I agree re: excluding men if the goal of the discussion is primarily woman-centered emotional support (to reassure and make a victim feel safer). That's not the place to for the sexes to debate the distinctions between this guy and That Guy. If the goal is to persuade* men to take a more active interest in what's been largely defined as a "women's issue," though, exclusion of men from the discussion doesn't forward that goal.
I think too often online discussions try to do both, and it doesn't work because the two goals - women's support vs. persuasion across the sexes - are almost mutually exclusive.
The usual reaction online when a generalization like "all men are latent rapists" is made is to declare "but I'm not like that!" Again, not useful in the first kind of discussion, which isn't the right forum for that dialog. But, its a legitimate point to be explored in the second kind: "OK, so if you aren't, why are other men like that?" "What's the similarities and differences between yourself and men who do assault, and how can we accentuate the ones that prevent sexual violence and diminish the ones that promote it?" etc. For those discussions, shutting that down instead of talking about it isn't productive or desirable for things to move forward.
Just my 2c, obviously.
* - Yes, women shouldn't have to persuade men to take more interest in preventing sexual assault. Yes, it's unfair. However, I take as a reality that men don't see rape nearly as much of a critical problem as women, and that's where we are as a society and a species right now. Again, we can agree that it is unfair, but that agreement doesn't change the reality of the situation. The "heavy lifting" won't get done until men realize there's the lifting to be done in the first place, and I don't think we're there yet, and by default it falls to the people who do see it as a major issue (i.e. women) to change the minds of the others (men).
I said specifically that men should stay out of women-led discussions of rape, though. I should have been more clear and said: women-led, women-centric discussions of rape. The second type of discussion you mention is very male-centric, and one that is or (more likely) ought to be led by men. Of course, women do and will continue to lead such discussions, because we all want to persuade more men to become allies, but it shouldn't be prioritized above the first type of discussion (i.e., providing support to other women), and it should be no surprise that women often just plain get tired of doing it.
Furthermore, I think it's fair to ask the men who have time to chime in with, "I'm not like that!" why they aren't leading those discussions (or more of them). To paraphrase something cereta said in a comment, it doesn't take a lot for a man to step up from Potential Ally to Actual Ally: it's the difference between saying, "But I would never do that!" and saying, "It's terrible that some men are like that; how can we do more to fight that kind of behavior?" The former, whether the man intends it or not, comes across as dismissive of women's experiences/fears, and as seeking acknowledgment. The latter comment, importantly, doesn't seek acknowledgment, and shows actual concern for the real problem.
I don't actually think online discussions often try to conflate women's support with persuading men. In my experience, what happens is that some women try to have a discussion of the first type, and it inevitably gets derailed by men (and occasionally women) saying, "Not all men are like that!" and demanding that it be a discussion of the second type.
Certainly, there is room for men to participate in a women-led discussion if that discussion is specifically looking to reach out to men. I also think it should be fairly obvious to men which kind of discussion is being had; and even if it's not, it doesn't seem that great a leap to play it safe and assume that the default is the first type, not the second.
I said specifically that men should stay out of women-led discussions of rape, though. I should have been more clear and said: women-led, women-centric discussions of rape.
That's an important clarification, because of where we're having this discussion. This is a woman's LJ post, so when you say "women-led" it sounds like you're including this post. However, this post is pretty clearly one for talking about men's role. Therefore, I think tagryn's point applies well here: When a man posts something that basically boils down to "but I'm not like that" and not much more, this is "a legitimate point to be explored" in the very ways tagryn suggested.
In the kinds of discussions you refer to as "women-centric", engaging those sorts of comments is indeed derailing, but in this discussion, engaging them with challenging questions is on point.
Yes, I should have been more clear. Maybe I misunderstood tagryn's point; I certainly didn't mean to suggest men shouldn't comment on this discussion, or that they should be shut down when they do. I was trying to reinforce the more general point cereta made, about what happens in most discussions: If you do nothing else, let us name the problem for what it is without insisting we acknowledge you.
I think too often online discussions try to do both, and it doesn't work because the two goals - women's support vs. persuasion across the sexes - are almost mutually exclusive.
The usual reaction online when a generalization like "all men are latent rapists" is made is to declare "but I'm not like that!" Again, not useful in the first kind of discussion, which isn't the right forum for that dialog. But, its a legitimate point to be explored in the second kind: "OK, so if you aren't, why are other men like that?" "What's the similarities and differences between yourself and men who do assault, and how can we accentuate the ones that prevent sexual violence and diminish the ones that promote it?" etc. For those discussions, shutting that down instead of talking about it isn't productive or desirable for things to move forward.
Just my 2c, obviously.
* - Yes, women shouldn't have to persuade men to take more interest in preventing sexual assault. Yes, it's unfair. However, I take as a reality that men don't see rape nearly as much of a critical problem as women, and that's where we are as a society and a species right now. Again, we can agree that it is unfair, but that agreement doesn't change the reality of the situation. The "heavy lifting" won't get done until men realize there's the lifting to be done in the first place, and I don't think we're there yet, and by default it falls to the people who do see it as a major issue (i.e. women) to change the minds of the others (men).
Reply
Furthermore, I think it's fair to ask the men who have time to chime in with, "I'm not like that!" why they aren't leading those discussions (or more of them). To paraphrase something cereta said in a comment, it doesn't take a lot for a man to step up from Potential Ally to Actual Ally: it's the difference between saying, "But I would never do that!" and saying, "It's terrible that some men are like that; how can we do more to fight that kind of behavior?" The former, whether the man intends it or not, comes across as dismissive of women's experiences/fears, and as seeking acknowledgment. The latter comment, importantly, doesn't seek acknowledgment, and shows actual concern for the real problem.
I don't actually think online discussions often try to conflate women's support with persuading men. In my experience, what happens is that some women try to have a discussion of the first type, and it inevitably gets derailed by men (and occasionally women) saying, "Not all men are like that!" and demanding that it be a discussion of the second type.
Certainly, there is room for men to participate in a women-led discussion if that discussion is specifically looking to reach out to men. I also think it should be fairly obvious to men which kind of discussion is being had; and even if it's not, it doesn't seem that great a leap to play it safe and assume that the default is the first type, not the second.
Reply
I said specifically that men should stay out of women-led discussions of rape, though. I should have been more clear and said: women-led, women-centric discussions of rape.
That's an important clarification, because of where we're having this discussion. This is a woman's LJ post, so when you say "women-led" it sounds like you're including this post. However, this post is pretty clearly one for talking about men's role. Therefore, I think tagryn's point applies well here: When a man posts something that basically boils down to "but I'm not like that" and not much more, this is "a legitimate point to be explored" in the very ways tagryn suggested.
In the kinds of discussions you refer to as "women-centric", engaging those sorts of comments is indeed derailing, but in this discussion, engaging them with challenging questions is on point.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment