Friday, February 12, 2010

Profeminist Literacy 101: Does saying "men rape" mean ALL men rape?

 
[image is from here

If I say white Australians love to surf, am I saying ALL white Australians love to surf?

If I say people from New Orleans love the Saints, I am NOT saying ALL people from New Orleans love the Saints. Get it?

See, this is why antifeminists and other misogynists don't understand feminist writings: because you can't even comprehend the simplest statements.

So when you see something about your demographic, you assume, egocentrically, that it's not only all about you, but it's also about ALL of you.


 
So because someone posted a link to my comments policy on a reddit.com page, it got lots of hits yesterday from lots of people who can't read well, but who are educated and literate.
 
In case you haven't read it, here's the comments policy.

Here are the comments thus far. I think it demonstrates quite effectively why so many (but not all) white heterosexual men come across as such self-absorbed wankers so much of the time:


Dylan said...
In other words, all you can say is: I love everyone.


Max said...
You are to feminism what Hitler was to socialism. Any idea taken to radical extremes manifests as terrible perversions.


Karl said...
I absolutely agree with every aspect of this policy regarding comments.


Julian Real said...
Hi Karl, Thanks so much for that comment. Clearly you're in the minority. Glad you took the time to say so. :)


Julian Real said...
@Dylan: Oh, you can say far more than that. How curious it is to me that privileged men think they can't say anything if they're not allowed to be structurally oppressive bigots. Hmmm. Funny that.


Eric said...
@Max-Seconded @Julian Real Posting links to anti-genocide sites is a good thing, as long as the purpose is to raise awareness of these tragedies, but it is important to remember that the strength of your ideas is not dependent on the number of links you post. Your implication that “all men” are “sexist” and “misogynist,” that “all whites” are “racist,” and that all “privileged people” are “classist” is far more "irrational" than Max's comment. It demonstrates the flaws that you so despise; sexism, racism, and classism are inherent in each of the preceding generalities. Not only is this broad labeling of groups irrational, I would go so far as to say that it is hateful.


Julian Real said...

Dear, dear Max,

Clever little illogical, irrational boy that you are. You might note the number of anti-genocide links from this blog. And howsabout you? Oh, yeah: none.

I rule no land and regulate no media. Hitler did. I rule no organisations, am in no positions of leadership, and oppose authoritarianism and all forms of fascism.

Hitler ruled an authoritarian, militarily supported fascist regime. It did actual atrocious things, like rape and kill people.

Which group rapes and kills people as a matter of course and custom: white het men, or radical feminists?

That would be white het men. Like you, sir.

I hold myself accountable to women and believe women are human beings.

You believe men who do this are "p*ssy-whipped", which seems to indicate you think women are their genitals, and that their genitals are capable of subordinating someone. But, in fact, the white het men who are rapists use their penises as weapons to subordinate women.

So your analogy is, well, illogical and idiotic.

You and your white male supremacist buddies (which is what Nazi men also are), show yourselves to be about as humanitarian as a plague.

Take your inhumanity and the terrible perversions which you believe are white het men's "free speech" and "entertainment for men" elsewhere.

Given that I don't run any government, nor any movement, nor any organisation, club, or meeting and that white het males do all of the above, daily, I recommend that if you don't like how society is working for ya, complain to them, and stop yer whining about women being all powerful. And piss in your own place. Your stupidity isn't welcome here.



Julian Real said...

@Eric,

Your implication that “all men” are “sexist” and “misogynist,” that “all whites” are “racist,” and that all “privileged people” are “classist” is far more "irrational" than Max's comment.

Ah, well, if you would read what I write rather than what you infer, that would help in your comprehension of what I'm saying.

I think it's rather irrational of you to conclude that what I say about white het men I'm saying about ALL white het men.

How illogical is that, on your part?

If I say white Australians love to surf, am I saying ALL white Australians love to surf?

If I say people from New Orleans love the Saints, I am NOT saying ALL people from New Orleans love the Saints. Get it?

See, this is why antifeminists and other misogynists don't understand feminist writings: because you can't even comprehend the simplest statements.

So when you see something about your demographic, you assume, egocentrically, that it's not only all about you, but it's also about ALL of you.

And, you might wish to search the blog for my posts on genocide. Just click "genocide" on the list lower right. It's something I write and post about regularly. I'm not sure what else you'd suggest a blogger do to demonstrate commitment to a human rights issue. But I stand by the stuff I've posted as reflective of my political views and alliances. And what are YOU doing to end genocide? Or do you just work with Max to make sure the most privileged retain the most power, socially and structurally?

