that’s controversial but ‘None of our business’ was the default position on domestic violence, and that’s something else on which I’m pretty interventionist.

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
5 years ago

@ Alan Robertshaw

Oh, I quite agree, especially regarding ISIS; I’m certainly not saying we should just let them be. Military intervention – although it has its own host of issues – seems the only rational response.

My issue is with the overblown, apocalyptic rhetoric that many conservatives use to describe the threat they pose. I have yet to see a single one of them back up their claims with any mechanism that would make those claims even remotely credible. As I noted in my post above, when I ask about the specifics of their claims, they either admit that they were exaggerating for effect or go full racist.

And while it may seem like a minor point, I believe that when left unchallenged, this kind of dishonest argument leads to a degradation of discourse as a whole. If we let people get away with exaggerations and lies and bullshit, then people start using those rhetorical tactics more often, and we all suffer for it.

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

(peers in)

Is the troll still here?

(Yes.)

Still being obtuse?

(Yes.)

Still idiotic?

(Yes.)

Still a rape apologist?

(Apparently.)

All right, then.

(out)

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ Gaebolga

My issue is with the overblown, apocalyptic rhetoric

For me it’s when politicians say “This is an existential threat like we’ve never seen before”

Were they asleep during the Cold War? Now *that* was an existential threat. We were minutes away from total annihilation for the best part of three decades.

We did get some cool movies though; so swings and roundabouts.

[Also, someone named after a magical spear should understand the need for violence occasionally 😉 ]

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
5 years ago

Alan Robertshaw wrote:
[Also, someone named after a magical spear should understand the need for violence occasionally 😉 ]

And a particularly nasty magic spear, to boot. 🙂

Yeah, I was always a bit of a black sheep to the hippy side of my family. We weren’t allowed to have toy guns in the house as a kid, so I made mine out of Legos. Nevertheless, my time growing up in a commune did give me a pretty clear understanding that violence is often counterproductive.

On a related note, I once used the venerable cliché about “when the only tool you’ve got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail” with regards to military intervention a while ago, and the guy I was talking to replied “yeah, but sometimes if you don’t use the hammer, you get screwed.”

Those two phrases together sum up my feelings on the matter using violence really, really well.

darrensball
5 years ago

The banners are clearly aimed at teasing the parents, and at least one is particularly aimed at teasing the fathers.

There banners don’t imply rape at all. I remember reading in the Female Eunuch Germane Greer arguing that women “want to fuck and suck just like men do” and bemoaning the double-standards where it is thought that women don’t/shouldn’t be as sexually promiscuous as men. The message behind these banners might just as likely be an acknowledgment of women’s sexual liberation, and the posters held up by the female students would concur with this interpretation.

You may well have inferred a subliminal rape message, but that doesn’t mean it was implied.

As for this being evidence of rape culture, even if the banners were inciting rape, this would only be evidence of a rape culture within that particular fraternity. The removal of the banners and the suspension of the fraternity suggests that the wider community (the college) does not have a rape culture – in fact it has a culture of being extremely anti “rape culture”.

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
5 years ago

darrensball wrote:
The message behind these banners might just as likely be an acknowledgment of women’s sexual liberation, and the posters held up by the female students would concur with this interpretation.

If that were the case, as others have pointed out, those banners would be talking directly to the women they want to sleep with – like the sorority banners were talking directly to the men – rather than to the parents, in the case of the first two (which is an extremely generous interpretation given the wording of the third banner), and the husband in the case of the third.

But they don’t. Which is why they’re examples of rape culture.

By not addressing the women they want to sleep with, they’re implying – rather strongly – that the women have no say in the matter.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

Gah, pre-emtivley Ninja’d by Gaebolga

I had a great polemic about the history of the “Lock up your daughters” mentality lined up.

It had quotes and everything.

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
5 years ago

Well, if it had quotes….

…I want to read it.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

The banners are clearly aimed at teasing the parents, and at least one is particularly aimed at teasing the fathers.

