tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744114065733119575.post5412875222832696788..comments2024-03-13T11:14:26.768-04:00Comments on A Radical Profeminist: Profeminist Literacy 101: Does saying "men rape" mean ALL men rape?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744114065733119575.post-47243604215334665622013-03-27T23:16:31.733-04:002013-03-27T23:16:31.733-04:00I agree, Rob, that context is crucial. In many fem...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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />When I say "Men Rape" I may be noticing that it is men-not-women who tend to rape. <br /><br />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.Julian Realhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02933612851144914687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744114065733119575.post-90127361657264432892013-03-27T17:48:34.795-04:002013-03-27T17:48:34.795-04:00It's not in context, sothat makes it a challen...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. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744114065733119575.post-7929845571232223682010-02-12T14:48:56.220-05:002010-02-12T14:48:56.220-05:00So, Toysoldier, lemme make sure I'm getting th...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?<br /><br />You're saying that statements like <a href="http://antimisandry.com/discrimination-raw-deals/discrimination-against-men-15668.html" rel="nofollow">"Discrimination against men"</a> ought not be the heading of something, because ALL men are not discriminated against, right?<br /><br />Or, if Kargan3033 states, <a href="http://antimisandry.com/strictly-manly/hottest-celebrity-women-28168.html" rel="nofollow">"Amen to that, who needs their brand of nassrsitic insanity, women are fucking nuts enough"</a>, does he mean ALL women?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />And when a website states as policy, <a href="http://antimisandry.com/faq/" rel="nofollow">"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."</a> 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.<br /><br />And when you write, <a href="http://antimisandry.com/feckblog/sexual-violence-forgotten-victims-23497-post175145.html#post175145" rel="nofollow">"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"</a> does "feminists" mean ALL feminists?<br /><br />And when you state, <a href="http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/female-sexual-abuse-of-children-breaking-the-silence/" rel="nofollow">"Recently the BBC radio 4 aired a program about female sexual abusers."</a> do you mean ALL female sexual abusers?<br /><br />And when you say <a href="http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/the-silent-victims-battered-husbands/" rel="nofollow">"Male victims of domestic violence are invisible unvictims."</a> 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.<br /><br />Or, when someone you are affiliated with says <a href="http://antimisandry.com/feckblog/capitalism-feminism-24630.html" rel="nofollow">"More than once I have heard feminists claim that patriarchy equals capitalism and that they want to get rid of both."</a> does he means ALL feminists he's heard more than once?<br /><br />So I hope you get the point, Toysoldier: you and your (sometimes?) antifeminist brethren do this OFTEN, if not ALL the time.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Deal?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Does that make sense?Julian Realhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02933612851144914687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6744114065733119575.post-6810682785559499182010-02-12T11:16:11.382-05:002010-02-12T11:16:11.382-05:00"If I say white Australians love to surf, am ..."If I say white Australians love to surf, am I saying ALL white Australians love to surf?"<br /><br />No, you are just implying it, just as saying "Black people love watermelon and chicken" implies <i>all</i> black people love those things. <br /><br />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 <i>will</i> leave the impression that one thinks all white men run most companies. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Toysoldierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18227864773686045455noreply@blogger.com