Pharyngula

Posted by: Is it fishing season yet? | May 2, 2011 11:01 AM

I second that motion.

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | May 2, 2011 11:07 AM

that there will no doubt be whiny little half-men complaining in the comments of this article

On a thread with this as a topic? If they do then they'll be sinking to an all-new low in oblivious odiousness.

And I didn't think it was humanly possible to sink lower than they already have....

Posted by: Cor (formerly evil) | May 2, 2011 11:08 AM

Set me straight -- what is there to complain about?

Posted by: taylorbad | May 2, 2011 11:13 AM

We all have mothers, many of us have sisters, daughters, nieces, grandmothers, wives, lovers who are women. How is it we can be blase' about rape when any of these people we love could be a victim of rape? It's something we all have to care more about.

Posted by: Sastra OM/COR | May 2, 2011 11:17 AM

The first story -- when I read how the man had himself written to apologize profusely I thought well, okay: there was an element to respect in that. But no, this wasn't a story about a man who really, truly wanted to make reparations for his actions. Not surprising that he placed such emphasis on how he had "repented" to God. Had he really "repented" in the non-religious sense of the term he wouldn't have fought the charge at all. In fact, he would have contacted the police himself and spared that poor woman the trauma of suddenly getting an email from her rapist with an "apology."

Good for Ms. Seccuro.

Posted by: raquel9e | May 2, 2011 11:20 AM

Is this at all related to the violent rape imagery used in the previous post?

Posted by: Wise Bass | May 2, 2011 11:21 AM

Good for Mrs. Securro. It must have been traumatizing to have your rapist suddenly contact you out of the blue like that, but it's better than he's in jail as opposed to being out there unpunished.

Same for Amina A. Religious bigotry aside, there have always been some stupid assholes who act like lesbians are somehow a threat to their masculinity.

Posted by: barfy | May 2, 2011 11:22 AM

My best friend's wife, Mary, was raped when she was 16 by her physics teacher.
Confused and conflicted by the 'grooming' of the teacher, she carried on with a consensual affair (as much as you can consent at 16) for many years.
Mary kept this horror to herself for over 30 years, until the emotional distance between she and her husband grew to where it almost cost her the marriage. She finally had the courage to tell her friends and family. She and her husband have a long way to go, but they will probably make it.
The teacher still sings in the choir of the Baptist church where Mary's parents still attend.

Posted by: j-brisby | May 2, 2011 11:26 AM

This particular half-man (well, three quarters maybe) wouldn't complain about either of those stories. I just find it odd that Myers, who couldn't muster much enthusiasm for the death of a mass-murderer, is this excited about the prosecution of a 30-year-old rape. Why is the one to be celebrated and the other unseemly gloating? Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to dancing in the street.

[/cognitive dissonance]

Posted by: Warm Little Pond | May 2, 2011 11:29 AM

The existence of rape makes me sorry to be a man. I know that an apology from me, a guy, does nothing, but I am sorry that it is my sex that's causing all this fear in women. Makes me sick.

Posted by: j-brisby | May 2, 2011 11:32 AM

Sorry, mistyped 30 for 20. My mistake.

Posted by: ecurve | May 2, 2011 11:37 AM

Wow. That dad...! I want to shake his hand, buy him a beer, and CARVE that righteous rant of his into stone, in letters ten feet high, and turn it into a giant monument to the best of humanity.

Posted by: cowalker | May 2, 2011 11:42 AM

Ben Goren @ #9

So long as we're mentioning this variety of hero, it would be most appropriate to include Lara Logan in the list.

Speaking of whom:

I was very happy to watch her cover the story of Bin Laden's killing last night. He was certainly an important representative of a culture that makes women second-class citizens and leaves them exposed to the kind of abuse Lara Logan suffered. It seemed fitting.

Posted by: toth | May 2, 2011 11:44 AM

@Ben Goren #9

Wow. I don't know much of her (I don't often watch news), but I've seen her a couple of times on the Colbert Report and I remember being very impressed by her. Multiply that about 50 times after watching her speak about her assault. I teared up watching it, and hearing her describe how she felt guilty for what the men were doing to her.

Posted by: rockford | May 2, 2011 11:51 AM

To violence against women, Australia says "No!"

Posted by: Jipigu | May 2, 2011 11:52 AM

That 'I'm ashamed of my sex' meme is ethically dubious.

A number of allegations are made about Beebe's decades-after-assault motivations and character; these allegations appear unreliable.

Posted by: Iris | May 2, 2011 11:57 AM

I just find it odd that Myers, who couldn't muster much enthusiasm for the death of a mass-murderer, is this excited about the prosecution of a 30-year-old rape.

But if you think his death inspired unseemly celebrations, can you picture what his trial would have done?

Yeah. Inspired celebrations of the rule of law and American values. But if we actually held the values we profess, Dick Cheney would be tried in the courtroom right next door.

[/derail]

Just want to add my admiration for Amina's father, and for PZ for standing up against oppression. It means the world to people like me, and reminds me that good people are indeed to be found everywhere, of every race, nationality, gender, and even religion.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkzn4HOddD_lBfjx5Pr8TdoeKOHR6nyB2k | May 2, 2011 12:05 PM

Why does PZ have to keep making every feminist post about baiting whiners?

You should not be embarrassed for your sex, it's a morally repugnant way of distributing responsibility.

And don't get me started on supporting equalisation between genders and then exploiting sexist insults like "half-men".

More power to the women involved.

Posted by: Iris | May 2, 2011 12:10 PM

@PZ

It was all going so well, and then j-brisby had to open his yap.

And then JiPIGu. Doesn't take long, does it?

Posted by: pinin4fjords | May 2, 2011 12:13 PM

So the guy in the first story was sorry, just not enough to actually stand up in court and admit responsibility. What was he expecting, suspension of chocolate rations?

Posted by: frog, Inc. | May 2, 2011 12:16 PM

@Sastra: Not surprising that he placed such emphasis on how he had "repented" to God. Had he really "repented" in the non-religious sense of the term he wouldn't have fought the charge at all. In fact, he would have contacted the police himself and spared that poor woman the trauma of suddenly getting an email from her rapist with an "apology."

Religion makes it difficult to be decent. I saw recently a guy give a buck to a homeless guy -- then immediately start in on Jesus, God and salvation.

He couldn't even bring himself to simply be decent to another human being and give away an excess dollar -- he had to turn it into an attempt to buy the man's loyalty to his agenda.

As I saw from a Christian's comment signature -- "I'm all for goodness if it brings you closer to Jesus". Christians are right -- they are, in fact, fallen beings. Self-fulfilling prophecy and all that.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | May 2, 2011 12:22 PM

Liz Seccuro's rapist is a really special kind of narcissistic asshole. So self-centered that he actually thought that she would...what? Forgive and forget and maybe even console him because his life got screwed up because of the rape he committed? I can't find the words.
The only shame is that he got out of jail so quickly.

Posted by: KG | May 2, 2011 12:23 PM

Let's celebrate the courage of three brave people: we need many more like them.

Posted by: slignot | May 2, 2011 12:26 PM

Oh, and while he was at it, he could also have voluntarily testified against his fellow rapists, who have faced even less "justice" than this waste-of-flesh.

Posted by: amglasgow | May 2, 2011 12:33 PM

Let's add some keywords to bring in the menz: Alimony, Child Support, Male Circumcision, False Rape Accusations!

Posted by: Flapjack | May 2, 2011 12:40 PM

The things which struck me about Beebe in the first article were partly that he had the temerity to glare at Liz Seccurro throughout his trial as if he was the one whose trust had been betrayed! What was he expecting her to do when he texts years later and says "oh, BTW you might remember me from college, I'm your rohypnol rapist"? Thank him for his honesty? Add him to her facebook friends? He's acting like he just pranged her parked car and left his contact details under her windscreen wiper.
His sense of entitlement evidently hasn't diminished much over the years, only been superficially masked with a feeble attempt at self-serving remorse.
Also astonished that he only wound up serving 6 months... hardly a deterrent, people get more than that for theft.

Posted by: unbound | May 2, 2011 12:46 PM

Brave women indeed. However, my anger remains at the shoddy treatment UVA gave to Liz. I would absolutely love to see the officials at UVA (the dean and the head of university police) brought up on charges. They were very much enablers of the nightmare she had to endure.

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | May 2, 2011 1:00 PM

@a_ray_in_dilbert_space
#53

Hmm. Let's see if we can spell it out for j-brisby. Maybe because one event (the death of bin Laden) accomplishes NOTHING. It's an excuse for Americans to flex their manly muscles and pretend they are still relevant.

The other involves actual courage of confronting one's accuser and getting the narcissistic bastard off the streets before he ruins the lives of others.

How 'bout that? Still, too subtle for you?
So... Osama bin Laden isn't ruining the lives of others?

By your argument, if the rapist isn't going to rape another person again, bringing him to justice accomplishes NOTHING other then justice being achieved for the individuals he raped.

And if achieving justice is something, Osama bin Laden's death is justice (albeit, imperfect) for thousands whose love ones were lost. Just as the prosecution of her rapist is justice for Liz Securro. And it would still have been justice (albeit, imperfect) if said rapist was killed for resisting arrest.

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | May 2, 2011 1:12 PM

It was the despicable Karla Homulka, the Judas goat who lured teenage girls to be raped and killed by her husband, Paul Bernardo, who made me understand the impulse to grab people and say, "Not all women are like her."

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | May 2, 2011 1:16 PM

Homolka. Including drugging her own sister.

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | May 2, 2011 1:17 PM

@Disco Stu
#23

It seems like PZ goes out of his way to make a personal responsibility issue into a gender inequality issue.

While not the exactly the same issues, they are strongly related.
A venn diagram of the two will likely have a lot of overlap.

Posted by: Segmentum | May 2, 2011 1:20 PM

I hope that after 20 years charges for rape were nullified or dismissed, what nonsense is this...

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | May 2, 2011 1:25 PM

Oh? A rape fucking magically goes away after 20 years? News to me.

Go fuck yourself, Smegma. Your fucking lack of empathy is fucking noted.

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | May 2, 2011 1:26 PM

@Anri
#63

Strange as it may seem, some people do actually believe that arrest and prosecution is a superior form of justice to invasion of a country and summary execution.

In a sort of twisted logic, are we going to credit the rapist for bring about a "superior" form of justice by NOT forcing other to kill him? (I hope not)

Posted by: FlyBoy | May 2, 2011 1:31 PM

PZ,

Sorry, but I am not embarrassed to be a man. And while I find rape absolutely repugnant, I will be damned if I am going to be embarrassed nor ashamed of being a man.

The pendulum is swinging way too far on one side against men now and I find that to be rather onerous and dangerous.

And while I agree with you on many many things my friend, I will be damned if I will hang my head in embarrassed shame because others commit crimes.

And as a quick reference; I have spent considerable time in the DRC (Democratic Nation of Congo) and have had to witness the atrocities first hand. It is disgusting, horrific and below human what transpires there, but at no point upon seeing and giving assistance did I ever feel squeamish on being a man.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | May 2, 2011 1:33 PM

On fucking topic:
Along with both of the women and Amina's father, I've gotta give some fucking props to the cops that handled Liz Seccuro's case.

How fucking sad is it that I'm surprised that the police did their fucking jobs? If we only lived in a society that took rape victims fucking seriously...

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | May 2, 2011 1:37 PM

Why does PZ have to keep making every feminist post about baiting whiners?

If you know the history of the comments here, whiners comes regardless of whether PZ mentions them. Sometimes they come in threads not pretaining to feminism at all.

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | May 2, 2011 1:38 PM

@KOPD
#75
Or he just want to elicit a response.
Which... he's successful.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | May 2, 2011 1:39 PM

In a sort of twisted logic, are we going to credit the rapist for bring about a "superior" form of justice by NOT forcing other to kill him? (I hope not)

The credit goes to the people who did the police work (What a fucking change!), the prosecutor, the judge, etc.

The pendulum is swinging way too far on one side against men now and I find that to be rather onerous and dangerous.

Jesus Fuck. Do you read what you fucking type? You're not in fucking danger. Id on't know or care whether you should feel guilt over what hegemons who share status with you do, but you damn sure should not be complaining about how hard you, the hegemon, have it.

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | May 2, 2011 1:43 PM

@KG
#77
I pegged Segmentum as a troll, whose only purpose is to get fed by the angry responses.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | May 2, 2011 1:49 PM

I hope that after 20 years charges for rape were nullified or dismissed, what nonsense is this...

I would think after 20 years of being in this planet full of articles and research about rape, you'd know enough to realize that rape doesn't work like that or that rape victims often feel the effects long after 20 years.

~

I think that an out lesbian and her father defending themselves from violence in a country that isn't very open to homosexuality is a very strong statement in multiple levels. It shows that making homosexuality illegal doesn't make it go away, that oppressed and disadvantaged people have support, and it is very refreshing to see a visible lesbian in an area where lesbian visiblity (and their rights to be visible) is poor (my personal opinion after reading articles about the area.)

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | May 2, 2011 1:54 PM

@Rutee
#80

not committing suicide by cop is not a credit to you. It benefits you, always.

The credit goes to the people who did the police work (What a fucking change!), the prosecutor, the judge, etc.
My response was to the point on why justice for thousands should be condemned because the perpetrator refuses to be brought to justice. While justice for one is celebrated because the perpetrator allows himself to be brought to justice.

See #63, which was Anri's response to #18.

Granted, justice for the thousands did come at a heavy cost. But then by the same token, should it be just to ignore justice for this women if it is too expensive to get it.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | May 2, 2011 2:01 PM

See #63, which was Anri's response to #18.

Are you reading impaired? You asked if the accused gets credit for bringing about superior justice.

No. You don't get credit for not committing suicide by cop. It's not that difficult, just don't try to kill the police. You could get credit for coming clean and turning yourself in, though, pleading guilty (Not plea bargaining), and all that.

It is a superior form of justice for the accused to be brought before a trial, to be able to present their case for non-guilt, and if found guilty, to be sentenced according to law. But you don't get credit for not suicide-by-cop-ing. It's to your benefit, always, to not kill yourself on the cops.

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | May 2, 2011 2:05 PM

@Classical Cipher
#87

I'd like to point out that not only were deaths totally avoided in these two stories, but I... honestly still don't have that large an emotional response to putting away that fuckhead rapist.

I think she deserves to be celebrated.

Going back.

For the people who are confused about the allegedly disparate responses to this and OBL's death. I'd like to point out that not only were deaths totally avoided in these two stories

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | May 2, 2011 2:09 PM

So if the rapist was killed in the process of apprehension, should we still condemn those involved in the same manner as the death of OBL?

Posted by: Segmentum | May 2, 2011 2:10 PM

To express a sentiment like that and not have a personal interest at stake, well that's just monstrous.

What sentiment, how exactly is filing charges for rape after 20 years not absolutely ridiculous on so many levels?

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | May 2, 2011 2:12 PM

Wait, is Dude? seriously erasing the civilians and Afghani defense forces (the people on *OUR SIDE*) as well as the coalition deaths in this? Does he seriously think the number 1 problem with Osama's death is that Osama's dead, and not the 16k dead on the way there?

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | May 2, 2011 2:13 PM

What sentiment, how exactly is filing charges for rape after 20 years not absolutely ridiculous on so many levels?

It's a crime, no matter when it was committed. YOU are the one who has to explain what makes it ridiculous, in your little pea bran.

Posted by: An Iowa Girl | May 2, 2011 2:17 PM

@ #19: PZ, your unconditional support and understanding of women's issues has always been an amazing relief. I have met very few men who understand how to support women. I just want to let you know how much these posts mean to me (as a woman who has been through a similar situation).

Thank you. I can't thank you enough. Thank you.

___________________________

This. I feel the same way.

Posted by: crowepps | May 2, 2011 2:22 PM

The pendulum is swinging way too far on one side against men now and I find that to be rather onerous and dangerous.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 2, 2011 2:29 PM

I sincerely doubt Osama went down shooting

Can I ask why?

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | May 2, 2011 2:30 PM

Here's hoping Segmentum keeps posting here, as I'd put money on him committing some kind of bannable offense in this thread.

Posted by: onion girl, OM - Social Workers: Fixing Fuck-ups Since 1880 | May 2, 2011 2:34 PM

Speaking from a therapeutic stand-point, it is often more harmful for a rape victim's recovery for her perpetrator to die rather than stand trial, serve prison time etc.

A dead rapist brings no closure to a rape victim. In some ways, a dead rapist 'wins' by escaping the criminal justice system completely. The victim will never know if he would have been tried and convicted and forced to admit his crime.

A dead rapist can never accept responsibility. A dead rapist can never come to an understanding of what motivated his behavior and change. A dead rapist can never gain the insight to NOT BE A RAPIST.

A dead rapist dies a rapist. He leaves no closure for the victim, and no chance for himself to ever become something more than a rapist.

It's a waste.

--
_{Which is not to say that some victims may gain closure from the death of their rapist, because every victim is an individual, and will heal and move on in their own way--if they ever do.}

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | May 2, 2011 2:39 PM

@onion girl
#108

Speaking from a therapeutic stand-point, it is often more harmful for a rape victim's recovery for her perpetrator to die rather than stand trial, serve prison time etc.

Posted by: MudPuddles | May 2, 2011 2:43 PM

@Ben Goren (#9)

Very well said Ben, I signed in to make that point too. She is so incredibly brave for telling her story in public, and so soon after it happened. As some of her colleagues have noted, victims of that type of attack and abuse are often silent, and Ms. Logan's interview on 60 minutes this weekend might help lift some of the stigma. Its appalling how many women journalists have been through similar experiences while reporting, all over the world. I hope her story and that of Liz Seccuro and Amina A. will encourage other women to speak out. It may be too much to expect that the scum who would damage a woman in that way might be shamed into decency, but these stories can only help.

Posted by: chigau (◦_◦) | May 2, 2011 2:43 PM

how exactly is filing charges for rape after 20 years not absolutely ridiculous on so many levels?

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | May 2, 2011 2:50 PM

Can I ask why?

That was my understanding of the sentiment in the "Osama Bin Laden dead" thread (that celebrating the death of a mass murderer is a bad things).

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | May 2, 2011 2:53 PM

PZ

I play video games as part of my job (why yes, it is that awesome) and I have to say my Half-Orc barbarian would be most offended to be associated with such complaints.