“Teasing” is a pretty mild word for creepily playing into the cultural concept of fathers being the owners of their daughters’ sexual lives, and therefore deserving to be afraid of the idea that their “baby girl” might go out and have sex with people. And for similarly playing into the cultural notion of husbands owning their wives in the same way they own their daughters.

All while ignoring the agency of either set of women.

The message behind these banners might just as likely be an acknowledgment of women’s sexual liberation, and the posters held up by the female students would concur with this interpretation.

You didn’t even read this post, did you? The sorority banners, while explicit, talk about what the banner-makers would be up for doing. They are talking about themselves. The frat banners are talking about what other people will be doing, and using that image to try to scare the assumed owners of those people. The two sets of banners couldn’t be more different.

Telling fathers to drop off their daughters and wives because obviously those daughters and wives would say yes to sex is the complete opposite of acknowledging agency. And given the recent rash of “no means yes, yes means anal” type things frats have been filmed chanting, it’s kind of a stretch to assume that they are even thinking that the daughters and wives would say “yes.”

darrensball
5 years ago
Reply to  Gaebolga

I would say that your interpretation requires a massive extrapolation from the known facts. The more obvious interpretation is that they’re teasing the parents. I suspect that the female students are doing likewise.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

The more obvious interpretation is that they’re teasing the parents.

Yes, they are “teasing” the fathers by saying that the fathers’ daughters might as well be dropped off in front of the frat because the frat members are going to have sex with the fathers’ “baby girls.” Do you not see how this is fucked up?

darrensball
5 years ago

Kirbywarp at 10.59

You have your first point completely back-to-front. Teasing a father by telling him that he doesn’t have control over his daughters’ sex lives is actually progressive and undermines patriarchal attitudes of husbandry.

On your second point, yes I read it but drew a different conclusion to David. There are differences for sure, but both would have the effect of winding-up your average father. In that respect they’re the same.

Your last sentence suggests to me that you are not interpreting these banners for what they actually say, but by what you believe is behind them based upon what some other frats have said.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ Gaebolga

Well it started with this:

Tell your mama back home coz she was just the same when she was young
I want to give you some advice

Lock up your daughters right now
It will give you a smile on your face
Lock up your daughters somehow
This is the time ‘ the time and the place.

That’s the lyric from the Slade song “Lock up your daughters”. I thought it tied in nicely with the banners.

Then I was going to segway into the original musical “Lock up your daughters” by Lionel Bart.

And then just as I was leading people into thinking “well maybe it is all just a bit of ‘harmless’ fun” I was going to reveal that the musical is based upon an 18th Century Fielding play.

That play of course being “Rape Upon Rape”

That was my sort of twist ending proving my thesis that what is argued to be just ‘banter’ is actually a veneer on what is clearly pure rape culture.

You made the point a bit more succinctly though. Bollocks.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

Oh, and it also had a little diversion about the historicity of people not taking rape seriously and seeing it as a source of humour:
comment image

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
5 years ago

darrensball wrote:
Your last sentence suggests to me that you are not interpreting these banners for what they actually say, but by what you believe is behind them based upon what some other frats have said.

What kind of an idiot looks at communication devoid of its context?

Look, as someone pointed out (maybe on a different thread), the statement “hope your baby girl is ready for a good time…” reads completely differently if it’s a banner set up at a day care center. Reading things while ignoring the context they’re presented in is an incredibly simplistic and superficial way of reading, so much so that if you’re an adult, it’s reasonable to assume that you’re doing it intentionally.

So in the context of this being a frat house, given all of the shit that frat houses have been in the news for lately, what the banners “actually say” is very much driven by that context.

And given that the banners completely ignore the women they want to have sex with – not even addressing them directly, because why bother? – it lines up pretty well with the ongoing issues frats in general have regarding lack of consent. That context alone means that these guys aren’t entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

Newt
Newt
5 years ago

That would be the same Slade that wrote “Skweeze Me, Pleeze Me”:

And I thought you might like to know
When a girl’s meaning “yes”, she says “no”.

