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

[jenett]

For me, it depends a whole lot on what the topic is. When I'm not sure, I do my level best to shut up and listen

[alasandalack]

Part of not being That Guy is, at core, recognising that not all conversations are about me and my needs.

when male rape is mentioned, that conversation becomes immediately relevant to male victims of rape, regardless of what else is being discussed.

virtually every woman responding to the original post has described her experience and her needs- why can't griffen? simply because he's male? that doesn't seem quite fair.

"shutting up and listening" is important when there is a problem to be solved. so, however, is honest exchange of opinion. many people here seem to believe that honest exchange is not appropriate. i am not one of those people. i would much rather risk being offended, and then have the latitude to address the issue, than ask everyone to walk on eggshells around me- and vice versa. if all we can do is pretend to agree with one another, even when we really don't understand, nothing will ever change.

[alchemia]

I would not have a problem with Just Listening, if I knew the basic same group of people will spend some time Just Listening in ANOTHER discussion. But, that doesn't tend to happen. I have brought up male sexual abuse, in my own journal. It was not widely (if at all) linked to, as female rape discussions often are. I mention XYZ situation and how it upset me and why, and I have people show up to argue if it was technically rape or not under the law, to act supportive and then wank behind flock, and to post that that men can't be raped (Because the always want it), that women absolutely can never assault men/boys, etc etc.

[alasandalack]

yeah :-/ i've noticed this myself, in your journal and elsewhere. very few people seem to follow the Golden Rule, much less the Platinum one (GAWD, pop psychology- shoot me now).

[synecdochic]

For me, watching things like your experience is often illuminating in terms of explaining why discussions of privilege among people without that privilege do often get people with that privilege trying to refocus the discussion. (Did that sentence make any sense at all? I keep tripping over my own linguistic tail.)

Part of the problem is that to people without that privilege, the emotional construct of that privilege that they're operating under (discussing it, attacking it, reacting against it, etc) is monolithic. All Men Are. All White People Are. All Straight People Are. Etc. There's that mythological construct of The X Experience, where X = the particular type of privilege being discussed, and the social construct of that privilege is what people are trying to discuss, not so much individual experiences

[alchemia]

unless I misunderstood, I think it made sense

[jenett]

Ugh. I would have very little tolerance for that, personally, too. (And people who pretend to be supportive and then wank, particularly.)

Mostly, I manage this by having more conversations with people who have them fairly, and who will call me on it when I'm missing something, and who know me well enough to be truly supportive. And fewer out in public or in situations where people can try and take over the conversation in dismissive ways. (And if people behave badly towards honest conversation, I spend less time with them.)

(Linkage - depends on a lot of other stuff. Do you get linked to widely on other things? I don't except on about 3 very specific topics, so I don't factor it into my decisions.)

But I know that's not the right solution for every person, or every conversation. Yay for you for *having* the hard stuff out there sometimes.

[rainbow]

gah. just...gah. you have much support from me, for what little the support of a stranger is worth.

[jenett]

when male rape is mentioned, that conversation becomes immediately relevant to male victims of rape, regardless of what else is being discussed.

Depends on the initial conversation.

Here? I agree with you that there's no particular gender focus set in advance, and that it's totally appropriate for griffen to bring up the same kind of experience

[griffen]

I have read and heard what you said here. I'm not sure what to say in response, however. Be assured that I am pondering and digesting, and if I come up with something like a coherent response, I will respond more coherently.

[hummingwolf]

I want to apologize for ignoring the fact that the original post seemed to you to be saying that no men had a right to discuss male rape in any discussion of sexual assault, ever. It seemed obvious to me that synecdochic was talking specifically about men barging in on discussions of the problem of men raping women and trying to derail the discussion; but on re-reading, it's obviously not so obvious. I'm sorry for my own misreading there.

I'm tired of being beaten over the head with "You're a MAN so NOTHING you do can EVER FIX THAT."

Well... my honest reaction to this is that if the people you're hanging out with truly won't give any man any kind of credit, you would be better off if you didn't hang out with them anymore. Nobody should have to put up with being belittled because of something that is out of their control

[griffen]

I'm sorry for my own misreading there.

Apology accepted, and I appreciate you taking the time to reconsider that aspect of the issue.

Another person's opinions of you--or even a whole group's opinions of you--can never validate or invalidate you. But being with people who are constantly questioning your worth can make it hard to remember that.

It would be nice if the first sentence were true. It's not. Perhaps it's true for you. If it is, I envy you.

The second sentence is true.

I am not interested in the "perks." I am interested in working hard for something and then NOT being told that because I'm a man, none of my work made any difference. Do that enough times and anyone would probably say "then the hell with this; I'm done beating my head bloody against this particular brick wall." As synecdochic's comments about "don't bring up male rape" initially seemed to be More Of The Same, it served as that crucial back-breaking straw for me. Fortunately, that turned out not to be the case, but at the time, for me, it was Yet Another Iteration

[nineveh_uk]

Not because the issues aren't important, but because that isn't the right place or time for that particular discussion. The fact that one group of people has a right to their safe space where their problems can be discussed does not negate the right of another group to have their own safe space where their different problems can be discussed. But the way to make a safe space for your group is not by barging in on someone else's safe space.Yes, yes, and thrice yes

[alasandalack]

It’s as if someone were talking about the appalling statistics on maternal morbidity in sub-Saharan African, and I piped up “But far too many women still die in childbirth in the West, let’s focus on that”. I would be derailing the purpose of the original discussion.

but what if the discussion were about the apparent Western attitude toward, and dismissal of, the importance of maternal morbidity in sub-Saharan Africa? that brings Westerners into the mix, and i don't believe you would be out of line in pointing out how maternal morbidity in the West might affect a Westerner's attitude toward the African experience.

that was a pretty damn confusing paragraph, but i can't think of a way to simplify it. sorry :-/

[hilarytamar]

I'm not nineveh_uk, obviously, but one difference that struck me between

and I piped up “But far too many women still die in childbirth in the West, let’s focus on that”
and
and i don't believe you would be out of line in pointing out how maternal morbidity in the West might affect a Westerner's attitude toward the African experience.

is the difference between focus on and mention. I say that because in reading each of these two comments I found myself nodding & saying, 'sure, OK', and then having to re-read, because I didn't see where you were disagreeing with each other; it wasn't until I paid closer attention to the word choice that I began to see where that disagreement might come in