Posted by: onion girl, OM - Social Workers: Fixing Fuck-ups Since 1880 | May 2, 2011 3:02 PM

I think Dude? might have been going for "better than"

Oh, as in--six months is still better than the rapist dying?

Ok, sorry! I mis-read!

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | May 2, 2011 3:07 PM

@Rutee
#116

What's he gonna do, bleed on them? It is possible he's that stupid though.

Not that it makes a damn bit of difference; apparently it was a kill order.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 2, 2011 3:09 PM

What's he gonna do, bleed on them? It is possible he's that stupid though. Not that it makes a damn bit of difference; apparently it was a kill order.

Right, but I don't see any reason that he wouldn't. He fought against the Russians for a something around a decade in Afganistan and I'm pretty sure he actually believes the nonsense he pushes in all its "glory".

Posted by: pilotkonp | May 2, 2011 3:19 PM

I am not excusing anything that these guys did, or wanted to do to this woman. I abhor this sort of thinking.

But consider this.

These guys are born and then indoctrinated into a society that hates women, that hates the fact that they bear other women, and are taught to despise and disrespect women.

This what these men hear every day of their lives, and they, many of them, commit to memory a book authored by a guy who married a pre-teen girl for the purpose of illicit sex.

Add to this the idea that these men are not educated in Western values regarding women, and you have people, nations in fact, that see women as subhuman.

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | May 2, 2011 3:25 PM

@onion girl
#122

Oh, as in--six months is still better than the rapist dying?
Ok, sorry! I mis-read!

@fuckin' kristinc
#123

What people like Dude fail to grasp is that the effect of the rapist's fate is not all about the rapist. There's another person involved here, the woman in question; and being a person and not a thing without agency, she is affected by her experience of what happens.

In this case the aspect to celebrate is that the woman was able to experience the catharsis of standing up to her rapist, conquering her fear of him, and making a public statement that she deserved better than to be victimized by him (twice).

I got a different feeling from the article. In that despite the ordeal she went through. In the end, she did NOT get the justice she deserves. She should be applauded for her courage. But I find no reason for celebration.

Posted by: chigau (◦_◦) | May 2, 2011 3:31 PM

#128 pilotkonp
Amina's father was born in and indoctrinated by the same society.

Posted by: KG | May 2, 2011 3:36 PM

Add to this the idea that these men are not educated in Western values - pilotkonp

You're quite right. If only they had been taught their values in the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity at the University of Virginia, like Liz Seccuro's rapists.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 2, 2011 3:41 PM

*Shrug* I'm not really that concerned with it if he committed suicide by SEAL, but he doesn't appear to have been given the choice.

Well not organizing people to fly planes into buildings would have been a start. Did he expect any other sort of retaliation from the US?

Either way it doesn't really matter, he was going to end up dead from it if the US had their way via trial or via SEAL.

And they did.

Posted by: MudPuddles | May 2, 2011 3:45 PM

@P Smith & Classical Cipher,

Rape has nothing to do with hormones or booze, and nothing to do with sex. It is about power over the victim - who, as was the case with Liz Seccuro and Lara Logan, is often simply a person who happens to cross their rapist's path at a specific moment. Rapists are sociopaths - incapable of true empathy and with a permanent child-like inability to form a theory of mind. Read the Liz Seccuro story and see how the rapist constantly focused on himself in his messages. His whole reason for contacting her was for his own benefit. And the recent comments from Bishop Vangheluwe in Belgium, incapable of seeing his actions as rape or anything worse than "a little piece of intimacy". Rapists are not hormonal. They are mentally ill, twisted, deranged, evil scum.

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | May 2, 2011 3:53 PM

Rape has nothing to do with hormones or booze, and nothing to do with sex. It is about power over the victim - who, as was the case with Liz Seccuro and Lara Logan, is often simply a person who happens to cross their rapist's path at a specific moment. Rapists are sociopaths - incapable of true empathy and with a permanent child-like inability to form a theory of mind.

Read the Liz Seccuro story and see how the rapist constantly focused on himself in his messages.

Posted by: Anri | May 2, 2011 3:57 PM

1. If shooting a criminal is less desirable in terms of justice then taking in the criminal for trial. Should the less desirable justice be condemned if the criminal in question forced it to happen? Or should both form of justice to at least be celebrated in that they're just.

It should not be condemmed, but it should be recognized as an inferior form of justice - which is what I said initially, that one was inferior to the otehr.

2. I would argue that intend matters. If the law enforcement seek to make arrest for the purpose of serving justice. If the criminal, in resisting that arrest, got killed. I would argue that on a philosophical point, the criminal has implicitly "confess" to the crime. And justice is therefore still serve (albeit with the criminal paying a higher cost then what might have been).

You appear to be arguing here that two wildy divergent penalties for the same crime (arrest, trial, and whatever sentence is applicable to the crime versus death) are both equivalent justice. I am arguing that one is substantially superior to the other. People die in armed confrontations with the police over traffic violations, fer cryin' out loud.

Again - if trials and street execution both produce equivalent justice - if neither is superior to the other - why bother with the former at all?

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | May 2, 2011 4:01 PM

And I forgot to add, the same should be true of conspiracy to commit rape, and accessory charges for that, for the bartending guys.
-

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | May 2, 2011 4:04 PM

And regarding Securro's case, if accessory after-the-fact to a rape is a chargeable offense, then that dean should be charged, as well as the guys that served her the drugged alcohol.

Posted by: Agent Smith | May 2, 2011 4:10 PM

These accounts didn't make me feel embarrassed for my sex, but helped to delineate the enemy. Rapists, sexual abusers, and those who make life easier for them are my enemy.

Posted by: Azkyroth | May 2, 2011 4:37 PM

I know that an apology from me, a guy, does nothing

It does a lot, actually. A huge part of the reason rape is the epidemic problem it is, is that large swaths of society, particularly men, treat it like it's not a big deal.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | May 2, 2011 4:40 PM

That and the bartender actually grab her and hand her back to her rapist.

Posted by: seemeisie | May 2, 2011 4:46 PM

I wish my rapist had lived long enough for me to be able to charge him. I was too young at the time. Although, I don’t know if I would have won a trial.

I sat as a jury member for a paedophilia case similar to mine, once. What the wife said in the accused defence... the testimony of the flatmate who'd tried to report it while it was happening... what the neighbours tried to say and tried not to say... what the accused TXT to that poor girl for years afterward... it was all so stereotypical it was almost comical. But still half of the jury fell for the wife's bluster and the accused’s "I'm too simple to have done such horrible things/the TXTs seem bad but I'm too simple to see the sexual innuendo in them" act.

Some of the comments during deliberation flabbergasted me. I practically had to educate them on how people deal with and excuse sexual abuse. After several hours deliberation we decided he was guilty (beyond reasonable doubt). I don’t think it would have gone that way if I hadn’t been there to combat the 'she was asking for it' and 'she's just trying to make trouble' comments.

After giving the verdict we found out that he had been released from prison just before the incidents he currently being charged for. His previous charges? Also paedophilia.

He was sentenced to 6 years for three counts of sexual assault on a person under the age of 12, his second conviction for those same charges.

It was obvious that the accused's family and the culture around him were enabling him. And jail, though a punishment, is not helping him stop doing those horrible things. Despite everything, I do believe paedophiles (like most criminals) should be rehabilitated rather than punished. At least, those that CAN be rehabilitated.

Posted by: Azkyroth | May 2, 2011 4:52 PM

I know it's nitpicking, but remember it's males that rape, not men.

Actually, it's RAPISTS that rape. Though the fact that the vast majority is male is not insignificant.

Posted by: Agent Smith | May 2, 2011 5:01 PM

What sentiment, how exactly is filing charges for rape after 20 years not absolutely ridiculous on so many levels?

Huh? Did your cerebrum suffer a temporary vapor lock, or was it already gangrenous?

Posted by: Mr.Kosta | May 2, 2011 5:03 PM

@159

I missed the part where PZ said men should flagellate themselves. Could you point me to it?

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 2, 2011 5:07 PM

Mudpuddles, please learn to use the fucking blockquotes. The instructions are right there underneath the "post comment" text box.

Posted by: tremorfan | May 2, 2011 5:15 PM

@162

Chrissy Lee Polis, a transgender woman, was attacked in a Baltimore McDonald's restaurant on April 18. She was beaten relentlessly until she began to suffer from a seizure, at which point her attackers fled. This incident is being investigated as a hate crime.

A crime alert was issued for students at Miami University after three men storm into a dorm room, assault and rob several people. A student said three men forced their way into his Stanton Hall dorm room early Saturday morning. After getting cash, the robbers left and assaulted two more people outside the dorm. All of the victims suffered minor injuries.

The villains here are, unfortunately, all black — blacks who think they can use and abuse whites. It makes me embarrassed for my race … and it embarrasses me further that there will no doubt be whiny little half-blacks complaining in the comments of this article. Could you all try to make that prediction false?

I'll leave you to figure out why PZ's comments are just fine while mine make you uncomfortable.

Posted by: fuckin' kristinc | May 2, 2011 5:19 PM

no amount of apologetics for rapists will ever convince me that any rapist anywhere in the world is anything but sociopathic, deranged, evil scum at the moment that he or she commits the crime.

If you're a professional working with rape victims, this disturbs the shit out of me. Obviously it is satisfying to you on some level to live in a spittle-flecked fantasy world where all rapists are evil evil garbage scum, so you go ahead. But let the rest of us take care of actually examining why rape happens and what we should do about it, k?

Posted by: Mr.Kosta | May 2, 2011 5:21 PM

@166

Well, this doesn't answer my question

Where exactly did PZ say men should hate themselves?

And maybe you make people uncomfortable here because you refuse to acknowledge the suffering women must endure first for being raped, second for being ignored after reporting that rape to the authorities. You know, the "she was asking for it" stuff.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 2, 2011 5:23 PM

I'll leave you to figure out why PZ's comments are just fine while mine make you uncomfortable.

General category of "men" vs. black teenage girls...

Perfect equivalency there. Who could possibly tell the difference? It's not like we have things like, oh, say, history, or culture, or power dynamics between groups in society... nope, we all exist in a vacuum, devoid of previous experience, experiencing each day as a newborn baby would, in endless wonderment and confusion.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | May 2, 2011 5:25 PM

I can empathize with the fact that, as an older, highly educated man in a field in which women are traditionally underrepresented, fighting for a cause in which women are traditionally underrepresented, you feel pressure (either internal or external) to be overly defensive of women's issues.

Emphasis mine, condescending entitled idiocy yours.

but the whole thing undermines your persona as this rational bulwark, fighting against the tides of political correctness.

I don't recall PZ ever claiming to be for "political correctness" mostly because it is a buzzword used by bigots or people too lazy to examine their own unconscious biases.

do you know why? because i'm not a sexist

Well guess what? It's not about you.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 2, 2011 5:27 PM

I believe that Mudpuddles was quoting Oniongirl when he put that bit in about working with rape victims.

That's why I told him to use the fucking blockquotes.

Do you see now why you should use the blockquotes?

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | May 2, 2011 5:31 PM

Tremorfan,
Are black people currently enjoying a societal advantage as a result of their race? Did they reinforce that advantage by their actions in your related tales? No, they did not.* The action doesn't extend so far as to make other black's lives easier and so the embarassment is not warranted.

PZ is embarassed because he is part of the group of oppression, as am I. It's not something that he, or I, can undo, but very likely will benefit from, hence being embarassed.

(*Although they may have done so for other groups, ciss vs transgender for instance.)

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 2, 2011 5:33 PM

tremorphan, if you've been reading Pharyngula for more than 3 minutes, you know that there's a long, long history of commenters who trivialize rape. These would be the "half-men" to whom PZ is referring. PZ's ideal would be a world in which it's considered manly, adult, mature, to stand up for rape victims.

On your other point, I live near the location of the McDonalds attack, and I can assure you that there are African Americans who are horrified by the assault and very concerned about how the community needs to change or respond to prevent such violence. These people are standing with the victims, which is, again, the mature thing to do.

Maturity: guess what? You're not there.

Posted by: Daz | May 2, 2011 5:35 PM

I really have to wonder just what moral dungeon does someone live in, who can read the two stories PZ referenced, and then purposefully sign in to whine about his reaction to them?

Get a sense of priorities, for fucks sake.

Posted by: Mr.Kosta | May 2, 2011 5:38 PM

@181

So, is this your blog now? You get to tell what PZ posts and how he chooses to post it?

Go back under your bridge.

Posted by: fuckin' kristinc | May 2, 2011 5:41 PM

For that matter, I'm wondering how effective your work with victims is, since many of them have a more nuanced view of their assailant's overall moral character.

For a long time, I was confused and worried because I felt like I should hate my rapist. I felt like maybe if I didn't hate him or feel like he was a monster -- if I could still see redeeming qualities in him -- what happened must not have really been rape. Because rapists are supposedly evil, and rage and condemnation are supposedly the appropriate responses to a rapist.

It was a giant load off my mind and made many things much clearer, and made a difference in my coming to terms with having been raped, when someone pointed out to me that study done on male college students where a very high percentage of them said they had or would "force someone into sex" if the questionnaire didn't call it rape. She told me she had a hard time thinking of rapists as monsters if there are so many men who would rape, who didn't even know what rape was. That it was obvious to her there was something bigger going on, a profoundly sick society.

It resolved the confusion I was feeling and allowed me to get on with the work of healing.

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | May 2, 2011 5:44 PM

I am not privileged for being male. If anything, I am part of two of the most hated and marginalized groups that exist today: gay people and atheists. my boyfriend readily admits that he has faced much more discrimination for being gay than for being black. the point is that this isn't some kind of contest to see who is more privileged or more discriminated against. all people should be treated equally and with respect, white men included.

Posted by: tremorfan | May 2, 2011 5:47 PM

and for everyone complaining about my assertion that PZ rebels against political correctness, he most certainly does. it is not politically correct, by any stretch of the imagination, to post "FUCK YOU REPUBLICANS" on your blog (although I concur whole-heartedly with that sentiment). political correctness has always been the notion that you should avoid saying anything that might offend the sensibilities of anyone, or that might hurt anyone's feelings. if you really think that PZ abides by those guidelines, you're off your fucking rocker.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | May 2, 2011 5:49 PM

I'm sorry, did you just use the attack on a trans woman to justify whites as persecuted hegemons, Tremorfan? GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT..

Jesus Fuck, learn something about Kyrirachy. Yes, they were black, yes, they were women. Didn't fucking stop them from exercising Cis Privilege, the only remotely visible privilege they had, on a trans woman. No, it doesn't mean white people aren't privileged, it means being trans is just still considered something awful.

Posted by: F | May 2, 2011 5:51 PM

I commend these, and all women (and the men) who have gone toe-to-toe with rapists and rape culture. I support the women who have not been able to recover so well or face their rapists due to the violence done to them.