[shudder]

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

@darrensball:

You have your first point completely back-to-front. Teasing a father by telling him that he doesn’t have control over his daughters’ sex lives is actually progressive and undermines patriarchal attitudes of husbandry.

*sigh*

Alan, I think you need to go more in-depth with your “lock up your daughters” thing. Apparently this person doesn’t understand the difference between subverting a cultural view and playing into it.

Listen, there are a couple ways you can “tease a father by telling him that he doesn’t have control over his daughters’ sex lives.” Some are true subversions; they would involve reminding the father that the daughters have their own agency and are their own people making their own choices. Some are just reinforcements; treating the daughters as property being handed off (unwillingly) from the father to whatever boys his daughter might have sex with.

These banners do not talk about the daughters as individuals that can make choices. The second banner basically says that they might as well be dropped off at the frat, because they’re going to end up there anyway. And these are freshmen in college, facing the ability to truly make adult choices for the first time. Saying that those freshmen women are inevitably going to end up having sex with the frat boys is predatory as all hell.

Your minimizing language of “teasing” and the like only serve to blind you as to what message the banners are actually sending.

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
5 years ago

Well, that sounds like a downright clever little post; my apologies for ninja-ing it.

And you even had a cool playbill image, too.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

What kind of an idiot looks at communication devoid of its context?

“We’ll take care of the informant”

From the Witness Protection Programme = reassuring

From the Mafia = less so.

darrensball
5 years ago
Reply to  Gaebolga

Gaebolga

You are seeing only one context and basing your inference on that. There are other contexts that equally apply. One is that of the over-bearing father, or the Christian parents believing that they maintain control over their adult daughters’ sex lives.

Of course some frats are misogynists, but individual frats should be judged based upon what they’ve actually said and done, and not on how you’ve chosen to interpret what they’ve said based upon what others have said and done.

I think the whole premise of this blog is regressive – you, not the frats, are denying these women their own agency.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

Given the context of the blog you’ve stupidly linked to, I can infer that you’re an anti-feminist “EGALITARIAN!!!” doucheweasel arguing in bad faith. Amazing how context works.

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
5 years ago

darrensball wrote:
I think the whole premise of this blog is regressive – you, not the frats, are denying these women their own agency.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

Whoo, yeah; that’s funny.

darrensball wrote:
You are seeing only one context and basing your inference on that. There are other contexts that equally apply. One is that of the over-bearing father, or the Christian parents believing that they maintain control over their adult daughters’ sex lives.

Nope, I’m not seeing only one context; I’m choosing the most likely context based on where, when, and by whom the banners were displayed. That’s what reading things in context is all about. Based on the actions of many, many frats around the country lately, I can justify why I chose that interpretation.

What justification do you have for assuming that the frat-boys <aren’t being all rapey and shit?

darrensball
5 years ago
Reply to  kirbywarp

Kirbywarp,

The banners don’t address the women directly, but the parents. Agreed. From here you extrapolate an intention to rape. It’s absurd.

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
5 years ago

darrensball wrote:
The banners don’t address the women directly, but the parents. Agreed. From here you extrapolate an intention to rape. It’s absurd.

No, it’s informed.

darrensball
5 years ago

Sented Fucking Hard Chairs

You have no way of verifying your conclusion and yet you’ve declared your methods accurate. FYI, no I’m not an anti-feminist.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

And yet, whenever a fellow MRA says or does anything horrific, they squawk “CONTEXT! CONTEXT!” like excited parrots.

Context: It’s not just a get-out-of-trouble-free card.

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
5 years ago

darrensball wrote:
The banners don’t address the women directly, but the parents. Agreed. From here you extrapolate an intention to rape. It’s absurd.

[Emphasis mine]

And in the interest of strictest accuracy, I think people on this thread aren’t necessarily saying that these guys are intending to rape people, we’re saying that the banners contribute to and are an example of rape culture.

darrensball
5 years ago
Reply to  Gaebolga

Gaebolga

The frats coming to your attention via the media may not be typical but instead those whose behaviour is so unusually poor that it attracts media attention. You then view whatever any frat says through the lens of the worst examples seen on your TV etc. Surely you can see the flaw in your method?

