Don't Be That Guy.

[synecdochic]

I keep thinking about the discussions that have come up in the comments to my post about sex-positivism and performative sexuality and the concept of bystander consent, and I keep thinking about all the subtle little cues and clues I personally use to separate Okay from Skeevy when people approach me. Talking in the comments there made me realize

Comments

[griffen]

You know, I was reading along, nodding and saying "Okay, yeah... I can see that." I believe you when you say your life is hard. I believe you that you have these problems which I, as a white man, do not have. I was agreeing with everything you said, and then you dropped this into the mix:

The absolute last words you should ever say in a discussion of sexual assault are "men can be raped too".

Or "but men can be falsely accused of rape". Or, well, pretty much anything that attempts to shift the focus of the conversation, subtly or not-so-subtly, away from women's problems and onto men's problems.This is where you lose my support. This is where I walk away. This is where I say, "Forget it

[hummingwolf]

As a male rape survivor, you absolutely have the right to have a place where your input is taken into account. It is a sick, sick society in which we live, one where male rape is so often trivialized to the point that men and boys who have been sexually assaulted are often afraid to open their mouths because of what other people will say, what other people will think. You absolutely have the right to a safe space

[griffen]

the way to make a safe space for your group is not by barging in on someone else's safe space.

Then those spaces need to be far more clearly labeled as "women only" and "men only" and "rape victims only." They are not so labeled.

I would like the point that I made addressed: if women want equality, then they have to be willing to have a reciprocal discussion. This post, to me, was not talking about women-only safe spaces. I do my best to stay away from those because, hey, I'm not a woman and as you say, it's not appropriate for me to be there. But when we're talking about discussion in shared space? Then I've got a real problem with being shut down simply because we're currently talking about a privilege topic where I happen to be a member of the privileged group.

To quote the OP: "Don't be an ally because you think it will get you something; be an ally because you don't want to be an asshole."

I don't want to be an asshole. But all the messages I'm getting say: "You will always be an asshole because you are a man, you can never

[rm]

I don't see anyone here saying that a safe-space for women to discuss the misogyny they deal with in society here has to be or should be women-only, except you. This is condescending. This is why you are being "that guy". We should have our five fucking minutes to discuss this. Just as you should have your time to discuss that rape happens to men too and it's horrifying. And we should both/all be entitled to more than five minutes to have that discussion. But your deciding they should be the same five minutes? Negating my of existence as a woman and not helping anyone.

[griffen]

So, no back-and-forth allowed between the two groups? No "I was raped," "Oh, I was too," and a discussion of what was similar in both cases? How is that in any way a negation of your existence as a woman??

If it's in a shared space, by definition, the space has to be shared, doesn't it?

[alchemia]

if you look at griffins profile, they're in comms for people with autistic spectrum conditions, and we tend to be *very* literal and often miss what other people take for obvious.

Speaking from experience, if the topic of a discussion in an unlocked post is "rape", it is not clear, unless labelled (by the OP, or the kind of comm it is in), if it is also a female-only space.

The idea came up in my LJ to ask first ("Hi, this is an important topic to me, but my point of reference is with men who are raped, may I still join in?"). I have no idea how well this work, or how it will look, but I was going to try it next time.

[alasandalack]

um- query. how is LJ a "safe space for women"? or, more to the point- how is synecdochic's journal a space for women only? is it written in the User Info? how is griffen supposed to know? must we all assume that if a discussion is started by a woman, then only women may respond to it- or only men who will focus entirely on issues that some women apparently believe are unique to women, and somehow do so without revealing anything about themselves that might possibly make some women think that they're not entirely Woman Focused? how is that possible, to enter a discussion without expressing your subjective (and in this case, male) opinion? everything's subjective. i mean, it's not as if this thread doesn't mention men; it is, in fact, entirely about the many things men should NEVER EVER do or say for fear of being thought of as That Guy. it is ABOUT MEN. and i'm sorry, but the reference to male rape is going to be triggering to men who have been raped (and some others, for that matter). it is quite unfair to expect ANYONE, male or female, to not have an

[rm]

I've apparently been unclear. I was speaking AGAINST the idea of the discussion of this topic being woman only and that a man being upset that this discussion was not addressing his specific issues was problematic not because he was participating in the conversation, but because he was trying to derail the conversation to those issues, no matter how important they are -- this did not strike me as the time or the place, which was one of the points the original poster was trying to make.

I, in fact, found the assertion that because the conversation was not accomodating griffen in the way he would have liked that this conversation was clearly woman-only and not supportive of anyone's equality offensive.

Of course, considering the number of miscommunications now in this thread, I'm not sure any of it remains of use at this juncture, but I hope that's at least clarified by own assertion.

[alasandalack]

because he was trying to derail the conversation to those issues, no matter how important they are

really, i don't think anyone except griffen is qualified to say what his intentions were.

for the record, synecdochic was the one who broached the subject of male rape; griffen was simply responding to it. how is this inappropriate? in no way was it made clear that synecdochic intended this post to be entirely about women's issues- in fact, to me at least, it came off as an attempt to categorize and voice assumptions regarding men's supposed attitudes toward women, and is therefore relevant to both women and men. this is why i believe griffen, as a male, was perfectly justified in expressing his opinion of said assumptions and the implicit demand that he behave a certain way or be labeled That Guy (read: a Bad Guy

[rainbow]

thank you!

i was trying to say that, and not being able to find the words.

i don't understand the idea that if a rape survivor has had a visit from the penis fairy he could not possibly have suffered as much as a female rape survivor nor have very similar issues with being dismissed, invalidated, insulted, etc., with the bonus of having not only those who have never been raped, but also many female rape survivors treat him exactly the same way when they know first hand just how hurtful they're being.

[griffen]

i don't think anyone except griffen is qualified to say what his intentions were.

Thank you for saying this. I appreciate it.

[ruggrat]

"in no way was it made clear that synecdochic intended this post to be entirely about women's issues-"

Seriously. The whole post was a laundry list of how to feel and what to think and what not to do or you're THAT GUY. Seemed pretty damn condescending, actually, but apparently it's okay to condescend if we do it to someone with a privilege we lack.

[griffen]

Well said.

[ialdabaoth]

BTW - is that Camille Paglia in your icon?

[rm]

No, that's me.

[ialdabaoth]

Aha! Neat. :) Sorry for the mistake.