I'm embarrassed to be a member of a species and a society which fosters rape culture. I'm proud to be a member of a species and a society which does not participate in rape culture and/or fights against it. Much respect to the individuals who comprise the latter.

~~~~~~

Would it be an inferior form of justice if Liz Seccuro's rapist is killed for violently resisting arrest?

Mu. That is not a thing. It has nothing to do with justice, this is only police defending themselves.

Posted by: matthone11 | May 2, 2011 5:57 PM

#183

Simple. He uses it as yet another attack on an entire gender. What happened to the women mentioned was absolutely disgusting and unacceptable, nobody should EVER have to go through something like that yet it keeps on happening, and the scum responsible for their suffering belong behind bars. So why couldn't PZ just say that? Why did he have to get on his high horse and lay into his own commenters for daring to suggest that, maybe, not all men are filth?

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | May 2, 2011 5:59 PM

Why did he have to get on his high horse and lay into his own commenters for daring to suggest that, maybe, not all men are filth?

Posted by: SafetyFirst | May 2, 2011 6:01 PM

If this man wanted to really make amends to the victim, he would not of been trying to leave the country and fight this in court.It is another example of how many rapist and pedophiles are required to attend AA/NA,including those that go without being mandated to.The fact that AA/NA both promote minors to attend meetings knowing full well of the dangers that are there is criminal.There should be background checks on all sponsors of minors.They should not even be allowed to have minors at meetings.

We are trying to stop this practice at

www.nadaytona.org

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | May 2, 2011 6:02 PM

and yet you had no problem with PZ using a lesbian being persecuted by straights as an example of female persecution by men.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 2, 2011 6:04 PM

@tremorfan -

PZ was making a joke about a particular type of commenter who shows up with alarming regularity and gets all indignant about (a) why rape is no big deal, or (b) all the fault of those floozily dressed girls.

The most important category that he was addressing, however, was (c) the ones who whine loudly about PZ's unfair hating on Teh Menz™.

Congratulations on achieving category (c).

Posted by: tremorfan | May 2, 2011 6:05 PM

@195

fine, if that's how you define privilege, sure. i have white privilege and male privilege. and black people have black privilege, and women have female privilege, and as a gay man i have gay privilege, and as an atheist i have atheist privilege. I also have tall privilege and average-level-of-attractiveness privilege and curly-hair privilege and Alabamian privilege. when you use privilege in this sense, it ceases to mean anything. yeah, people are all different, and because of that, they have different lives. so? this is common sense, not some secret weapon you can pull out to discredit me just because you don't like my perspective.

Posted by: Azkyroth | May 2, 2011 6:07 PM

Didn't fucking stop them from exercising Cis Privilege, the only remotely visible privilege they had, on a trans woman.

You're forgetting neurotypical privilege, which is a motherfucker (although for a literal interpretation of "visible" it wouldn't qualify).

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | May 2, 2011 6:09 PM

fine, if that's how you define privilege, sure. i have white privilege and male privilege. and black people have black privilege, and women have female privilege, and as a gay man i have gay privilege, and as an atheist i have atheist privilege.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | May 2, 2011 6:09 PM

@tremorfan:
Definition of PRIVILEGE
: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : prerogative; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office

Posted by: Azkyroth | May 2, 2011 6:11 PM

If this man wanted to really make amends to the victim, he would not of been trying to leave the country and fight this in court.It is another example of how many rapist and pedophiles are required to attend AA/NA,including those that go without being mandated to.The fact that AA/NA both promote minors to attend meetings knowing full well of the dangers that are there is criminal.There should be background checks on all sponsors of minors.They should not even be allowed to have minors at meetings.

I KNEW I wasn't being paranoid in forbidding my ex to take our daughter with her to AA meetings. I fucking KNEW it.

Posted by: slignot | May 2, 2011 6:13 PM

Wow, @tremorfan, way to totally not grasp the simple concept of what privilege is. Privilege exists for the societally advantaged group being discussed.

Claiming that there is white privilege alongside black privilege just demonstrates you have completely missed the point. The whole idea is that it governs your entire framework on what's "normal" in a way that is easy for you, and unexamined.

One of the best things I've ever read about privilege was written by John Scalzi last year. Read it before you embarrass yourself again.

Posted by: tremorfan | May 2, 2011 6:14 PM

@209

the only person who tried to "start a round of Oppression Olympics" was PZ, and it's a game he seems to be very fond of.

The worst part is that, while I almost always agree with PZ, sometimes he just makes himself out to be a huge tool. But hey, one of the things I most like about him is that he (usually) tells it like it is and speaks his mind to those with whom he disagrees. So I'm emulating the aspect of his personality I most admire, even if it means speaking my mind to him.

Posted by: Azkyroth | May 2, 2011 6:16 PM

The worst part is that, while I almost always agree with PZ, sometimes he just makes himself out to be a huge tool

So, basically, you divide his stated positions into "I agree with him" and "he's a huge tool?"

That doesn't surprise me.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | May 2, 2011 6:17 PM

Embarassed isn't hatred, it is wishing that you could be what you are and also be different. I am embarassed when I say something I shouldn't, it doesn't follow that I hate myself.

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | May 2, 2011 6:20 PM

it embarrasses me further that there will no doubt be whiny little half-men complaining in the comments of this article.

Posted by: Jaycubed | May 2, 2011 6:21 PM

It seems like PZ goes out of his way to make a personal responsibility issue into a gender inequality issue. Posted by: Disco Stu

The vast majority of rapes are committed by men against women.(1)

The vast majority of rape-apologetics (including, infamously, by members of the judiciary) take the form 'she was asking for it', thus seeking to take the responsibility off the male rapist and give it to the female victim.(2)

Looks like a gender inequality issue to me, Sparky.(3)
Posted by: Daz

(1) "The vast majority of rapes are" not "committed by men against women." Rapes are nearly exclusively committed by men. The victims of these men include women, men, girls, boys and animals. I would have to estimate (from my experience 3 decades ago working in prison and my quarter century working as a psych nurse) that in a prison population of (say) 5 thousand there are as many forcible rapes as among (say) 1 million of the general population during a commensurate period. Not just women hide their having been raped by a man.

(2) While this is completely true, in order to be truly complete we must note the same "rape-apologists" tar such hidden rape victims in precisely the same way as they do women: That they deserved it because they were in jail or prison, or that they tempted & led-on the adult men who raped them. The key point continues to be to remove the responsibility from the male rapist and transfer it onto the victim, regardless of the differences between various populations of victims.

(3) While there is certainly a "gender inequality issue" involved in both rape and its aftermath, I am not certain how to define precisely just what that issue is.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkzn4HOddD_lBfjx5Pr8TdoeKOHR6nyB2k | May 2, 2011 6:23 PM

"Because it wasn't explained ten times already in this thread. That you seem to have read.
/sarcasm"

PZ shouldn't operate on the assumption readers are going to read the comments. If so many people get the wrong idea then maybe he should explain himself better in the opening post.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | May 2, 2011 6:28 PM

PZ shouldn't operate on the assumption readers are going to read the comments. If so many people get the wrong idea then maybe he should explain himself better in the opening post.

Posted by: Mr.Kosta | May 2, 2011 6:28 PM

PZ shouldn't operate on the assumption readers are going to read the comments. If so many people get the wrong idea then maybe he should explain himself better in the opening post.

If you're going to comment, taking a look at the comments to see if a certain point has been mentioned is always a good idea.

Posted by: tremorfan | May 2, 2011 6:34 PM

@233

i understand perfectly how the term is used, and i stand by the fact that the popular usage is idiotic. i'll reiterate: privilege goes both ways. the way it's being used here, it only serves as a red herring to discredit me and my opinions on the basis that i'm a white male. i feel pretty certain that i'd be making the same arguments if i were a black female.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkzn4HOddD_lBfjx5Pr8TdoeKOHR6nyB2k | May 2, 2011 6:35 PM

"@tremorfan,
Please, try looking up the definition of privilege. Not your special definition, but how the term is actually used.
You even have links above."

Privilege is starting to sound like an arcane theological term, if you don't get it then you clearly aren't "spiritual" enough.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | May 2, 2011 6:40 PM

i understand perfectly how the term is used, and i stand by the fact that the popular usage is idiotic. i'll reiterate: privilege goes both ways.

Let me guess: you're one of those guys who thinks it's entirely unfair that some bars have "ladies drink free" nights, right?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 2, 2011 6:41 PM

I'll leave you to figure out why PZ's comments are just fine while mine make you uncomfortable.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | May 2, 2011 6:44 PM

Privilege is starting to sound like an arcane theological term, if you don't get it then you clearly aren't "spiritual" enough.

Posted by: Spamamander, internet amphibian | May 2, 2011 6:47 PM

I'm dying to know what these privileges are I am enjoying as a woman. Hell, there aren't even any bars where I get to drink free. If I'm going to have this amazing wonderful privilege I should at least get to enjoy it, right?

Posted by: Daz | May 2, 2011 6:50 PM

slignot

Yeah, it just seemed worth pointing out the the privilege involved is actually yet another example of male privilege. The irony was too much to big to let it pass completely unnoticed.

Posted by: tremorfan | May 2, 2011 7:02 PM

too many people all making similar points, so i'll just respond in general. to be clear, it's not my definition of privilege that is at odds with the dictionary, it's the people here claiming that a minority can't have privilege. let's just go and look at what the dictionary says:

priv·i·lege

A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.

from what I can see, it doesn't say "granted to a white male individual." So from the literal definition of the word, it ceases to have any meaning in the contexts you are all trying to apply it to. privileges exist for every imaginable physical and mental characteristic an individual can possess, in varying degrees. in fact, I would argue that white privilege is really just a regrouping of wealthy privilege and cohesive family unit privilege and suburbanite privilege. my definition is objectively correct, and your own biases are skewing your definitions of privilege. basically, if you take away your racism and sexism, you end up with a world full of people who all have an amalgamation of various privileges and disadvantages, most of them much more important than race privileges or gender privileges.

and if you wonder why I don't blindly accept your sociological opinions as absolute fact and join the guilt train, i guess i just need some evidence or argument that what you're saying has any merit. call me a skeptic...

Posted by: KG | May 2, 2011 7:08 PM

political correctness has always been the notion that you should avoid saying anything that might offend the sensibilities of anyone, or that might hurt anyone's feelings almost entirely the invention of right-wing bigots who want the freedom to continue with their bigotry without being called on it - Tremorfan

FIFY

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 2, 2011 7:15 PM

sometimes he just makes himself out to be a huge tool.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 2, 2011 7:17 PM

I most admire, even if it means speaking my mind to him.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 2, 2011 7:23 PM

and i stand by the fact that the popular my usage is idiotic.

Posted by: tremorfan | May 2, 2011 7:31 PM

oh wow, Nerd of Redhead, you honestly couldn't be doing more to help my case than you currently are. you are...pathetic. I sincerely hope that you're the acne-ridden 14 year old your behavior suggests. otherwise, I pity you. honestly, I do.

Posted by: itsumademootaku | May 2, 2011 7:37 PM

privilege goes both ways

This deserves to be nominee for the Idiot Bull-headed Fuckwit Backwards Concept of the Year Award

We have that, right?

Tremorfan: It's called male privilege because you must attach a modifier to it before you can accurately define to what (or whom) is attached the privilege. But then, maybe you didn't get as far as modifiers.

Posted by: tremorfan | May 2, 2011 7:41 PM

ok, i'll leave it here. this whole privilege nonsense is a needlessly convoluted and pointless game. i refuse to play. the idea of privilege is not compatible with a free and equal society in which everyone is simply considered as an individual. i can't help or be held responsible for the supposed intentions and motivations of all of the racists and sexists that supposedly exist in the world and are apparently actively working day and night to ensure that I receive special treatment. a man should not feel guilty or ashamed or embarrassed by anything that another individual does, regardless of what traits they share. and i will not be discounted because of my race, gender, sexual orientation, or (lack of) religious beliefs. PZ is wrong to behave in such a bigoted manner, even if he does belong to the groups against which he is bigoted.

Posted by: Daz | May 2, 2011 7:45 PM

the idea of privilege is not compatible with a free and equal society in which everyone is simply considered as an individual.

That just might be the first correct statement you've made.

Please note: 'not compatible with' ≠ 'does not exist'.

Posted by: tremorfan | May 2, 2011 7:53 PM

ugh

@261

"in lieu of an argument" suggests there was anything to respond to or argue with. did you read his posts? it was just post after post of self-masturbatory insults and gloat.

i hope PZ is happy with his legion of ignoramuses here. i'm sure he ran off anyone with a semblance of intelligence or self-respect long ago. and here goes another one. PZ, as much as I do enjoy your blog from time to time, you've made it painfully clear that you are not worthy of the respect or admiration I once held for you. I still remain committed to many of the ideals for which you fight tirelessly, but you've shown that, at least in some small subset of reality, you are as incapable of rational thought as any creationist.

Posted by: Azkyroth | May 2, 2011 8:03 PM

Sadly AA/NA is full of people who are either sentenced to attendance or are attending as part of a defence plea. Sexual abuse in these groups is so high it's actually called the 13th Step.

Yeah, I know. My ex spent most of a year having one as her ABSOLUTELY NOT A BOYFRIEND, though fortunately he was "only" emotionally abusive and parasitic (most of the time).

She's always had trouble with the "pattern recognition" thing, sadly, so I had to have "no taking the kid to AA meetings" written into our MSA.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 2, 2011 8:08 PM

it's the people here claiming that a minority can't have privilege.

i guess i you just need some evidence or argument that what you're I'm saying has any merit.

Posted by: Rumtopf | May 2, 2011 8:12 PM

http://twitter.com/#!/privilegedenyin

Here you go tremorfan, something you can relate to.

Posted by: Michael Hawkins | May 2, 2011 8:14 PM

The villains here are, unfortunately, all men — men who think they can use and abuse women. It makes me embarrassed for my sex … and it embarrasses me further that there will no doubt be whiny little half-men complaining in the comments of this article. Could you all try to make that prediction false?

At least try and be subtle when you troll, PZ.

Posted by: Agent Smith | May 2, 2011 8:21 PM

Tremorfan, it's been a while since I saw such a huge beef spun out of such a small strand of amino acid.

PZ isn't anti-male, he's targeting those men who make excuses for rapists. If a rapist is to have any hope of redemption, they must first realize that there were no excuses for their behavior. None. Unfortunately, many men are willing to supply a ready stream of excuses for rapists, even if they'd "never" condone or partake in such a ghastly act themselves.

If you're not amongst the excuse-makers, then PZ's post wasn't directed at you, and there's no need for the ongoing blubathon.

Posted by: fuckin' kristinc | May 2, 2011 8:41 PM

My best friend in high school was raped, and I hate, hate, hate it when people insist that rapists must be "sociopathic, deranged, evil scum." Why? Because the belief that rapists must be sociopathic, deranged, evil scum kept the police from believing my friend had been raped.

Yes! I knew someone who related how an acquaintance of hers pressured a minor working for him into "having sex" with him and then proceeded to complain that he was being unfairly accused of rape, that he wasn't a rapist, he was a nice guy. Like many people, she resolved the cognitive dissonance by deciding what he did wasn't rape.

Posted by: Wildlifer, Zombi chasseur de tueur | May 2, 2011 8:55 PM

@262
tremorfan,
What they're trying to tell you is you're privileged because of your gender/race, even if you personally don't gain any measurable, quantifiable benefits from that alleged privilege.
So cope!

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | May 2, 2011 9:08 PM

tremorfan,
Let's do more than look at the dictionary. Let's look at etymology.

privi_lege--private law, a law unto oneself.

So who, overwhelmingly, makes the laws? Who enforces the laws. Who administers the laws. The answer has not changed in a couple of thousand years in European society and its offshoots: white males.

You don't have to DO anything as a white male to be privileged. It is the default. The system was literally made FOR YOU by people LIKE YOU (and me, for that matter). If you don't actively work to undermine it, it persists.

If you don't see it, you are it.

Posted by: echidna | May 2, 2011 9:13 PM

Lyra,
A very nice illustration of a very important point.

Posted by: Brownian | May 2, 2011 9:48 PM

These benefits are only invisible to you because you are privileged.

The problem is in the word 'privilege'. Those with privilege would simply call it "being treated like a human being" without realising how much of the rest of the world isn't granted that basic courtesy.

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | May 2, 2011 10:05 PM

I broadly understand and accept the white male privilege thing, but I don't think you can start selecting out your favorite groups from that population for special exemption from the rule.. Either all white males are privileged at the societal level, or none are.

Posted by: Wildlifer, Zombi chasseur de tueur | May 2, 2011 10:30 PM

@Classical Cipher

There aren’t any benefits there. I gain nothing if you're insulted or raped. If would be just as ignorant if I said women were privileged because ~four times more men are murdered then are women. Or if I said that women are privileged because men are ~four times more likely to have a heart attack.

Everyone has to deal with assholes who will try and insult them and diminish their accomplishments. That doesn’t make every member of a gender or group that doesn’t get a particular brand of insult, “privileged”.

Everyone who is not a wildlife biologist isn't "privileged" because they don't have to deal with being called an "econazi" who falsifies data as part of a conspiracy to deny rights to others.

We still have to deal and live with the same assholes and gain no privilege in doing so.

Real privilege comes with wealth and more so corporate wealth. But in the meantime we argue over who’s less poorly off – fighting over their scraps. Much to their delight, I’m sure, just as long as the target is off of them.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 2, 2011 10:41 PM

All this discussion of privilege and whether it exists and who has it makes me wonder if any of the privilege denying folks have ever actually sat down and watched chimpanzees interact. Social hierarchy is complicated and highly dependent on circumstances. So yes, one one-legged-cisgendered-straight-white-male-crossdresser may have privilege (i.e. a higher status, with the unexamined and possibly unrecognized advantages that accompanies that status) in one situation and one social group, while lacking privilege in other situations or groups.

Why, precisely, is this so difficult for people to grasp?

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | May 2, 2011 10:54 PM

At what point do you stop classifying people and their supposed privileges? Isn't it a little bit like a Mandelbrot set, where the closer you look, the more complexity there is? Do one legged-white males have a privilege not enjoyed by legless white males of equivalent age and hair color and income and physical build and IQ and mental health and sexuality and...?

You're forgetting neurotypical privilege, which is a motherfucker (although for a literal interpretation of "visible" it wouldn't qualify).

Oh, come on! How many privileges can there be?

eminding me of how damaging our previous Government was to society: constantly inventing new groups of people who were to be deemed "disadvantaged", and who thus required every council to create a new (always paid well above the national average, interestingly) position to represent their interests. Transexuals, travelers, homosexual immigrants, cross-dressers (non-transexual)...

As I said up there^^: "To me, the idea of WM privilege actually works best when you DON'T filter anybody out."

In a most brutally accurate sense, there is also black privilege, female privilege, gay privilege, etc. However, the privileges in those columns are AMAZINGLY TINY in comparison to the privileges that they stand in opposition to. for instance, a woman can possibly get free drinks at a bar one night a week.... in exchange for risking rape in many quarters of society (including at that bar), lower pay, less respect, less hirability, inferior quality of care in an ER....

Isn't it a little bit like a Mandelbrot set, where the closer you look, the more complexity there is?