4 comments:

Toysoldier said...

"If I say white Australians love to surf, am I saying ALL white Australians love to surf?"

No, you are just implying it, just as saying "Black people love watermelon and chicken" implies all black people love those things.

That is the problem with generalizing in the extreme. There are bound to be people who do not fit the generalization. The other problem is that generalizations are often just stereotypes. White men run most companies, but the vast majority of white men do not, so making such a statement without a caveat and then launching into a rant about white men will leave the impression that one thinks all white men run most companies.

It is much better to specify the group one actually wants to discuss rather than making a broad generalization. However, if you do not wish to do that, then you should at least be prepared that someone will react negatively to your comments.

Vague comments like "men rape" beg the question "which men?" However, that is not a question you appear to answer in any of your posts. Your posts lambaste all men and hold all men responsible for the acts of a few, so you should not be surprised that people think you think all men rape.

Julian Real said...

So, Toysoldier, lemme make sure I'm getting this right. This is a serious question, and I'd appreciate a serious, thoughtful answer. It may sound snarky at first, but please hear me out, okay?

You're saying that statements like "Discrimination against men" ought not be the heading of something, because ALL men are not discriminated against, right?

Or, if Kargan3033 states, "Amen to that, who needs their brand of nassrsitic insanity, women are fucking nuts enough", does he mean ALL women?

And when someone writes something like, say, "Men and women have to comply with unequal physical training standards." are they saying ALL men and ALL women have to do this? I mean howsabout the men and women that DON'T deal with training standards at all?

And if you say "This is an impressive list of statistics about the prevalence of sexual violence against males." are you saying that about ALL males?

And when a website states as policy, "You pretty much have free reign to say whatever you want, within reason of course. The only real exception is personally attacking others. That will not be tolerated." does that mean ALL others won't be able to be attacked? Because there was that beating/rape/death threat against me, remember? On THAT website.

And when you write, "Despite the common mantra of 'only women are victims of rape,' this post shows that male victims unfortunately represent a much larger portion of the victims than feminists admit (keeping in mind that these statistics are still not an accurate reflection of the actual rate of sexual violence). While I doubt the list will convince feminists that male rape is an issue worthy of attention" does "feminists" mean ALL feminists?

And when you state, "Recently the BBC radio 4 aired a program about female sexual abusers." do you mean ALL female sexual abusers?

And when you say "Male victims of domestic violence are invisible unvictims." do you mean ALL male victims of domestic violence, because PLENTY of victims of D.V., such as male children who are abused by a parent, get media attention.

Or, when someone you are affiliated with says "More than once I have heard feminists claim that patriarchy equals capitalism and that they want to get rid of both." does he means ALL feminists he's heard more than once?

So I hope you get the point, Toysoldier: you and your (sometimes?) antifeminist brethren do this OFTEN, if not ALL the time.

So why don't you clear up this linguistic problem in your own house, before coming here to tell me how to speak about matters of oppression.

OR, why don't you apply the same mental logic systems and reading comprehension skills to understanding what I'M stating, and what MANY feminists are saying and writing, to the ways in which you state and mean what YOU and other antifeminists say?

Deal?

There's probably plenty you and I and Feckless and I, and others, would agree on, but not if you're going to apply double standards to you how your antifeminist brothers get to speak, and how some feminists and I (sometimes) do.

Does that make sense?

Rob said...

It's not in context, sothat makes it a challenging statement to judge on its own. That's actually the problem with it. However as a stand alone remark the issue I take with it is that it at least implies "most". When you say "White Australians love to surf" you're implying that it is popular. So it is with saying "men rape". It implies that on average, men are likely to rape, when presented as a standalone remark.

Julian Real said...

I agree, Rob, that context is crucial. In many feminist texts, the context is understanding what men as a class do that is subordinating and violating to women as a class.

In such a context, it's really not necessary for all men to do any given oppressive behavior, only that some men do it in the name of being men, and most if not all of the rest support it happening passively or actively.

When I say "Men Rape" I may be noticing that it is men-not-women who tend to rape.

I could also observe, accurately, that "women are raped by men" which is a factual statement, far too tragically--and systematically--true. It doesn't mean all men rape all women, or that all women are raped, or that all men are rapists. I would likely be implying that it is a political practice of men, as members of their gendered class, to rape women as one part of an overall well-honed strategy to keep women subordinated and terrorised, individually and as a class, by men.