As for “What justification do you have for assuming that the frat-boys <aren’t being all rapey and shit?"

I'm not assuming that they're not, and neither am I assuming that they are. They might very well be rapey scum for all I know. But I don't know, and neither do you (not based on this blog, anyway).

darrensball
5 years ago

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs,

I suggest your take that matter up with MRAs then.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ Darren

I would argue that it is a reasonable inference from your blog that you are anti-feminist. I’ll stick up my evidence and you can respond if you wish. If you can show me I’m wrong I’ll happily recant.

Let’s take this:

The feminist movement often claims to be a force for gender-equality, but this really is not the case. At its best, it’s a movement for the eradication of discrimination against women and girls. It does not concern itself with any social issues insofar as they affect men and boys.

You claim feminism cannot be a force for gender equality because it does not focus on issues as far as they impact on men. Firstly I’d say there are aspects of feminism that do, if only collaterally but let’s put that aside.

You seem to be implying that because feminism does not address *every* aspect if inequality then it can’t claim to be in favour of equality. I don’t thin k you can draw that conclusion from that premise.

To give an example; some of my animal rights friends focus all their activities on anti whaling. They don’t approve of fox hunting but they don’t dedicate any time to addressing it. They leave that to other people.

Does that mean my friends are not actually prompting animal rights? Are they actively impeding the work of the anti hunt people?

I would say, clearly not.

So why do you believe that feminism cannot be about equality just because it focusses on the sufferings of one particular group?

Does feminism’s focus on women inhibit in any way the work of people who want to do something about the male suicide rate for example? Again, I would say no.

Feminism is at worst a neutral force in relation to problems that disproportionately affect men and more likely actually provides some assistance in that some of the problems men face are consequences of issues that feminists seek to address.

I can not think of a single example where feminism actually undermines the concept of equality. I don’t think you have provided any either. So, as your dismissal of feminism is not based on evidence it’s seems a reasonable inference that you are merely anti-feminism for its own sake..

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

@darrensball:

The frats coming to your attention via the media may not be typical but instead those whose behaviour is so unusually poor that it attracts media attention.

And this frat’s banners are coming to our attention via the media. We aren’t talking about all frats everywhere, we are talking about one frat and their creepy-ass banners. You’re the one interpreting us as saying they are rapists just like every other frat in the world…

Stop twisting around, leaping into hyper-generalization or hyper-specificity, and focus on these particular banners and this particular frat. Do you agree that these banners do not respect the agency of the “daughters” they describe? Or do you just want to keep arguing in generalities, pretending that we must be wrong simply because we took a “side” and made a judgement?

katz
5 years ago

Everyone do observe how Darren himself is engaging in rape culture, specifically the aspect that says no one is ever allowed to suggest that anyone might be a risk as a possible rapist until he actually rapes someone.

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
5 years ago

darrensball wrote:
The frats coming to your attention via the media may not be typical but instead those whose behaviour is so unusually poor that it attracts media attention. You then view whatever any frat says through the lens of the worst examples seen on your TV etc. Surely you can see the flaw in your method?

You might have more of a point here if the news reports on the rapey frat shit were the complete antithesis of the image that frats have in society as a whole. But they’re not. Frats have had this sort of reputation for decades.

Which is also part of the context.

And given all the context that would lead one to assume that the banners’ authors are less interested in advancing egalitarian sexual standards and roles for women than in “notch counts” and guides on how to coerce women into having sex that read like rapist “how-to” manuals, I feel pretty confident in my assumption that none of the men involved in those banners were thinking about equality and consent. And given that the context I’m describing regarding frats is both long-standing and pervasive, your attempts at “neutrality” seem pretty artificial and forced.

You know, because of the context.

mrex
mrex
5 years ago

@darrensball

“You have your first point completely back-to-front. Teasing a father by telling him that he doesn’t have control over his daughters’ sex lives is actually progressive and undermines patriarchal attitudes of husbandry.”