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | May 2, 2011 11:11 PM

Sorry; "I think Neurotypical would just be another form of Able privilege?"

I have absolutely no idea how chimp watching would help me understand the human privilege argument.

I think understanding those two sentences is all that is required to appreciate one's position in society.

I suppose you think sociologists are wasting their time because it's an easy thing to get, no?

Posted by: Old Rockin' Dave | May 2, 2011 11:13 PM

I have not read all the comments so I don't know if I'm repeating something that someone else has already pointed out, but the real takeaway from Amina's story is that the day was saved because she had what is known to Russians and Israelis as "proteksiya" or "Vitamin P"; that is, through her father she had connections that could be brought to bear on the secret policemen. How many others in Syria, male or female, straight or gay or bi, atheist or Salafist or neither, have fathers who have both the courage and the social connections to get them off the hook, whose stories we don't hear?

Posted by: Azkyroth | May 2, 2011 11:33 PM

The problem is in the word 'privilege'. Those with privilege would simply call it "being treated like a human being" without realising how much of the rest of the world isn't granted that basic courtesy.

Would it, then, be worth trying to find a word that's a bit less...seemingly *calculated* to be misunderstood?

Posted by: consciousness razor | May 2, 2011 11:45 PM

As an English person, this is reminding me of how damaging our previous Government was to society: constantly inventing new groups of people who were to be deemed "disadvantaged", and who thus required every council to create a new (always paid well above the national average, interestingly) position to represent their interests. Transexuals, travelers, homosexual immigrants, cross-dressers (non-transexual)...

Wow, I had no idea your government fucking invented all those groups, and took it upon itself to deem them "disadvantaged." No doubt this has caused a great amount of injustice. You're a gigantic fucking assclown.

Isn't it a little bit like a Mandelbrot set, where the closer you look, the more complexity there is?

If this shit's too fucking complicated for you, then sit this one out, dumbass.

Posted by: Azkyroth | May 2, 2011 11:51 PM

Sorry; "I think Neurotypical would just be another form of Able privilege?"

I think it's arguably distinct. For a person with mild ASD-type conditions, in particular, the experience is actually probably pretty similar to that of many immigrants.

Posted by: shawna.burt | May 3, 2011 12:12 AM

Holy fuck. PZ, next time, please post a trigger warning!

Posted by: Azkyroth | May 3, 2011 12:14 AM

Holy fuck. PZ, next time, please post a trigger warning!

Oh for fuck's sake, did you not read the description next to the links?

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkzn4HOddD_lBfjx5Pr8TdoeKOHR6nyB2k | May 3, 2011 12:36 AM

"You know what other well established scientific facts, supported by multiple lines of evidence, are called "religions" by critics who don't like the consequences?
Global Warming and Evolution. You're joining a prestigious crowd, neh?"

And scientific ideas that are unfalsifiable are called pseudoscience. Homeopathy, freudian psychology, You're joining a prestigious crowd, neh?

Posted by: Fenshh | May 3, 2011 12:38 AM

Seccuro's story is harrowing. It's moving as well, at least until the last 2 sentences. The last line in particular, waxing philosophical about whether justice had been served, is so out-of-sync with the rest of the story, that I'm having a hard time believing that she actually wrote it.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | May 3, 2011 12:44 AM

And scientific ideas that are unfalsifiable are called pseudoscience. Homeopathy, freudian psychology, You're joining a prestigious crowd, neh?

Hit me with your best shot, Fire Awa~y~

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | May 3, 2011 12:55 AM

What Mattir said, but more to the point:

1. Healthcare systems exist to serve people, not the other way around.

2. People and their health conditions are not an offense to the system, even if they don't do everything they can to be perfectly healthy.

3. It's morally appalling how many people have no compunction saying they'd deny healthcare to smokers, fat people, diabetics who don't control their sugar carefully enough.

Good God, what's wrong with you? Have you no sense of decency?

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkzn4HOddD_lBfjx5Pr8TdoeKOHR6nyB2k | May 3, 2011 12:58 AM

"Privilege is relatively easily falsifiable. All that has to happen is that statistics bear out support for anecdata of equality.
Hit me with your best shot, Fire Awa~y~"

Well people keep saying that people with Privilege are blind to it and keep insisting that I need to accept I am Privilege before continuing the discussion. Which is opening me up to a nice confirmation bias from the get go. It's like saying you will only see a ghost if you believe it's there.

Secondly, most aspects put forth as Privilege are stocastic not deterministic. Any given straight-white male may not have benefited in anyway or in fact be unlucky and be behind the average black individual. So insisting that they acknowledge they are previleged is like asking every white gaming teenage to accept they are overweight.

Posted by: amglasgow | May 3, 2011 1:09 AM

Way to go Giganticus, you were just missing 'fat-shaming' on the bingo card.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkzn4HOddD_lBfjx5Pr8TdoeKOHR6nyB2k | May 3, 2011 1:12 AM

"Way to go Giganticus, you were just missing 'fat-shaming' on the bingo card."

Agh, that's another thing that irritates me, having arguments on a bingo card does not mean they are wrong, just unoriginal. You can make a bingo card for your side too.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | May 3, 2011 1:17 AM

Right now I'm just imagining the googleness chocking to death on cat turds. It's the only happy thought I can muster

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | May 3, 2011 1:19 AM

Well people keep saying that people with Privilege are blind to it and keep insisting that I need to accept I am Privilege before continuing the discussion.

You will not see your privilege without actually looking to understand it. It is to possible to begin to understand, but you will never fully grasp it in a real world sense unless you devote yourself to studying particular fields of sociology. It's not obvious to the privileged where they have it; that's /why/ we have kyriarchy. Yes, black people are oppressed; that doesn't seem to have lead to a wave of understanding that causes black men to actively volunteer to be frontrunners and big-time helpers in every other -ism fight, for instance (Or gay white men, or straight white women). People fail to generalize even from their own oppressive experiences.

It's not impossible to learn, and even to spot out privilege; TBPH one of the best hawks on the matter I know is a straight, white, cis, able bodied (But not neurotypical) middle class male. Why? He's a sociologist; His thesis isn't on this, but a great deal of his class time (and by extension, research) is. But it's no weirder than non-entomologists having greater difficulty than entomologists at telling the differences between bugs.

"Secondly, most aspects put forth as Privilege are stocastic not deterministic. Any given straight-white male may not have benefited in anyway or in fact be unlucky and be behind the average black individual. "
Yes, someone else with good fortune or ill fortune may find their experience dictating from the norm; Alternately, they may not actually be that high on Kyriarchy's totem pole (A gay, disabled, poor white trans man is probably not going to be what we look to to see how white or male privilege works out). That is why you look at the overall statistics. an individual can only provide insight into how the system works to the advantage of disadvantage of an individua; an individual can not be the sum and total of proof of evidence of a systematic bias. That is, I can't provide evidence of bias myself; but if the statistics bear out evidence of bias against a class I belong to, then you can try and observe how that bias plays out using me.

So insisting that they acknowledge they are previleged is like asking every white gaming teenage to accept they are overweight.

Even if you, personally, have been unlucky, society has given you reprieves that it does not give me. Do I want you to suffer like me? Do I want you to be told "It is not okay to be a man"? Do I want you to have to suffer existential angst and straight drags? No. I want not to suffer through those things. I think you can perhaps understand why. No matter how fortunate I am, and no matter how unfortunate you are, there are basic ways you benefit. And it's entirely possible the reverse will be true (Although TBH the only way I can see that is if you fail financially and I succeed finanfically; even if I'm lucky, I will still be the beneficiary of class privilege that you won't. Or, alternately, we could have 'traded off' privileges)

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkzn4HOddD_lBfjx5Pr8TdoeKOHR6nyB2k | May 3, 2011 1:37 AM

"If you are straight, you have with almost complete certainty, never had to ask yourself "Is it okay for me to be straight? Am I doing something wrong? Will I be hated if I find out I'm straight? oh god, will someone tie me up and drag me from a truck? Will someone rape me to get the straight out of me?""

Again this is not a deterministic thing, you may not be in a sub-culture that is homophobic or you may have a high degree of self confidence. Any given white man may have more angst about his hair style than a self confident gay man.

I am left handed, but I have never seriously got angst about that despite being a minority, if I was in Victorian Britain I may have been beaten until I used my right and thus arguably disadvantaged.

Anyway, thank you for engaging with me sensibly instead of calling me stupid or prejudiced.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | May 3, 2011 1:44 AM

I am left handed, but I have never seriously got angst about that despite being a minority, if I was in Victorian Britain I may have been beaten until I used my right and thus arguably disadvantaged.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkzn4HOddD_lBfjx5Pr8TdoeKOHR6nyB2k | May 3, 2011 1:53 AM

"Because today you won't get threatened or beaten because you are left handed. On the other hand, if you were gay chances of getting threatened or beaten would dramatically rise. You can have a fuckload of self confidence, it would still be a danger. You notice why gay people may feel they have a slight disadvantage there?"

I am more than willing to accept that gay men feel disadvantaged, but it is not a universal problem, being gay in Africa is not the same as being gay in san-Francisco. Being gay now is not the same as being gay in Ancient Sparta. It is foolish to come to uniform conclusions on this matter.

Posted by: Azkyroth | May 3, 2011 2:08 AM

Gosh. If ONLY there were some way to confirm that one's experience might be different from someone else's! If ONLY there were ways for human beings to communicate information about our experiences to one another! If ONLY we had some sort of system of communication ... like sounds carrying agreed-on meanings, or something.

To be fair, this one's kind of irrelevant if one posits that the only way to know anything useful about something is to experience it directly...

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | May 3, 2011 2:15 AM

I am more than willing to accept that gay men feel disadvantaged, but it is not a universal problem, being gay in Africa is not the same as being gay in san-Francisco. Being gay now is not the same as being gay in Ancient Sparta. It is foolish to come to uniform conclusions on this matter.

Nobody gives a shit about Ancient Sparta's social dynamics because of the people suffering in them right now. Privilege is hopefully not going to be permanent, yes. If you are asking about these things to try to understand the concept, you are asking profoundly stupid questions, but you are hopefully learning. But.. so what? am I to shrug and say "Oh well then, if it's not permanent and universal, I can't keep saying it when I'm talking about the current era"? No, when talking about social problems now, you damn well refer to the problems of now. What next, are you going to harp about how I don't refer to 'protestant privilege' because Catholics used to be a disadvantaged class in the USA?

Oh, btw, you're aware that even in San Francisco, Gay People take shit,r ight? Are you familiar with Prop 8? I'm glad it was overturned, but...

It is foolish to come to uniform conclusions on this matter.

Privilege is not a universal constant you lackwit. If it were, it wouldn't be social and cultural, it'd have verifiable causes in something else. Our goal is ending it; it is obviously not considered a necessary universal constant. It doesn't fucking have to be, to be kicking our asses right now. As it happens, the 6 classes I mentioned are pretty globally advantaged. True, some of those are starting to disappear, like straight privilege throughout much of europe, or male privilege in Sweden. It does not change that they are disadvantaged almost everywhere, and even where it's vanishing it's STILL THERE AND STILL HAS TO BE FOUGHT.

Jesus Fuck, how stupid are you? Christian Privilege has been mentioned (and is a real thing), in the context of the USA. Do you seriously think anyone here will mention Christian Privilege in a discussion on Egyptian society and politics? North Korea's?

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | May 3, 2011 2:30 AM

I am not arguing that egalitarianism is a bad thing, I am arguing that many of the arguments you put forward are awful/incomplete/fallacious.

No, but if you are in a tolerant area/time you cannot be claiming you live in fear of being attacked. Or you at least have to admit the fear is somewhat irrational.

Some people I know have convinced themselves I'm a lesbian (I'm not but that's besides the point) and they mock and ridicule me when we meet. I can only imagine how much that might hurt if I actually was a lesbian and was out and that was a general response I got from people. Should one dismiss that just because there is no immediate threat of violence?

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkzn4HOddD_lBfjx5Pr8TdoeKOHR6nyB2k | May 3, 2011 2:40 AM

"I won't be attacked but I will be mocked. Or get passed during promotions at work. Or if I do get raped, police will tell me it was just a misunderstanding because that perfectly nice man I am accusing of rape said so."

Now I don't want to sound insensitive but those things won't necessarily happen, it is just statistically more likely to (depending on where you live, where you work, who you socialise with etc). This in itself should be stopped/reduced but it is a bad argument to exaggerate the grievance.

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | May 3, 2011 2:51 AM

Good morning
Lots to catch up so I'll try

"The heart attack fallacy"
Attention: facts alert.

1.) Coronal diseases are the #1 killer for both men AND women

2.) The numbers of men dying of them and women dying of them are about 50/50

3.) Men die younger of heart attacks than women

4.) Men also get the better treatment/eduction about heart attacks. Remember what you learned about symptoms of heart attacks? Chest pain, numb left arm? Only most women don't experience those "classical" symptoms, but rather things like nausea. Those women typical smptoms are generally listed under "other possible symptoms" and health-care providers are less likely to recognize a heart attack in a woman.

I'll come back for different issues later

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | May 3, 2011 3:10 AM

So you counter my accusation of bad arguments and rhetoric with a deliberately loaded question? That's right up there with "have you stopped beating your wife yet?".

I'm going to assume that this is sarcasm.

Sorry, I'm in a hurry. Running late already.
Discuss someone else while I'm gone. And read what some of the other posters wrote about examples of privilege. They're much more eloquent than me, you might learn something.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkzn4HOddD_lBfjx5Pr8TdoeKOHR6nyB2k | May 3, 2011 3:21 AM

"I asked that question because you disparaged every argument given because the situation isn't threatening enough or problems are not big enough to be considered problems concerning the whole society"

I disparage arguments I feel are flawed in some way. There is no reason it shouldn't be considered as a problem concerning society, but ultimately you can only address so many problems. You can only hope to quantify the problems and address the worse first, exaggerating your grievances and dismissing the ones of the whiny white "half-men" males as less important or non-problems is not the correct way of dealing with it. You should calmly explain why their grievance is less of a priority (or a fiction) instead of yelling PRIVILEGE and beating them with the fact they haven't studied social justice.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | May 3, 2011 3:33 AM

You should calmly explain why their grievance is less of a priority (or a fiction) instead of yelling PRIVILEGE and beating them with the fact they haven't studied social justice.

Fuck Off, Yahoomess, if this is all you have left.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkzn4HOddD_lBfjx5Pr8TdoeKOHR6nyB2k | May 3, 2011 3:39 AM

@Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom

Ok good-bye, thanks for the discussion I found it helpful (again, not sarcasm)

I would like to know if this is PZ's stance on the issue but I doubt I would get a response.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkzn4HOddD_lBfjx5Pr8TdoeKOHR6nyB2k | May 3, 2011 4:15 AM

"A Swedish woman who had a good night's out in the celebrated liberal fashion, feeling herself free and secure and emancipated and who then suffers rape from a middle-class white guy is not taken seriously. It was her fault, she just got drunk, he's such a nice guy he would never do that. Swedish men aren't rapists!"

Are there any studies to support this?

Posted by: drbunsen | May 3, 2011 5:31 AM

Holy fuck. PZ, next time, please post a trigger warning!

Oh for fuck's sake, did you not read the description next to the links?

Hey, asshole, I know it says "rapist" and "horrific/horrible", but nuclear fuckin bishops, that was way more brutal than I was expecting. My jaw fell open at about paragraph 2 and stayed that way while my skin crawled and my blood ran cold. It's gonna take me at least an hour to come down off the physiological shock alone, and I'm not even in a personal rape recovery process.

In short, fuck you. And PZ, trigger warnings are your friend, mkay?

Posted by: terryg | May 3, 2011 5:48 AM

@Rutee #335 - thank you so much for that. clear, concise and brilliantly informative. One would have to be a FUCKING MORON not to understand you.

@Rutee #340 and onwards, I suspect googlemess, in addition to being a FUCKING MORON, is a pedantically pedantic pedant - it seems to think that if it can conceive of a possibility of a single instance anywhere in space-time that can be interpreted as refuting claims of privilege (which it clearly thinks are absolute) then said privelege cant really be said to exist.

I mean Sparta? for fucks sake googlemess, how fucking thick are you? why not posit future civilisations too.

I suspect googlemess is the kind of wanker that would argue for HOURS over someone using the word "instantly" - as in "when I saw her being raped I instantly rang the police" - because, after all, the fastest possible response is Planck time.

It took me a long time to begin to understand that women dont view "safe" the way I do. I used to be bemused when friends/partners would express concern about travelling alone somewhere (at night, bloody near anywhere) and I would even argue with them. *despite* my having been repeatedly raped as a child. it makes me embarassed and ashamed to have been me (one of many reasons).

Eventually (thanks to people like you, willing to try and educate even fuckwits like me), I realised that being male, 6'2" 90kg in excellent shape with a decade or two of full contact martial arts, made my interpretation of "safe" entirely different from that of females - therefore rendering my commentary not just null and void but un-fucking-believably stupid. And that said martial arts was a result of the fear of a repeat of my childhood, and that I am in fact ALWAYS looking for danger wherever I go. (cognitive dissonance anyone?)

Googlemess - get some fucking perspective. I doubt you've ever left the shelter of your allegedly non-existent privilege - or if you have, you were way too narcissistic/solipsistic to notice anything that doesnt already conform to your biased worldview.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | May 3, 2011 6:56 AM

I disparage arguments I feel are flawed in some way. There is no reason it shouldn't be considered as a problem concerning society, but ultimately you can only address so many problems. You can only hope to quantify the problems and address the worse first, exaggerating your grievances and dismissing the ones of the whiny white "half-men" males as less important or non-problems is not the correct way of dealing with it.

You should calmly explain why their grievance is less of a priority (or a fiction) instead of yelling PRIVILEGE and beating them with the fact they haven't studied social justice.

I haven't studied social justice either. It's simple empathy and acknowledging that some people don't have it.

You disparage arguments, but you don't offer any valuable counterarguments. You just say that we are wrong, that calling some widely accepted injustices privilege is wrong because.... explain. You acknowledge that problems exist but calling some people privileged bothers you sooo much. Well, that argument is certainly flawed. It's not even an argument. It's "I'm right, you are wrong.".

Posted by: drbunsen | May 3, 2011 7:35 AM

Gah. I made it to #130, but I have to declare thread exhaustion beyond that.

PZ - you, the 2005 cop, the father and some of the commenters here make me proud to be a man human being.

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | May 3, 2011 7:45 AM

What I am opposed to is fear-mongering (all women have to live in fear of rape etc)

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | May 3, 2011 7:52 AM

What I am opposed to is fear-mongering (all women have to live in fear of rape etc)

Oh for fuck's sake. Women aren't told they have to live in fear; the reality is that many of them do, because every single woman has either been raped or knows a woman who has. See if you can get that through your thick skull. Every single woman personally knows a woman who has been raped. You do too, they just probably haven't told you about it because they know how unsympathetic you are. And close to 100% of women have been in a threatening situation where they were sexually harassed, without knowing whether rape was next on the list of the guy harassing them. Close to 100% of women have also been taught rape-prevention tips that tell them where not to go, what not to wear, when not to walk outside, who not to talk to, OR ELSE they will be raped too and then it will be their fault for not being vigilant enough.

You can shove your fear-mongering up your ass.

Posted by: MacTurk | May 3, 2011 8:04 AM

The issue in the Syrian case seems to be first that the security services/mukhabarat wanted to get the lady for blogging against the state. Then there is the religious issue. Last was the cultural norm regarding women and homosexuality.

In Syria, which is a National Security State, the various intelligence/security are heavly overmanned by Alawite, who are a Shia-origin sect of Islam, while the majority of the population is Sunni. The state propaganda machine has been busy blaming the current situation on extremist Sunni(Salafi). They are trying to spread a message that the relative tolerance under the Ba'athist regime will be replaced by a extreme, fundamental Islamism. They are trying to rally the minority groups behind the current regime.

The lady's father is obviously well connected, and knew very well how to play on the ties of family and respect in Arab culture.

He and his daughter are both extremely brave. Both faced down armed goons, who could have killed them and dumped their bodies. It should also be said that the father has definitely risen above the local culture. Most local families would have either killed a lesbian daughter or married her off at high speed.

Posted by: Anri | May 3, 2011 8:10 AM

A little behind, but I just wanted to catch this bit of sillyness:

Anyone may get run over by a bus tomorrow but it is silly to say I will get run over by a bus tomorrow, or I live in fear of getting run over by a bus. Now if you lived in an area with really terrible bus drivers then maybe that attitude is justified but you can't use it as a stick to smack all bus drivers with.

Are most instances of bus MVA's accidental?

Are most incidences of gay-bashing accidental?
Most incidences of cross-burning?
Most incidences of rape?

In reviewing these questions, do you think your analogy is just a wee bit flawed?
And you've made it crystal clear how much you just hate poor argumentation, so...

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | May 3, 2011 8:12 AM

@googlemess:

Oh, so you now acknowledge that privilege exists, but you don't want us to say that out loud. As long as we are assured that you know what it is, we can now pretend that everyone knows it and problems solved.

Just stop fucking repeating that we have bad arguments if you can't offer any good ones.

Did you read the stories linked? Did you read how that first woman's accusation of rape was casually dismissed? That's not an exception. College campus rapes? Not an exception. Women being drugged and raped? Not an exception. Women being scared to walk home alone at night? Not an exception.

It's not fear mongering. It's reality.

It doesn't make me cover at home in fear, but it makes me want to change the world where that is so common. That is not going to happen if we tone our arguments down for the sake of niceness or some privileged asshole's hurt feelings.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 3, 2011 8:25 AM

I don't know best, I'm suggesting we discuss it to work out which is best. You are the ones say I'm right your wrong!

Posted by: Anri | May 3, 2011 8:29 AM

The analogy is not a perfect representation (it doesn't need to be). For the purposes of what I should worry about when I go outside the incident being "accidental" is not a factor.

Well, I guess that depends on whether you are attempting to fix the problem (in which case accidental/purposeful goes to the heart of the issue), or just sit around and tut-tut about it.

Which, I suppose, is influenced by your opinion as to it being an important problem or not.

Which, I would imagine, has some bearing on whether you think someone should worry about it or not.

Hunh, and here we are, back at the initial point about the analogy being a poor one.
Especially when the current discussion is about privilege, and society's attitudes towards minorities and the people who oppress them.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | May 3, 2011 8:52 AM

I can't believe that you have to impose a feminist paradigm to find a moral problem with rape.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkzn4HOddD_lBfjx5Pr8TdoeKOHR6nyB2k | May 3, 2011 9:06 AM

@beatrice
Since you seem intent on misinterpreting everything I write I think I will call it a day.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | May 3, 2011 9:17 AM

Women are people, raping people is wrong, people have free will and can make choices to follow the morally correct idea, thus the responsibility falls upon the rapist, thus he should be brought to justice.

There a lot of little, mundane things that women have to constantly worry about because they are women. There are also some fucking scary things that could happen to women because of their sex, but are a lot less likely to happen to men. Men have a privilege not to worry about those things.
Do you need a drawn explanation, a graph? In how much detail do I need to put it so that you finally get a clue and stop complaining about a fucking word used.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 3, 2011 9:44 AM

I don't argue the counter position,

Posted by: Anri | May 3, 2011 10:15 AM

Getting run over is pretty important, (snip)

...just not something we should be afraid of, gotcha....

and even if it is accidental you can make changes to reduce the likelihood - traffic laws, training etc, harsher penalties for negligence.

And if not accidental, (I'm assuming - and set me straight if I'm off base here - that you do not think rape is accidental), we should probably address some of the underlying causes, and reasons for this behavior being excused. One of the major contributing factors is male privilege, which is what we're trying to make folks understand in this thread.

But if you really want you can change the analogy to stabbing and mugging.

Sounds good, please restate your analogy using this type of crime, and we'll go from there.

Also:

I can't believe that you have to impose a feminist paradigm to find a moral problem with rape.

Well, no, one could assume that women are inherently worth less than men, and then equate rape with stealing from the man who 'rightly' owns the woman in question - in fact, this is the way rape was dealt with for a disturbingly long time.
I am taking 'feminist paradigm' in this case to mean 'women are equal to men as human beings', as that's what most feminists I know (including myself) argue for. I'm not certain why you'd want to avoid holding such a paradigm, or having it enforced, but I imagine you'll explain.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | May 3, 2011 10:22 AM

Well you demanded that I provide an argument, I assumed it was because you couldn't think of one yourself

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 3, 2011 10:28 AM

You don't really need to invoke privilege to declare them wrong. You could convert far more people of a non-egalitarian bent that way.

What, you mean people like you? Who have a problem with the word "privilege"? No thanks, I'll settle for shaming people like you and making them look like idiots, because that's really the only way to deal with someone with such ridiculous views, and such a stubborn will to avoid perceiving reality, as you have.

Fucking tone troll.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | May 3, 2011 10:41 AM

@googlemes

Me:

There a lot of little, mundane things that women have to constantly worry about because they are women. There are also some fucking scary things that could happen to women because of their sex, but are a lot less likely to happen to men. Men have a privilege not to worry about those things.

Much better : #392

Any comments on that?

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 3, 2011 10:53 AM

"You say that I need "to impose a feminist paradigm" to find a problem with rape. You seem to imply that I can't see the moral problem with rape otherwise." Well you demanded that I provide an argument, I assumed it was because you couldn't think of one yourself

Really, you are that stupid? When someone contradicts my argument, I assume it’s because they think they have a valid counter-argument, not that they are just fucking around with me. If you are just fucking around then stop wasting our time. There are plenty of real misogynists who come through here, we get plenty of practice.

"Or those jerks who think they can grope any attractive woman that goes by" that's sexual harassment - again, wrong

Plenty of men would disagree with you there. And again, you’re standing in moral territory demarcated by feminists, in opposition to the prevailing culture. Traditionally, sexual harassment would only be wrong if the woman was accompanied by her owner father or husband; if she was out in public alone, then sexual harassment would be the correct and proper response, particularly if she was not an upper-class woman.

"Jerks who don't believe women when they go to police to accuse someone of rape." I'm not sure I would call scepticism of an accusation a crime but if they are hindering the criminal process then they are obstructing justice - again wrong.

Ah, I see you are completely unfamiliar with what happens to women when they try to report a rape. And you are a myopic asshole who lacks the empathy required to realize that women have different experiences from you, that your experiences are not universal, that you don’t get to define other people’s experiences for them. Here, a link for you, if you care to educate yourself (if you’re sure that wouldn’t make you TOO uncomfortable, Dog forbid!): The Rape of Mr. Smith, which was written with clueless morons like yourself in mind.

"Or the boss that won't give his female employee a raise despite her competence, but will give it to an equally or less competent man." That's straight gender discrimination - wrong. It would also be wrong to show unjustified favouritism amongst male employees -Nepotism also wrong.

Really, it’s wrong? That would be a novel idea, that paying women less than men just because they are women is intrinsically unfair and wrong. It’s an idea that we owe directly to the feminist movement. Without feminism, this seemingly self-evident idea would not enjoy widespread acceptance. Tell us again how we can fight this fight without “imposing” a feminist paradigm?

" Or doctors and nurses who act like assholes and make you feel raped all over again." I'm not sure what to call that, some sort of professional infraction.

You would call this sexism. And you would call this rape culture. You would call it doctors and nurses reflecting the culture in which they exist. Remember, the culture where, for centuries, rape was only considered wrong if it deprived another man of access to his property wife or daughter, and rape by husband of his wife was a legal impossibility. Only within the last few decades has this attitude shifted substantially. I guess you haven’t been paying attention, huh? It must be nice, to be able to ignore these issues, because they don’t really affect your life directly—oops, there I go, pointing out male privilege again!

And the majority of these worries are all contingent on being raped in the first.

Yes, and 1 in 6 American women will experience a rape, sexual assault, or attempted rape or sexual assault in her lifetime. Why is that? Because rapists aren’t arrested, and are able to continue raping people. Why aren’t they arrested? Because of the attitudes of cops, doctors, nurses, college deans, etc., who don’t believe that rape is really rape unless the woman was completely sober, attired in a wimple, and walking home from church when she was attacked.

You don't really need to invoke privilege to declare them wrong. You could convert far more people of a non-egalitarian bent that way.

Nobody here is struggling with whether these things are wrong or not. Unless you are. The question we are struggling with is, “WHY are these things so common?” Male privilege is one of the answers to this question.

And can I ask how you intend to destroy this privilege other than simply better enforcing justice?

By making it more socially unacceptable to be a clueless sexist like you. Also, you seem to be ignoring (deliberately?) the fact that it is this very privilege that is standing in the way of enforcing justice. Male privilege says that men should not be held responsible for discerning whether the woman they’re trying to fuck is merely very drunk or actually unconscious. Thus, if a man has sex with a passed out woman, which is rape, he has an excuse for raping her. It wasn't his fault! He didn't know! (And his culture has taught him that he shouldn't know, shouldn't even TRY to know, that a "real man" takes any pussy that's within his reach, that he's a fag if he gives a damn about whether his partner is awake and receiving pleasure from the sex act.) Thus, male privilege gives rapists excuses for raping, and gives them tools to avoid being prosecuted for rape. Thus, male privilege prevents justice from being done.

Are you still going to pretend like this is all too difficult for you to understand, you disingenuous fucking tone troll, or would you like more smackdown? Because that can be provided.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 3, 2011 11:17 AM

I argue that women are often not believed or are afraid to report sex crimes because people assume that nice people can't be rapists. That's a fact.

Yup... and you were, and are still arguing, that "nice people can't be rapists."

You have some jazz about how "nice" is just a facade and this somehow justifies your view that it's completely true that nice people can't be rapists...

But you've offered no factual evidence to contravene the findings of empirical studies on men who rape and get away with it that show that they really aren't that psychologically abnormal.

You're full of shit.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | May 3, 2011 11:34 AM

@Mudpuddles

What attitudes are you talking about, exactly? I argue that women are often not believed or are afraid to report sex crimes because people assume that nice people can't be rapists. That's a fact. I also argue that "nice people" is the facade which often keeps rapists and other evil doers shielded from justice. Bishop Vangheluwe, Sean Fortune, the man who Krintinc refers to in comment #278, the man who raped me, the man who raped Liz Seccuro, fucking Harold Shipman for goodness sake. I also argue that victims and the rest of society need to be certain that rape is always caused by some mental deviance on the part of the perpetrator. Another fact. Surely you don't believe rapists are 100% normal people?

Either you're a moron or you think we are.

No rape is not a product of mental illness (necessarially). Saying so is slanderous to the mentally ill.

When rape is used in war, what the soldiers suddenly become insane when following an order?

Give me a fucking break.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkzn4HOddD_lBfjx5Pr8TdoeKOHR6nyB2k | May 3, 2011 11:52 AM

"Really, it’s wrong? That would be a novel idea, that paying women less than men just because they are women is intrinsically unfair and wrong. It’s an idea that we owe directly to the feminist movement. Without feminism, this seemingly self-evident idea would not enjoy widespread acceptance. Tell us again how we can fight this fight without “imposing” a feminist paradigm?

By feminist paradigm, I mean viewing the world through privilege and patriarchy, I think you can identify various sexist attitudes without completely embracing this viewpoint. Yes we owe changes in attitude of culture to the feminist movement, yes it has done a great good to society.

If your talking to a conservative or libertarian once they've got in in their head that women are deserving of equal justice you can just as easily motivate them by talking about removing obstacles to justice as opposed to eliminating privilege which just leads to oppression Olympics and "you're a dirty commy" responses.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkzn4HOddD_lBfjx5Pr8TdoeKOHR6nyB2k | May 3, 2011 12:01 PM

I am taking 'feminist paradigm' in this case to mean 'women are equal to men as human beings', as that's what most feminists I know (including myself) argue for. I'm not certain why you'd want to avoid holding such a paradigm, or having it enforced, but I imagine you'll explain.

'women are equal to men as human beings' I completely agree with this paradigm and in that case I am a feminist. But people often tell me (some who identify themselves as feminists) that feminism has to be about eliminating patriarchy/privilege. Which is something of a different matter, also opening difference feminism, equality feminism, pro-sex feminism, anti-sex feminism and a whole host of other conflicts.

Posted by: MudPuddles | May 3, 2011 12:09 PM

@ Ing,

Yes, people who commit rape quite simply have a screw loose. They are not right in the head. Anyone who carries out rape for any reason is a sexual deviant. They cannot be considered to have a normal psychology.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 3, 2011 12:16 PM

Oh come off it!! I clearly state exactly the opposite of what you claim - I do not argue that nice people can't be rapists! I state exactly the opposite - nice people commit rape, and murder and other crimes. Rapists can be pillars of their communities, and people that everyone loves. That does not mean that they are not also monsters

So far so good...

or mentally ill.

And that's where you made a wrong turn. Sorry. You are simply wrong about this. Most rapists are not mentally ill.

What Sally and others are taking issue with is this:

Rapists are sociopaths - incapable of true empathy and with a permanent child-like inability to form a theory of mind.

It is simply false. I'm sorry you got turned around about this, but people here are responding to a legitimate problem with your analysis.

Posted by: fuckin' kristinc | May 3, 2011 12:19 PM

Anyone who carries out rape for any reason is a sexual deviant. They cannot be considered to have a normal psychology.

Oh god shut up shut up shut up. Every idiotic thing you say just makes it worse. You are a monumental fuckwit.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | May 3, 2011 12:22 PM

Surely you don't believe rapists are 100% normal people?

Many of them are normal people. I'd venture to say many rapists committed their crimes because we live in a culture (rape culture) that makes it permissible to do so.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 3, 2011 12:26 PM

It'd be great, Mudpuddles, if you would first figure out what you think, and THEN share it with the rest of the world. As it stands, you've contradicted yourself several times in backpedaling and moving the goalposts vis-a-vis your original assertion, which was, as several have pointed out, simply factually incorrect.

Posted by: Pris | May 3, 2011 12:27 PM

I would not call rapists mentally ill. This has several reasons.
1. The vast majority of mentally ill people is non violent or only a danger to themselves. There is enough stigma on mental illness that it is completely unnecessary to add more. It is also very insulting to the mentally ill.

2. Mentally ill persons have often a warped sense of reality and impaired judgment. There is a reason persons with mental illness cannot be judged in a court of law. Because they cannot take responsibility for their own actions. Calling a rapist mentally ill implies that he isn't completely responsible for his own actions.

3. Crimes are committed by normal people. Aside from a small minority, most criminals are people like you and me.
That goes for rapists as well.
The reason people rape is because they are taught that everyone likes sex and that if the advances are rejected they are playing hard to get at, that certain ways of dressing is implicit consent and that drugging and then raping is doing them a favour.

To understand that something is wrong one has to be taught that it is wrong in the first place, and the prevalent view in society is that women are only there to be fucked, if they want it or not.

Calling all rapists mentally ill or monsters absolves society of all responsibility, because if only aberrations of the norm do something, I have no influence on their actions and I don't need to change my own views and behaviour.

Some rapists may be monsters or mentally ill, but not all.

I agree that prosecution of rape should be better, that sentences should be higher (I would go for at least 20 years), and that victim blaming needs to stop.

Calling all rapists mentally ill stands in the way of achieving that.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 3, 2011 12:28 PM

Wildlifer - you really are stupid. You can't see how, when compared to being raped, simply not being raped is a privilege.

Posted by: Anri | May 3, 2011 12:30 PM

'women are equal to men as human beings' I completely agree with this paradigm and in that case I am a feminist. But people often tell me (some who identify themselves as feminists) that feminism has to be about eliminating patriarchy/privilege. Which is something of a different matter, also opening difference feminism, equality feminism, pro-sex feminism, anti-sex feminism and a whole host of other conflicts.

What part of eliminating patriarchy and (gender-based) privilege does not follow necessarily from the statement that women are equal to men in worth and rights?
Can you give me some examples?

Posted by: MrXerxes | May 3, 2011 12:43 PM

I think Wildfire has fallen into the trap mentioned earlier about thinking that a standard of living can't be a privilege.

I don't think he was being delibrately stupid.

Posted by: fuckin' kristinc | May 3, 2011 12:54 PM

MrXerxes: very few stupid people are deliberately stupid.

Posted by: Disco Stu | May 3, 2011 12:57 PM

So if I'm reading this thread correctly, it's wrong of me as a man who doesn't rape anyone to take exception to another man saying that he is "embarrassed for [his] sex"?

Rapes are horrible events and I think the justice system has major flaws regarding the identification, prosecution, and punishment of rape crimes that need to be addressed. But suggesting that all men need be embarrassed for would be like a black person being embarrassed for their race because some black people are violent criminals. Both men-who-rape and black-people-who-commit-violent-crimes are vast, vast minorities and in no way representative of their gender and race.

Be embarrassed for the animals that don't respect other's rights to exist peacefully and work to protect the innocent. I fail to see how denigrating men accomplishes anything but (and as PZ admits himself) more divisiveness.

Posted by: KG | May 3, 2011 1:01 PM

it's wrong of me as a man who doesn't rape anyone to take exception to another man saying that he is "embarrassed for [his] sex"? - Disco Stu

Why would it bother you? PZ's not demanding that you be embarrassed for your sex too.

Posted by: Disco Stu | May 3, 2011 1:03 PM

No, but he is embarrassed *for* me being a member of that sex.

Posted by: fuckin' kristinc | May 3, 2011 1:08 PM

No no, beatrice, it's way more fun to fuck with them by saying "That's right, worm boy. Be afraid. WE'RE COMING FOR YOU MUAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA."

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | May 3, 2011 1:13 PM

Beatice, better not let googlemess know about all of the endless debates that ground down to nothingness at the Feminist Horde meetings. Best to keep some sort of mystique.

Posted by: MrXerxes | May 3, 2011 1:23 PM

@fuckin' kristinc