This would be true *IF* the posters directly addressed the women themselves. Something like “Wives and daughters, throw off your old man’s sexual constraints and come get your man meat here” would be “undermining patriarchal attitudes of husbandry”. On the other hand, speaking of the woman’s sexual behavior without including the women themselves in the discussion is *upholding * patriarchal attitudes of husbandry, not undermining it. It discusses what the women want to do (have a roudy and fun good time”) without even consulting them on it. It leaves women out of the loop completely, and simply *assumes* that they will want to do the same things the men want to do.

Now you could argue that seeking the women’s feelings and direct consent is implied by the banners, but because the banners don’t directly address this, it has to be assumed based on nothing but conjecture. Which is ironically what you’re accusing us of doing. We’re just working with what we were given, which was a description of a man to man transaction, no women involved. A man to man transaction of female sexuality removes a woman’s sexual agency, removing a woman’s sexual agency makes it impossible to consent, and sex without consent is rape. Capiche?

You can also argue that the banners are just words, and that words are not the same as actions. This is a common argument, but one that has repeatedly been proven false, by both scientific and antedoctal evidence. Most women have repeated experiences with men whom assume that they know what women *really* want, and ignore whatever an individual woman says she wants. Hell, that probably half the basis of pickup artists; “ignore what women say they want, we know what they REALLY want.” The assumption that women don’t know what they want, and that it’s up to men to assume the power needed to guide them, mansplain to them, or flat out tell them what they want, is a huge leg of rape culture. It’s what allows the man to be viewed as being right and innocent until proven otherwise a day the girl as wrong and lying/mistaken until proven otherwise by *much* (not *all*) of society.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ Darren

From your site:

It will focus mostly on men and boys

So would you accept that your aims cannot be gender equality? That would seem the logical conclusion applying your own test.

Misha
Misha
5 years ago

think the whole premise of this blog is regressive – you, not the frats, are denying these women their own agency.

I’m morbidly curious to see darrensball argue how the use of “baby girl” and “drop off mom too” wording gives women sexual agency.

The banners don’t address the women directly, but the parents. Agreed. From here you extrapolate an intention to rape. It’s absurd.

“Drop off your baby girl” is creepy as hell because it contributes to college rape-culture” = RIDICULOUS.

“Drop off your baby girl” empowers women” = ALL THE LOGIC.

…WTF??

mrex
mrex
5 years ago

My last sentence should have read;

*It’s what allows a male perpetrator to be viewed as being right and innocent until proven otherwise, while the female victim is viewed as wrong and mistaken until proven otherwise, by *much* (not *all*) of society.

And I was ninja’d by Kirby. Sorry!

Catalpa
Catalpa
5 years ago

You may well have inferred a subliminal rape message, but that doesn’t mean it was implied.

Oh, it’s not a subliminal rape message, it’s a barely-veiled rapey sentiment.

Even if it was meant to ‘tease’ the father’s about not having control over their daughter’s lives, the statement “Hope your baby girl is ready for a good time” completely ignores any agency or say in the matter the daughter might have. It’s saying that the freshmen girls WILL be sleeping with the fratboys, and doesn’t give any consideration to their opinion in the matter. This is an exceptionally egregious example because they’re talking about FRESHMEN, people who they have never met and whose preferences they have no way of knowing. Their consent doesn’t matter, they’re just a prop to be used in a posting contest between two men, you know, the ACTUAL people.

It’s like pointing to some random woman on the street and going “she’s going to be sleeping with me tonight!”, it’s gross and rapey and objectifying and there’s nothing progressive about it.

Now fuck off, troll.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

@mrex:

The way I see it, saying the same thing in multiple ways might have a greater impact. Also, saying a similar thing from a different perspective isn’t being ninja’d in my book!

Catalpa
Catalpa
5 years ago

*pissing contest, not posting.

katz
katz
5 years ago

So…he’s not a men’s rights activist, he just runs a blog about men’s issues. I see.