I dunno, I live somewhere where they read the Daily Mail. I gotta believe in something to explain it.

@terryg

that was sally strange and beatrice - I kept trying to post something cogent on rape (and abuse) being the result of a lack of empathy, whether that's a permanent condition (i.e. sociopath etc) or an unthinking lapse (exacerbated by rape culture and privilege) but I couldn't, so I can't take any credit there.

Posted by: MudPuddles | May 3, 2011 1:28 PM

@ strange gods, kristinc

Thanks you, some civil discussion!

I get your points, but still I largely disagree. First strange gods, I think the fundamental problem is the term "mentally ill", and I agree that term should not have been used - mea culpa. My point is not that a rapist is mentally ill in the sense of One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, but that sexual violence is a perversion and is an abnormal behaviour. It might seem normalised in some contexts e.g. Kristinc's comment about a profoundly sick culture. My point is that someone who commits rape is not 100% normal since they do not have, or they can be selective with, the normal human thought processes, moral compass or compassion which stops other people from committing that horrific crime. I stand by what I said - to commit rape you must have no empathy for your victim, even if that deficiency only manifests itself just in that context. As for the theory of mind, yeah I totally accept that point was not well made. Of course it may not be a permanent disability and perhaps it does not pervade every aspect of their life, in that sense I was wrong. Nevertheless a rapist must be dissociated mentally from what their victim is suffering. In the case of soldiers as per the article I cited, it might be due to conditioning or aggressive masculinity within a combat context or whatever. The fact is that "normal" people - i.e. people who would not commit rape - have a mental block which completely prohibits the act, just like the normal mental framework which prevents us commiting random acts of murder or vandalism. People who fail that test have a psychological issue. I can't believe that anyone who commits rape can be held up as an example of a healthy mind.

Kristinc: re my comment "Rapists are sociopaths - incapable of true empathy and with a permanent child-like inability to form a theory of mind", a similar response: yes rape is a sociopathic act - i.e. an act characterized by asocial or antisocial behavior, typically including little regard for the feeling or suffering of the victim. I agree, a rapist is not necessarily stark raving bonkers but they are sociopathic, perhaps just with regard to the act of rape, or just with regard to the victim. And I'm sorry but I will always believe that rape is atypical of healthy minds - THAT is what I mean by not normal.

what actually keeps rapists shielded from justice is judges, police, and other people who believe that rape is no big deal and women don't have the right to control over our consent

Yes, of course. But sometimes the fact that someone is considerd a model citizen keeps other people from believing that they could commit rape, or makes victims blame themselves or decide they won't be believed. My own serial rapist was shown incredible leniency and I and my co-accusers were treated harshly by the court because the judge said that he could not (quote) "reconcile the allegations against (the rapist) with his standing within the community and his noted record of selfless, charitable and humanitarian acts". Some of his other victims did not pursue justice because of that statement. That attitude (of the judge) has always been and remains a problem.

I'm sorry about your situation, and maybe we just have a problem of semantics, but I stand by what I said. Rape is abnormal and utterly vile, and someone must have a mental deficiency of some degree to commit such a monstrous act against another human being. Maybe neither of us will change the other's mind about that.

Posted by: Disco Stu | May 3, 2011 1:36 PM

@442, that's the point. He didn't say that he was embarrassed for men that rape, he was embarrassed for all men, of which I am a subset. That's my entire point. No where in his message did he delineate "my sex" from "members of my sex that rape" and it doesn't even seem implied. The implication is that all men should feel embarrassed, but here I'm only talking about what he actually said in this post: that he is embarrassed for all men.

I also don't appreciate the implication that I don't understand empathy because I don't like being lumped in with raping animals.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | May 3, 2011 1:49 PM

Yes, people who commit rape quite simply have a screw loose. They are not right in the head. Anyone who carries out rape for any reason is a sexual deviant. They cannot be considered to have a normal psychology.

Sigh. I wish I had the simplistic happy world view you do. Sadly I don't because I've interacted with too many people.

Your attempt to move rapists and rape into the realm of mental illness is, at it's core defensive and selfish. You want to distance yourself from it and accept the lie that it's something outside of the normal range of human behavior.

It's not.

Everyone wants to demonize rapists, murderers, Hitler, dictators etc and yes some of them are just monsterous. They're also human...and a lot of them are fully human, their actions and crimes are part of the dark side of humanity. Trying to push that away and deny that it's part of what humans are capable of is not just wrong it's potentially dangerous. It's the "It can't happen to me/It can't happen here" game. It can.

There are people who by every right are nice good people and do seem to not want to cause unnecessary harm to others; they also have committed date rape. And it's not because they're insane. Maybe it was peer pressure or ignorant ideas about sexuality and rights or self denial...maybe it is madness in some cases but not all. 1/8 of all women in the US are raped (if I recall the statistic), the perpetrators are not a small handful of deranged people. You have serial rapists and violent rapists and then you have a casual rapist who thinks what they do is far removed from rape. You have the people who would never hunt down someone and rape them...but would take advantage of someone passed out or go with a frenzy or peer pressure in a gang rape or some bullshit like that.

It is NOT madness. It is not an alien behavior. Though it is inhuman It is NOT unhuman.

Telling our adolescents "rape is a product of mental illness" is going to make things worse as you're telling them "Rape is something OTHERS who are inhuman do". You provide the refuge of "I let one go" or "I'm nice to children" or "It was only once" or any of the thousand of other things NORMAL people tell themselves to live with something horrible they've done.

Stop lying to yourself and others saying that the rapist is of a different ilk than you. They aren't. They are of the same cloth as you and of me and everyone here. And the more aware you are of what people are capable of, what YOU may be capable of, the better a person you will be; the less likely you'll be to carelessly harm or be rolled up in a mob frenzy.

If you see rape as something someone you know, someone you care about, may not only be a victim of but could possibly be a perpetrator of, you'll see why it's damn important we stop focusing on just punishing rapists when it gets so bad society can't ignore it comfortably and start preventing it from happening.

Posted by: Deviant One | May 3, 2011 1:54 PM

I also don't appreciate the implication that I don't understand empathy because I don't like being lumped in with raping animals.

Does this even need a caption? Dood, I seriously suggest you read this thread, especially those dealing with the normalcy of rape in our culture, then get back to me on how it's only "raping animals" who rape other people.

Also, what Ing said. Plus, bonus link left out of previous post:

Rape Culture 101

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | May 3, 2011 1:55 PM

For those who still don't "get" male privilege or prof Myers' statement :

The fact that so many of you comment on a thread about rape with your basic point being how talk about rape impacts and hurts you ... well... That's male privilege.

Posted by: MrXerxes | May 3, 2011 1:59 PM

@Disco Stu

Did you miss the sentance before 'embarrassed of my sex'? The one that said 'men who think they can use and abuse women'?

Doesn't that imply the following reasoning chain?
a) These crappy people are men
b) I am a man
c) I am embarrassed that I fall into the same catagory that these crappy people are.

That's all I read into it - where does it suddenly become 'all men are rapists'?

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 3, 2011 2:04 PM

I also don't appreciate the implication that I don't understand empathy because I don't like being lumped in with raping animals.

I'm sorry but you weren't lumped in with raping animals because of us. You are lumped in because you were BORN to a species of raping animals.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call human beings "raping animals," I'd reserve that title for ducks. Personally, I am quite grateful to be part of a species where female pleasure is apparently a successful enough reproductive strategy that clitorises and female orgasms exist.

Really, the lumping is done by our culture, which tells young men that they NEED to get the pussy by any means necessary (remember Pepe le Pew?) that only fags hesitate at the idea of sex with an unconscious woman, that boys will be boys, that girls who like sex are sluts and sluts are just asking for it, etc. Anyone who hasn't actively tried to fix this type of thinking in him (or her)self is complicit.

Posted by: fuckin' kristinc | May 3, 2011 2:11 PM

sometimes the fact that someone is considerd a model citizen keeps other people from believing that they could commit rape

I don't ... actually think that's what's going on most of the time. On the face of it, sure, what people often SAY is:

rape is bad, and

he's a "nice guy", therefore

he couldn't have done this bad thing, therefore

we decline to prosecute/convict him.

Look more closely, though, and you can see how it actually breaks down is often like this:

people with a certain social status are entitled to certain perks (among those perks being access to women's bodies as if we were a commodity) and

he is a person of that social status, therefore

he is entitled access to this woman's body, therefore

what he did is not bad/no big deal, therefore

we decline to prosecute/convict him.

This explains why a lower-status or nonconforming woman/girl is less likely to have her rape prosecuted; why football players, prestigious frat members or other important people on the local level are less likely to have rape accusations against them investigated; why celebrities on the national level are likely to be excused for rape even when it's stunningly obvious they've committed it (think Roman Polanski); why a black alleged rapist is way more likely to be convicted when his alleged victim is white.

It's not about how "nice" a rapist's personality is so much as it's about his status. The issues correspond exactly to lines of class and entitlement.

Posted by: MrXerxes | May 3, 2011 2:15 PM

Thanks to SallyStrange and Ing for articulating...stuff...better than I could. I tried and kept deleting posts on a similar theme, and now I don't even know how to frame the thankyou. but cheers, anyway.

Posted by: Disco Stu | May 3, 2011 2:17 PM

Yep, you are one of the whiney men PZ, along with myslef, is also embarassed about. Stop whining. Men rape. Any decent man is embarassed by that, but it doesn't mean all men are rapists. Why aren't you embarassed? Oh, you aren't that decent is all I keep reading.

Black people commit crimes. Any decent black person is embarrassed by that.

DOES THIS MAKE SENSE? Of course it doesn't. You don't have to be embarrassed for being a man in a world where some men rape women and yes even some men and women are complicit in the rape of women.

Not being embarrassed for myself doesn't prevent me from working to prevent sexual assault, gender inequality, and all the other crappy things in this world.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | May 3, 2011 2:19 PM

Actually, semi-on topic this brought up an odd brain fart I had.

I was thinkking about our culture and the messages it says and sort of came up with a prediction/hypothesis

"Female on Male Child molestation is more common than we think"

My sort of basis of this was

a) Women are taught that the little teen boys are horny little buggers who will appreciate any sexual interest from older women and any sexual encounter they will find as a great 'gift'

b) boys are taught likewise, that interest from an older woman like that is an unprecedented 'victory'

I think that would set up a situation where more women are likely to take advantage of teenage boys and not see it as wrong and the boys are unlikely to speak up even if they feel off about it.

Anyone know the real stats on this or see any flaw in my thinking? It was an odd brainfart like I said and isn't anywhere near a thought out position or idea. Please rip into me on this.

Posted by: MrXerxes | May 3, 2011 2:28 PM

@Disco Stu

I was actually attempting (poorly) to answer this statement

No where in his message did he delineate "my sex" from "members of my sex that rape" and it doesn't even seem implied.

I thought 'men who think they can use and abuse women' was pretty well delineated. But looking at the way you're arguing, you seem to think that's the same as all men. Which is sad.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 3, 2011 2:28 PM

Citation:

http://www.rainn.org/statistics

RAINN also says that about 60% of rapes are never reported. What do you think that does to the FBI's statistics, much less their "forcible rape" statistics?

Posted by: Samantha | May 3, 2011 2:30 PM

Re Mr Xerxes @ 386:

I can't imagine how the skinny short women feel walking alone at night, talking alone with a strange man, or man they know but who is now acting strangely.

I personally don't, as much as possible. If any of the above happen, I get myself out of the situation as quickly as possible. I'm not particularly small (5'6", 120lbs), but I still feel the need to not be in that position. I'm also one of the few women I know that haven't ever had the formal "how not to get raped" training, so that negates a lot of googlemess's fearmongering argument.

Re Mudpuddle:

I'd cautiously agree that any person who knowingly commits the violent act of rape lacks empathy, understanding, etc. That being said, I don't think the most common rapists even consider their act rape. As far as they're concerned, they "helped the girl get over her shyness" or some such other thing. They actually think that if a girl says no and they still manage to have sex with her, she was just playing "hard to get" and actually wanted it. Some of this may require some mild cognitive dissonance, but it definitely doesn't require mental abnormality. As far as these men are concerned, they are doing what the woman wants as much as they are doing what they want. These ARE normal people committing rape without any mental illness involved and it's almost entirely because of a culture that not only enables their thinking but often even promotes it.

Re Disco Stu @431:

But suggesting that all men need be embarrassed for would be like a black person being embarrassed for their race because some black people are violent criminals. Both men-who-rape and black-people-who-commit-violent-crimes are vast, vast minorities and in no way representative of their gender and race.

I would say that if on average, black people who didn't commit crimes reacted positively to stories of their friends committing crimes - yes, stand out members of the community might feel the need to be embarrassed by their common bond. However...

Sally Strange has done the math for you at 448, but I'll be even more generous and increase her numbers. Let's say that 1 out of every 20 men rapes (accounting for 1/6 women being raped, repeat rapists, female rapists and other factors). I'd say most people have at least 20 friends. How many of those 20 friends stand up to the 1 rapist when they are presented with the spiel of "she was playing hard to get" or "I met this girl at the bar and took her home and had sex with her - she was so plastered she couldn't even walk straight"? One? Two? The number of rapists might be "low" (although 1 out of 20 isn't what I'd call low, especially when it's out of a large and varied group and refers to committing a very specific crime) but the number of men who accept rape culture without any overt disagreement is NOT. More interestingly is how many out of a group of 20 men would actively support it without engaging in it - how many out of that group of 20 hearing the rapist's story would "Dude" or "Bro" or slap him on the back. In my own experience, despite my pickiness among friends, at least half of my male friends would. Only 1/20 would tell the guy he had done something wrong in front of the others. 1/20 more would take him aside later to talk to him. Thus for every 1 rapist, there is 1 male who would actively and publicly act against him, 1 male who would do so quietly and 10 males who would support what he did through actions, even if they wouldn't necessarily do the same. And that's the stats on a relatively selective and not overly sexist group. Extrapolate that to groups that are less accepting of women for whatever reason and imagine how bad the situation really is. Now try to find the same attitudes among a large enough group (that spans race, class and most cultures) towards any other violent crime. If you can find one, I can maybe see calling for that group to be embarrassed by the overarching attitude and/or acceptance of a majority of their group (which is far more than what PZ did, by the way).

Posted by: consciousness razor | May 3, 2011 2:34 PM

"Conservative Estimates"? Do I need a citation needed image or what? Even if the FBI lowballed it, and even though this statistic is for "forcible rape", 57 in 100,000 is a damned far cry from 1 in 6.

That is a widely reported statistic and has been for more than a decade. Now that you've been given the citation, ask yourself why anyone should believe you're qualified to comment on this subject.

Posted by: Disco Stu | May 3, 2011 2:34 PM

@SallyStrange
55 in 100,000 * 2.5 = 138 in 100,000. Still a long way to go 16,666 in 100,000. I'm just interested where "conservative estimates = 1 in 6" is coming from.

Even that site says 213,000 victims of sexual assault. If that's 1 in 6 then there are only 1.3 Million women in the US.

Posted by: MrXerxes | May 3, 2011 2:36 PM

@Ing #463

I had been thinking along the same sort of lines - mainly to challenge the idea that only men are capable of being rapists (I decided it wasn't that germaine or helpful in the thread).

I have conflicting emotions over relationships with a teenager and much older person - it's a murky area and abuse is certainly possible but I don't think it's right to assume it in every case.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was underreported, for the reasons you mentioned. Just another case where the patriarchy hurts men too.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 3, 2011 2:37 PM

1 in 6 refers to rape, sexual assault, or an attempt of either, over the course of a woman's lifetime. Some estimates say 1 in 4 or 1 in 3.

There's no need to interrogate me here, you could just follow the link which has citations aplenty.

Posted by: Agent Smith | May 3, 2011 2:37 PM

Ing@463

You might appreciate this article.

Posted by: Disco Stu | May 3, 2011 2:41 PM

Yes, my next door neighbor who is black is embarssed by the blacks who commit crimes, as it can reflect upon her boys. Try something new. Like admitting you are wrong.

I'm wrong about a lot of things. I'm not convinced that I need to feel embarrassed for my gender to be a decent person. I'm not sure "embarrassment" is what your neighbor should be feeling. Anger that anyone would associate her children with an undeserved stereotype seems more appropriate.

Posted by: Deviant One | May 3, 2011 2:43 PM

"Conservative Estimates"? Do I need a citation needed image or what? Even if the FBI lowballed it, and even though this statistic is for "forcible rape", 57 in 100,000 is a damned far cry from 1 in 6.

Do you even read the crap you post? Do you know what "forcible" rape means, and that it is just ONE subset of "rape"? That a huge amount of rapes are never prosecuted and thus not counted in FBI stats? That a huge amount of rapes are never even REPORTED and thus not counted in FBI stats?

Basic wikipedia would've helped you out here.

Here are some citations for you:

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims

Rape prevalence among women in the U.S. (the percentage of women who experienced rape at least once in their lifetime so far) is in the range of 15%-20%, with different studies agreeing with each other. (National Violence against Women survey, 1995, found 17.6% prevalence rate;[4] a 2007 national study for the Department of Justice on rape found 18% prevalence rate.[5])

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States#Rape_statistics

Easy, innit?

As for this gem:

You're putting words in his mouth. I take exception to both his statement and your implication that all men are somehow responsible for a systemic

Have a read at this, from the inimitable Kate Harding:

"You are missing an opportunity to help stop the bad guys.

You’re missing an opportunity to stop the real misogynists, the fucking sickos, the ones who really, truly hate women just for being women. The ones whose ranks you do not belong to and never would. The ones who might hurt women you love in the future, or might have already.

‘Cause the thing is, you and the guys you hang out with may not really mean anything by it when you talk about crazy bitches and dumb sluts and heh-heh-I’d-hit-that and you just can’t reason with them and you can’t live with ‘em can’t shoot ‘em and she’s obviously only dressed like that because she wants to get laid and if they can’t stand the heat they should get out of the kitchen and if they can’t play by the rules they don’t belong here and if they can’t take a little teasing they should quit and heh heh they’re only good for fucking and cleaning and they’re not fit to be leaders and they’re too emotional to run a business and they just want to get their hands on our money and if they’d just stop overreacting and telling themselves they’re victims they’d realize they actually have all the power in this society and white men aren’t even allowed to do anything anymore and and and…

I get that you don’t really mean that shit. I get that you’re just talking out your ass.

But please listen, and please trust me on this one: you have probably, at some point in your life, engaged in that kind of talk with a man who really, truly hates women–to the extent of having beaten and/or raped at least one. And you probably didn’t know which one he was.

And that guy? Thought you were on his side."

So yes, all men have a role to play in destroying rape culture.

Take my scenario upthread as an example of an everyday conversation. Say you are part of that group of people, and one person just said "She didn't want it at first, but she eventually gave in and we totally did it...." and everything said earlier.

Someone else now says "Wow, you make me ashamed of being a man. Way to uphold the rape culture that hurts the women I love."

The question is:

a.) are you going to be the one saying "What rape culture? Bitch wanted it! BROFIVE FOR SCORING PUSSY",

b.) clutching your pearls and tantruming like a 2-year old over someone saying "I'm ashamed of being a man" because of the actions of men as a group against women as a group, or

c.)are you going to be the one who says "Wow, dude, that's truly disgusting - you raped that chick and I don't want anything more to do with you."

Posted by: Disco Stu | May 3, 2011 2:45 PM

something that it seems every minority community potentially has a visceral sting when they see it...is a big fucking privilege.

Is this actually true? If minority communities are embarrassed by a fraction of their community whose only relation to them is the superficial color of their skin, then I don't know why you'd suggest this is a good thing.

he expects to be judged by his demographic

Isn't the Horde all about this, or should you all be Christians?

Yet someone a white man doesn't at all expect to be judged by their demographic and in fact resents the very idea of it.

Everyone should resent the idea of being judged by their demographic.

Posted by: Disco Stu | May 3, 2011 2:48 PM

You're a fucking liar or fucking stupid. It says there are 213,00 victims every year.

Try to remain calm. Even if 1 in 6 means "over their lifetime", how many women are born every year?
The number of women does not remain constant so you can't just add up 213,000 (the number was actually higher in the past but you get my point) over a period of years and pull 1 in 6 out of your ass. It's not even mathematically possible, because more women are being born every year and less women are being sexually assaulted every year.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | May 3, 2011 2:50 PM

@Discostu

It isn't a good thing or a logical one, it's a fucking one that IS because the underprivileged demographics are used and expect to be judged as a whole. And yes they damn well do. It's reflected in the casual language

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 3, 2011 2:52 PM

Try to remain calm? What a fucking luxury that must be, to remain calm when discussing sexual assault.

Most of the women here, including myself, have experienced sexual assault. Our collective experiences are in accordance with the stats offered by RAINN.

Fuck you.

If you don't believe the stats, then:

1. Offer your own, more authoritative source which contradicts RAINN's info (the FBI source did not)

2. Explain what your goal is. Why are you invested in believing that rape is less rather than more prevalent? Ask yourself this, and ask yourself whether it's related to how emotionally triggered you obviously have become at the idea of being asked to consider your complicity in rape culture (which is what we, not PZ, are doing).

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | May 3, 2011 2:53 PM

1 in 6 was no ass-pull, Stu. 18% report. Here, have a link: Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of
Violence Against Women: Findings From the National
Violence Against Women Survey.

And here's the relevant bit:

Using a definition of rape that includes forced
vaginal, oral, and anal intercourse, the survey
found that rape is a crime committed primarily
against youth: 18 percent of women surveyed said
they experienced a completed or attempted rape at
some time in their life and 0.3 percent said they
experienced a completed or attempted rape in the
previous 12 months.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | May 3, 2011 2:53 PM

Nobody dedicated to ending rape thinks the buck stops at forcible rape" you stupid crouton. That's better known as "stranger rape" and makes up less than 35% of rapes that occur. It's also the only type of rape police can honestly be roused to give a shit about, and without a weapon, prosecution is fucking hard. It's no wonder the FBI only cares about it; caring about the rest would require every damn segment of the justice system, from legislators to judges to prosecutors to cops, to care and try to end rape. As is our judges are too busy modifying things like "Consent can not be withdrawn once penetration is achieved" into the case law, the legislators are legally mandating all victims be called "rape accusers" until a conviction is had, the prosecutors, if they care, are hamstrung by the latter two, and the police typically refuse to investigate.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | May 3, 2011 2:55 PM

I almost feel safe speaking universally that woman and minority professionals have just about all know and worry that they can easily become "The *BLANK* guy/girl" in the business/organization. Few people have ever had to worry about becoming "The white guy"

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | May 3, 2011 2:57 PM

I'm not sure "embarrassment" is what your neighbor should be feeling.

And yet they do. And it's because they know that in the culture they live in, they are very likely going to be viewed as "a black man/woman" rather than "A man/woman" by casual populace. White male does not have that fear, and many do not understand it because they are considered the default.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 3, 2011 3:00 PM

Whether they should or not, minorities are often judged by the actions of other members of their demographic group. They come to expect this and do it themselves.

Except white men.

Is-ought fallacy. You're still doing it.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | May 3, 2011 3:02 PM

@Disco Stu

No you OUGHT to be embarrassed for yourself...you are what is causing the embarrassment.

And there's some argument that you should. You're of the same demographic in the same culture. The embarrassing ones could be viewed as "There but for the grace of God go I". Something is pushing your demographic in certain ways, aren't you interested why/what that is? Because it is important. You have the privilege of not having to view yourself as your color and sex...but others do. There are people who are going to judge you by what "Whites" or "men" do and are like.

Posted by: onion girl, OM - Social Workers: Fixing Fuck-ups Since 1880 | May 3, 2011 3:07 PM

It's amazing: the Horde is actually having an argument about whether rapists are human. We're on the "yes, they're human beings and deserve some empathy even as we try to prevent their harm to other people" side, and the trolls are on the "kill them all now they're evil sociopaths" side.

I am so proud of the Horde for calling out stupidity in all its many forms.

QFT because I have to work and can't participate in this!

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
Oh yeah Pharyngula was just asking for it. Did you see the slutty banner she was wearing?

You are so my hero, Ing. :)

Posted by: Deviant One | May 3, 2011 3:09 PM

DeviantOne, appreciate the links. There's definitely a disparity between the original link provided and what you're showing. I'll reserve judgement on the "1 in 6" statistic pending more research.

Dood, what the fuck? Reread what I pasted and apply some brain and you'll see:

Rape prevalence among women in the U.S. (the percentage of women who experienced rape at least once in their lifetime so far) is in the range of 15%-20%, with different studies agreeing with each other.

15 to 20 percent? That's between one in 5 and one in 6.666667.

WOW! Like magic, one in six! THEY ARE THE FUCKING SAME.

So fuck you and your "stay calm" privileged ass. Sideways.

Like SallyStrange said, what an arrogant, fucknuttery, PRIVILEGED thing to say.

THIS IS NOT JUST AN INTERNET ARGUMENT TO ME YOU IGNORANT ASSHOLE. THIS IS MY LIFE.

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | May 3, 2011 3:13 PM

Try to remain calm.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 3, 2011 3:15 PM

Do you disagree that it is morally wrong to judge a person based on superficial similarities between them and someone that committed a violent act?

Oooh, zinger. You got me there, man. You definitely outsmarted me. Yes, it's true: I believe it morally wrong NOT to judge people by their skin color, genitalia, or other intrinsic, in-alterable characteristics they possess.

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | May 3, 2011 3:17 PM

So you think they should feel embarrassed for being black? I honestly can't believe anyone would argue this point.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | May 3, 2011 3:22 PM

Deer God with halo antlers

I would be ECSTATIC if white people had white shame, Russian people had Russian shame, German people had German shame, men had male shame, Japanese had Japanese shame etc etc. Cause goddamn it might mean that people are actually fucking LEARNING from their history.

The white culture is taught that the racism and injustice and oppression is something that was yesterday a bygone era, that they are above that now. It's not it is here. Today. Right now.

It's that false sense of accomplishment that allows our culture to unironicly treat gays as our personally whipping boy. To use the same rhetoric we used against mixed marriages and to wage the same campaigns of hate and extermination. If you are convinced your work is done you will stop working.

The only difference between you and your great grandfather is that society has marched on and improved and you're raised with better ideals and fairness...and it took brave people to work for that. You have the same potential for ill as your worst ancestor. Know that. Embrace it. LEARN from it. Know thyself. Know what you are and learn how to be good with that.

You should NEVER feel secure that your culture/race whatever is just and secure and fair. You should always be on guard and always be working for better.

Posted by: consciousness razor | May 3, 2011 3:23 PM

If consciousness razor has not been raped hirself, xe knows and probably loves people who have.

I was when I was a child, I'm a male, and I did not report it. I also know others who have.

It means a lot fucking more to me than having a fucking polite conversation on the internet with a fucking clueless, lying asshat. If you aren't fucking embarrassed about rapists, be fucking embarrassed with yourself. Learn to change your childish fucking mind, admit when you're fucking wrong, and stop conjuring up incredulity from stupid fucking equations you pulled out of your ass.

Posted by: MudPuddles | May 3, 2011 3:25 PM

@ Ing:

Meeeehhh.... no, you don't quite got my meaning...!

You state that rapists are not well balanced, reasonable or wholesome....because someone who rapes is committing an act that is sociopathic and unwholesome

Its not simply "you do something vile, therefore you are vile". Rather, committing an abhorrent act is a symptom of a serious problem. Every single person is capable of evil, but most do not have the final moral / psychological flaw which makes it happen. And I understand that just because someone does not have that today does not mean it might not occur tomorrow, and environment can play a huge part. I know what you think I mean but that argument is sort of binary - right or wrong, good or evil and that's not what I'm saying. I take Deviant One's track - rape is both human (within the range of common human behaviour) and an inhuman act. Whatever form of rape you point to, its a case of the rapist (whether they realise it or not) asserting "your sexuality and / or your sexual organs are mine, right here and now" - that kind of cruelty is not the product of what I call a wholesome mind.

Posted by: Disco Stu | May 3, 2011 3:29 PM

I think that I, as a white woman, have no right to tell them what they should and should not feel. I honestly can't believe anyone would think otherwise.

I think we all have right to discuss what is and is not moral. Being that I don't know them at all I certainly don't have the right to go up to them and tell them they shouldn't feel embarrassed, nor is me discussing the morality of it an suggestion that I have that right.

It is not right that people feel embarrassed because of their skin or gender. Just as it is not right that women feel threatened by walking down the street. What good is society if we can't identify things that are not right and change them?

Oooh, zinger. You got me there, man. You definitely outsmarted me. Yes, it's true: I believe it morally wrong NOT to judge people by their skin color, genitalia, or other intrinsic, in-alterable characteristics they possess.

I'm not trying to "get you". Just trying to explain that talking about morality isn't always an "is-ought" fallacy.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm4LWH-6WmUGLOn0x6UxxaoM7Xk8GKIm2w | May 3, 2011 3:31 PM

"Conservative Estimates"? Do I need a citation needed image or what? Even if the FBI lowballed it, and even though this statistic is for "forcible rape", 57 in 100,000 is a damned far cry from 1 in 6.

Care to speculate how many years that 57 figure covers ? Care to think about how that annual number should be reflected in a woman's cumulative "forcible rape" risk over a seventy-year lifetime ?

Oh, and notice that the FBI says that 57 figure was a particularly low-risk year (as in fact most violent crimes have been on a declining trend in the last decade) so multiply 57 by some factor to get the higher "forcible rape" figure for each of the previous seventy years ...

Then triple it to account for numbers of real rapes that fail to meet the FBI's right-wing definition of "forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included".

Then multiply it all by at least 1.5 to compensate for the fact that rape is know to be the most-underreported crime in the country.

The mystery turns out not to be how the risk to a US woman of sexual assault can be as high as 1:6 over her lifetime, it's how it could be as low as only 1:6, given the FBI's crime numbers.

Posted by: MrXerxes | May 3, 2011 3:33 PM

@Ing #512

I worry about those things and still sometimes do them. I'm not brave enough to seriously rock the boat in social situations. I find it hard.

I don't pretend that's got anything to do with any one else though. Just because I find it hard to stop using the word gay as an insult doesn't mean that it's wrong to stop, that I shouldn't acknowledge I have no right to force people to hear it the way it means in my head when I say it, that they should stop being offended just because I'm mentally lazy.

I guess the most charitable explanation is that Disco Stu is hyper sensitive to rape accusations and takes everything personally. Fine, intent is not magic, I can't speak for teh menz, maybe it is offensive. Here goes nuthin'

I cannot speak for PZ. I've made it clear that I don't think all men are rapists, I don't see anything I need to apologise for (correct me if I am wrong). Can we move past this now?
You say rape is wrong. Do you think there is a culture of rape enabling? Because that is what we are now arguing around, and it gets tedious with you sounding off with utopian, well, irrelevances.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | May 3, 2011 3:36 PM

You say rape is wrong. Do you think there is a culture of rape enabling? Because that is what we are now arguing around, and it gets tedious with you sounding off with utopian, well, irrelevances.

I think you missed the whole point of my rant that people should be aware of their culture and should be aware that they can be manipulated by it.

I also think I made it painfully fucking clear that I think rapists are a product, usually, of rape culture.

Posted by: Deviant One | May 3, 2011 3:38 PM

Just as it is not right that women feel threatened by walking down the street. What good is society if we can't identify things that are not right and change them?

Congrats, you've typed two sentences in 31 words that I agree with.

Now time for another question: how do you think society can become "good enough" in terms of identifying things that aren't right and changing them, if the most powerful and influential members of society, those people who are in a position, and had been for centuries, to actually CHANGE THIS SHIT keeps on shouting NOT ME NOT ME NOT ME?

Posted by: Disco Stu | May 3, 2011 3:39 PM

It means a lot fucking more to me than having a fucking polite conversation on the internet with a fucking clueless, lying asshat. If you aren't fucking embarrassed about rapists, be fucking embarrassed with yourself. Learn to change your childish fucking mind, admit when you're fucking wrong, and stop conjuring up incredulity from stupid fucking equations you pulled out of your ass.

Not that you'll believe me, and I'm sure I'll get the "I've dated a black girl so I'm not racist" canard, but it's unfair of you to suggest I can't empathize because no one close to me has ever been raped or sexually assaulted. Multiple members of my immediate family have been.

Nothing that I've said in this thread takes anything away from women or rape victims. I'm not sure how you have equivocated "everyone should be treated equally" to "I hate women."

I do want to know what you think I should change my mind on. I'm not certain that I've said anything extraordinarily offensive or groundbreaking. "People need not feel embarrassed by their race or gender" is essentially my thesis.

You want something to be ashamed of. You have commited, as far as I'm concerned the most common sin of the white race "NOT ME!" That's the constant fucking chorus of the modern white culture. Racism? Past crimes? past genocides? inequality? Oppression? Not me! i didn't do it! Not me! Grow the fuck up.

Not sure how you got from anything I posted to this. Let's say for the sake of argument I agree with this, what should I change about any of the statements I made to convince you that I have "grown the fuck up."?

Posted by: MrXerxes | May 3, 2011 3:41 PM

Oh fuck, I'm really sorry Ing I meant the question for Disco Stu

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | May 3, 2011 3:46 PM

@MudPuddles

My point is that someone who commits rape is not 100% normal since they do not have, or they can be selective with, the normal human thought processes, moral compass or compassion which stops other people from committing that horrific crime.

Posted by: slignot | May 3, 2011 3:50 PM

I can't believe I came back to this thread, but I'm sort of amazed horrified that we're still having to talk about what should be some of the most basic equality and rape 101 concepts after more than five hundred comments.

I'm amazed at the arrogance that the only option for rape victims is to go to the police and hope that the process will be fair, helpful and result in anything resembling justice. I really am, especially given the first story linked above where I don't think anyone could honestly call what Beebe served justice.

Not all victims were raped in a way that will be treated with respect/diligence by our legal system.

Not all rape victims will be able to weather the post-traumatic-stress issues associated with investigation, depositions and trial. Some may take decades of therapy to even heal from in any way.

This arrogant assumption enrages me. It did so years ago, but is now even more personal than I can articulate.

A young member of my extended family was raped last year. She was raped repeatedly over the course of months by multiple older classmates from her school, in some instances on school grounds during the school day. Evidence existed (and probably still exists) in the cell phones of students at that school. She has been repeatedly hospitalized and placed under psychiatric watch. She's had multiple disassociative events in conjunction with flashbacks. She is incapable of even explaining what happened to a police investigator, and they refused to do any investigation, even refusing to investigate the photographic evidence on student's phones unless she was capable of doing so. The (former) school showed no interest in protecting her during or after these attacks. She was even pulled out of class by school security and interrogated in the hallway with no regard for privacy or her safety.

Please explain to me how she's supposed to simply suck it up and report what happened to police.

I am lucky that I am not a rape survivor; I was sexually assaulted as a teenager. What's more, I didn't even think of it in those terms for years. I know personally know a number of rape survivors who I know of, and almost certainly more who haven't chosen to share that with me. Those who disparage lifetime risk for women for rape and assault alternately make me simply disgusted and sick to my stomach.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | May 3, 2011 3:52 PM

"People need not feel embarrassed by their race or gender" is essentially my thesis.

And we're saying that this is essentially like telling clinically depressed people to "cheer up!"

I know that it's not strictly rational to feel embarrassed to be a man. So generally when I see someone express this, I take it as an emotional reaction, as essentially a show of sympathy for the abused parties. In other words, as a good sign that someone's heart is in the right place. I definitely don't get on my high horse and chide him for not waving his mighty penis from a mountain high. Nor do I see it as an attack on my penis-holding. But that might be because I'm not so self-absorbed.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 3, 2011 3:56 PM

@ Slignot

That is absolutely sickening and horrific.

Nothing to add. Just thanks for sharing.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm4LWH-6WmUGLOn0x6UxxaoM7Xk8GKIm2w | May 3, 2011 3:58 PM

it's unfair of you to suggest I can't empathize because no one close to me has ever been raped or sexually assaulted. Multiple members of my immediate family have been.

You should be embarrassed for yourself, Maybe not because you're the same sex as most rapists, but certainly because you are an idiot.

Posted by: Disco Stu | May 3, 2011 3:59 PM

Feeling ashamed of other men because they participate in rape culture and enable rapists =/= feeling ashamed of being a man. This is your basic failure of comprehension. Care to explain to the class why you got the two confused?

I totally agree with feeling ashamed of *the* other men that participate in rape culture and enable rapists.

I didn't see "I am embarrassed for my sex" as meaning that at all. This suggests quite plainly to me that there is something intrinsically wrong with being a man that deserves shame (at least to PZ).

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 3, 2011 4:04 PM

Disco Stu,

First of all, survey data consistently illustrates that only a tiny proportion of rape, sexual assault and domestic violence is ever reported to police; so the police statistics tend to be a substantial under-estimate of the true figures. See, for instance, this research study, based on figures from the British Crime Survey (for the UK, but the trends in the US are similar). Even these self-report survey figures are likely to be an under-estimate of the actual frequency of these crimes, though we have no way of knowing by how much.

Secondly... I think you're reading too much into the original post. Professor Myers' comment about being "embarrassed for [his] sex" doesn't imply that all men should be regarded as collectively guilty of rape; that would be obviously absurd. Rather, I read it as a comment on the way our culture - particularly in masculinity-obsessed subcultures, like fraternities, sports teams and so on - tends to trivialize, and even glorify, sexual violence by men against women. The high rates of sexual assault in our society don't occur in a vacuum: there are cultural factors at play. See this post on the concept of "rape culture" for a clear explanation. (And we've all seen examples of the casual trivialization of sexual violence in people's everyday rhetoric: tasteless rape jokes, for example, or people referring to the hijacking of their Facebook profiles as "frape".) This is a real, and very serious, problem: and like all cultural factors, it's something that can be changed, through making a concerted effort to examine our own attitudes and those of the people around us, and by speaking out on these issues.

Posted by: Disco Stu | May 3, 2011 4:05 PM

Jesus, that takes the fucking asshole cake. You personally know multiple family members who have been raped - and yet you are still enough of a stupid asshole to scoff at the statistics of 1:6 lifetime risk. Your own experience proves the statistics are correct, or at least in the right ballpark. You should be embarrassed for yourself, Maybe not because you're the same sex as most rapists, but certainly because you are an idiot.

I'm not certain what you're arguing here. A lot less than 1 out of 6 of my family members have been raped (to my knowledge of course) and my family is not a valid statistical sampling of the general population any way. It would be idiotic of me to infer *any* broad statistic of US rapes based on anecdotal evidence.

Telling rape victims and their allies to "remain calm" and acting as though they have some obligation to be civil when talking about fucking rape is taking something away from them, Stu. Apparently your fantastic fucking ability to empathize hasn't taught you that telling someone rightfully angry to calm down is insulting and silencing, especially when the people in question are marginalized and treated as crazy and probably lying by the larger culture.

I've already apologized, and I meant it. It wasn't my intention to insult or demean anyone. I had written a very expletive-filled response and deleted it and attempted to remain civil. I did not intend for you to think I was shushing you or anything.

Any instance of you or anyone else being undeservedly marginalized, treated as crazy, or probably lying by the larger culture is deplorable and needs to change.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 3, 2011 4:06 PM

This suggests quite plainly to me that there is something intrinsically wrong with being a man that deserves shame (at least to PZ).

As per my comments at #547, I think you're simply misinterpreting Professor Myers' statement, and reading a meaning into it that isn't there.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 3, 2011 4:08 PM

Any instance of you or anyone else being undeservedly marginalized, treated as crazy, or probably lying by the larger culture is deplorable and needs to change.*

*As long as it doesn't cause any man to experience uncomfortable feelings of embarrassment about being associated with rapists just on account of owning a dick, of course. We should make sure to have our priorities straight.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | May 3, 2011 4:13 PM

OK, more knowledgeable and more eloquent people than me started commenting so I decided to leave this thread alone. I still read everything, but decided not to comment any more.

But here we are, almost 550 comments in while I'm writing this and some people are still arguing about what prof Myers said. Really?! Disco Stu, you generously agree with us on the fact that rape is bad and that we should strive to reshaping our society so that rape becomes as close to eradicated as it can. That's good. Great. THEN WHY ARE YOU STILL ARGUING ABOUT YOUR OWN HURT FEELINGS?! Seriously. You say that you agree, you seem to realize that discussions about ways to prevent people from becoming rapists are important. Then why are you still making it all about yourself?! How fucking selfish can you be?

How can you read people's confessions about terrible things that happened to them, that reshaped their lives and still make it all about yourself?! Were you the one who complained about people telling you that you lack empathy? Well, you obviously do!

I think I'll take prof Myers' statement further. I am embarrassed for my whole fucking species. You people are crazy.

Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief | May 3, 2011 4:16 PM

DiscoStu: It depends what you mean by "What use is shouting ME ME ME ME ME ME ME?"

If you mean "What good is it for victims to shout?" one answer is that if enough victims speak out about rape, and about the ways that people they knew dismissed their reports and defended the rapists, there's a chance that other people will start to listen.

If you mean "What good would it be for men to admit that they had committed rape, and that it was wrong?" that's a harder question. But maybe if some of the rapists admitted that they had committed this crime, we'd get rid of ideas like "only unspeakable slavering monsters commit rape, therefore Joe Nice Guy can't possibly have raped a woman, therefore she's lying" (or "therefore what happened to me/her wasn't a big deal"). Maybe it would eliminate the idea that no specific man who anyone knows could be a rapist.

You've questioned the statistics, and then noted that several members of your immediate family have been raped. Did you think that your relatives were an extraordinary statistical anomaly? That the number could be so high in your own family, and yet the idea that 1 in 6 American women had been raped or assaulted was implausible? I can only assume you didn't think this one through.

But it leads to a question, and not just for DiscoStu: How many rapists do you know? How many men do you know who have been accused of rape? Not just cases where it's gone to trial: situations where someone said that a specific man had committed or attempted rape?

I won't say "how many of your friends have been accused of rape?" because maybe you wouldn't continue to be friends with such a man. (I think I wouldn't, but that's easier to say in the absence of evidence.) And maybe in hindsight you'd tell yourself he was never really your friend. But you know men, probably quite a few. Think about why you can think of that many women who have been assaulted, and so few men who have been identified as the ones committing the crimes.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 3, 2011 4:23 PM

hey Disco Stu!

I have a link for you!

Posted by: Disco Stu | May 3, 2011 4:27 PM

*As long as it doesn't cause any man to experience uncomfortable feelings of embarrassment about being associated with rapists just on account of owning a dick, of course. We should make sure to have our priorities straight.

LOL. We're on the Internet in a thread that was designed to create discussion regarding "man guilt". Talking about it seems oddly appropriate. Because I'm discussing it at this time doesn't mean I prioritize it above anything else.

It depends what you mean by "What use is shouting ME ME ME ME ME ME ME?"

I meant what is the use of trashing men generally?

I honestly only know of the men that raped my family members and men in the news, I don't know them personally, to my knowledge of course.

Posted by: hotshoe | May 3, 2011 4:31 PM

Jesus, that takes the fucking asshole cake. You personally know multiple family members who have been raped - and yet you are still enough of a stupid asshole to scoff at the statistics of 1:6 lifetime risk. Your own experience proves the statistics are correct, or at least in the right ballpark. You should be embarrassed for yourself, Maybe not because you're the same sex as most rapists, but certainly because you are an idiot.

I'm not certain what you're arguing here. A lot less than 1 out of 6 of my family members have been raped (to my knowledge of course) and my family is not a valid statistical sampling of the general population any way. It would be idiotic of me to infer *any* broad statistic of US rapes based on anecdotal evidence.

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | May 3, 2011 4:33 PM

I could not have said it better myself. Thanks for the link.

Posted by: Wildlifer, Zombi chasseur de tueur | May 3, 2011 4:36 PM

@426
Janine,

It is not that simple. Do you look the other if you have reasons to think that a friend is mistreating a woman? Do you willingly befriend a man who you know is a date rapists. (Dude! I so scored with that bitch after she passed out!) Do you laugh at rape jokes? (It was surprise sex!) There are many ways to that privilege can protect you as well as extending that privilege. It is not as you laid it out.

No, no and no. I actually got in a fight with a "friend" because I attempted to intercede regarding his treatment of my girlfriend's sister. I wrongly assumed since he was a "friend" that I could talk sense into him and ended up spending 45 days in lockup for AWDW after he attacked me. (Made bail finally, ruled self-defense, charges dropped)

I'm just not buying the claim differences ipso facto equate to privilege. It seems to pretty much render "privilege" meaningless.

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | May 3, 2011 4:37 PM

"most rapists would never even agree that they ARE, in fact, rapists" - I get that whole point, absolutely, no argument from me, and those rapists are people I have worked with.... but that's not a sign of a sound mind.

Posted by: fuckin' kristinc | May 3, 2011 4:43 PM

I'm just not buying the claim differences ipso facto equate to privilege.

Great! Good thing nobody here made that claim! Sounds like you agree with us completely!

... or you're just being a disingenuous prick.

... oh. OH.

Posted by: MudPuddles | May 3, 2011 4:44 PM

@ Giliell,

You're right, I meant that is not necessarily a sign of a sound mind. My girlfriend's Dad is a shitheel who thinks his misogyny and sexism is normal, and that's how he was raised. He also flat refuses to believe or even read or listen to any story of clerical sexual abuse, because priests would never ever do that - that's how he was raised.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 3, 2011 4:46 PM

Isn't it amazing how much trouble (some) men seem to have with women being angry? Isn't it amazing that those men almost never thing their intolerance of other people's anger is a symptom of their privilege?

Listen, fuckwads, I can be angry because there is a lot of crap to be angry about. I don't blame you for what other people did, but I'll be damned if I'm going to tone down my anger just because it makes you uncomfortable. You do not have a right to live in some magic world in which victimized people don't express their anger around you. You want to change the world to lessen the crap load? Try supporting the people who are angry. Try getting angry yourselves. Try, at a minimum, not delivering stupid lectures on the importance of not being so angry.

Posted by: ButIsItTrue | May 3, 2011 4:47 PM

You know, when PZ posted this, I read the two articles. What I saw was clear-cut, indefensible rapes, and two heroic women standing up for themselves.

I then looked at PZ's request that men not take these stories as an opportunity to complain, and I actually thought: "Well, maybe this time they won't."

Silly me.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 3, 2011 4:49 PM

Because I think gender divisiveness is important to the discussion of preventing rape. I think dividing men into "men-who-hate-themselves" and "men-who-rape-or-enable-rape" is unhelpful.

Again, Disco Stu, this does not follow.

If you are embarrassed for your country, it does not follow that you hate yourself, or that you hate your citizenship, or that you hate other people who share your citizenship, or that when you are reminded of your citizenship you hate yourself even a little bit.

Just doesn't follow. Big ol' non sequitur.

Posted by: Disco Stu | May 3, 2011 4:53 PM

If you are embarrassed for your country, it does not follow that you hate yourself, or that you hate your citizenship, or that you hate other people who share your citizenship, or that when you are reminded of your citizenship you hate yourself even a little bit.

I'll admit concession on this point as well. Perhaps PZ wasn't trying to split men into the enlightened ones who agreed that all men should be embarrassed and the evil ones who would whine and ostensibly support rape.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 3, 2011 4:58 PM

I'm just not buying the claim differences ipso facto equate to privilege. It seems to pretty much render "privilege" meaningless.

It's important to understand that "privilege" has a specific meaning in sociology and social theory. A lot of people misinterpret the word; on being told that they have "privilege", they assume they're being accused of being some kind of pampered scion of the aristocracy, or that some kind of moral failing is being alleged.

But that’s not what the word means in this context. Rather, “privilege”, in this context, is simply a recognition that there are certain characteristics that confer systemic advantages in our society, and others that are stigmatized; and that people with certain characteristics face special hurdles and disadvantages that others do not. It's an acknowledgment of the reality of discrimination and unequal treatment that still pervades our culture. It isn't in any way a personal attack or an accusation; nor does it imply that people with one or more privileged characteristics don’t face challenges, difficulties and prejudices in other areas.

Rather (to take myself as an example), it simply means that I enjoy certain automatic social advantages that others do not. Because I am male, I am comparatively unlikely to be raped or sexually assaulted (unless I go to prison), and don't have to worry about that possibility on a day-to-day basis. Similarly, I'm unlikely to face sex discrimination or sexual harassment in the workplace, for instance, or to have my opinion taken less seriously because of my gender. And although I'm consciously well-aware that women face all these threats in their daily lives, I haven't had (and will likely never have) that experience. As such, on these issues it's very important for men (and I include myself in this) to stop talking once in a while, and actually to listen to women's opinions rather than making it all about us.

So, too, I enjoy other forms of privilege. Because I’m white, and part of the ethno-cultural majority in my country, I have never experienced racial discrimination, and it’s unlikely that I ever will. Because I grew up in a middle-class family in a developed country, I’ve never had to worry about whether I’ll have enough to eat or a roof over my head. And so on.

None of this is meant to imply that men, white people, or members of any other privileged group can't face adversity, poverty or suffering. Rather, it simply means that there are certain systemic unearned advantages that certain groups have over other groups in our society. Members of privileged groups are often unaware of the advantages they enjoy, and simply view their situation as "normal"; this, in itself, is an aspect of privilege. And so, for those of us who are in a privileged position, it's important for us to educate ourselves about this, and, once again, to listen to people who've actually had the experiences we're discussing, rather than assuming that we know better.

It’s also important to understand that privilege isn’t a binary state, and that a person can be privileged in some ways and not in others. For instance, a working-class black heterosexual man benefits from some forms of privilege and not others; so does a middle-class white LGBT woman; so does a middle-class white heterosexual man with a physical disability; and so on. Someone who has some privileged characteristics can still face a whole host of hurdles to surmount in other areas of life, and can still have other characteristics that impose him or her to disadvantage and prejudice.

Posted by: Nepenthe | May 3, 2011 5:00 PM

It's notable that while men who rape generally don't think of themselves as rapists, they're also generally forthcoming about their actions. David Lisak at UMass has done some excellent work on what he calls "undetected rapists", rapists not arrested or reported on. He does large surveys of men asking them some very basic questions (paraphrase): "Have you ever used force (twisted arm, held them down, etc.) to get someone to have sex with you, even though they did not want to?", "Have you ever had sex with someone who did not want to because they were too intoxicated to resist?" Chillingly, he gets a hit rate of between 5 and 15 percent and the survey answers are corroborated by random in-depth interviews, so it doesn't appear to be a fucked up form of bravado. Rapists generally have a single strategy they use and they report doing it intentionally (ie they're not taking advantage of a woman passed out drunk on her own, they're making sure that she drinks enough to pass out, by spiking her drink or pressuring her or whatever). Roughly 30% favor straight force; no "we were drunk" excuse for them. 65% have raped more than once. In one survey, ~10% of the rapists had committed 9 or more rapes (remember, none of these men were in prison).

So, I'd say that the 1 in 6 number is a pretty reasonable estimate.

Posted by: Wildlifer, Zombi chasseur de tueur | May 3, 2011 5:02 PM

@424
Fuckin Kristinc,

That's not what I said. You won't find the words "less likely" in my statement. That's your invention.

Posted by: llewelly | May 3, 2011 5:03 PM

Disco Stu Author | May 3, 2011 4:37 PM:

I think dividing men into "men-who-hate-themselves" and "men-who-rape-or-enable-rape" is unhelpful.

Posted by: fuckin' kristinc | May 3, 2011 5:10 PM

That's not what I said. You won't find the words "less likely" in my statement. That's your invention.

Well, now you're just lying. Because there's no way you can be that fucking dumb.

I said:

YOUR BENEFIT IS THAT YOU'RE LESS LIKELY TO BE INSULTED OR RAPED THAN SHE IS

And you responded:

The only way that would be a benefit or privilege is if I had the right - as a member of privilege - to rape women indiscriminately.

I'm not going to play stupid word games with you. Shut the fuck up and learn or just get used to being pounded.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 3, 2011 5:11 PM

Attempting to illustrate where I was coming from.

Oh, and DiscoStu, I'm an old man who sees through your lack of listening. Sometimes those who can't stop talking, keep agreeing. It's an old and annoying shtick.

Posted by: Wildlifer, Zombi chasseur de tueur | May 3, 2011 5:15 PM

@583
Thanks Formerly Walton. The formal usage is very much how I think of privilege.
But a question?

None of this is meant to imply that men, white people, or members of any other privileged group can't face adversity, poverty or suffering. Rather, it simply means that there are certain systemic unearned advantages that certain groups have over other groups in our society. Members of privileged groups are often unaware of the advantages they enjoy, and simply view their situation as "normal"; this, in itself, is an aspect of privilege. And so, for those of us who are in a privileged position, it's important for us to educate ourselves about this, and, once again, to listen to people who've actually had the experiences we're discussing, rather than assuming that we know better.

How can it be said people are the recipients of "unearned" advantages, if those "advantages" are never realized?
And if realized, how is it revoked?

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 3, 2011 5:18 PM

I've said this here before, but the only way to stop rape culture is to teach kids, including boys, that all physical contact must be consensual and that the consent must be explicit. That means not tickling your 3 year old when xe asks you to stop. It means enforcing, over and over and over, the concept of safe words in kid roughhousing. It means harping on no-means-no from the time a kid is big enough to talk. It means explaining when you are using physical force to accomplish something, whether to help kid get a shot or to prevent kid from hitting sibling, and to do it in terms of "it's not ok for you to do x or you need to do y to be healthy and parent is going to help you" language. It means treating kids like people. It means asking if they like their hair being combed, asking if you can hug and kiss them, asking if you can come into their room. It means asking if touch or interaction feels good for them. It means asking whether they're enjoying the meal, the movie, the game.

Teenagers figure out that this extends to sex. They know, both intuitively and explicitly, that enthusiastic consent does not have to be a buzz-crusher, that it can instead make sexual encounters better. They can figure this out even before they become sexually active, if they've been treated with respect and had caregivers who required them to respect others.

And it's NOT THAT FUCKING HARD TO DO.

Posted by: fuckin' kristinc | May 3, 2011 5:23 PM

How can it be said people are the recipients of "unearned" advantages, if those "advantages" are never realized?

They are realized, moron. You're just too fucking obtuse and self-absorbed, idiot, to notice that the advantages you enjoy in life, festering gobshite, are not ones that all of the people around you also enjoy. Fuckneck.

Posted by: friendthegirl | May 3, 2011 5:26 PM

Mattir OM:

Many (maybe even most) AA groups really dislike the court-mandated AA meeting attendance problem, but it's difficult to do anything about within the very decentralized governance structure in AA, and is better handled through better education of law enforcement, judicial, and mental health professionals.

The top tier of AA does have some sway, and could easily discourage the practice of court-mandated AA, but their membership numbers depend upon it. They have pamphlets on their website encouraging members to 12-step in the courts, and from the get-go, AA has been aligning itself with the treatment industry (look up Bill Wilson's pamphlet titled, "Let's Be Friendly with Our Friends" on aa.org).

Regarding Beebe and rape culture: I want to point out that if I were charged with the task of designing a scenario that would foster abuse, I couldn't do better than the 12 Step model. It's hierarchical, despite what they say (old-timers and newcomers, sponsors and pigeons); it requires members to admit their darkest secrets to each other; there is no oversight or accountability on any level of the program and people are not trained before they take positions of power over each other or screened for underlying mental illnesses to see if AA is even appropriate for them. If that weren't bad enough, members get overly involved in each others' personal lives (sometimes advising people to go off their dr. prescribed meds), and are simultaneously instructed that healthy responses to personal violation, like anger, are a “dubious luxury;” they're taught to keep their side of the street clean (don't judge what others are doing – even if they're doing it to you); and they're taught to look at their own part in their victimization to the point of absurdity (if you get raped, you have to ask yourself what you did to bring that upon yourself). I have heard several stories from people who were told that they needed to make amends to their abusers. They are taught that they can't trust themselves: “Your best thinking got you here.” And all of this happens in the context of the 12 steps – which require an admission of powerlessness, which is supposed to be over alcohol, but ends up being “over people, places, and things” – and to turn your self-will over to a higher power, which could be G.O.D. (Group Of Drunks). Finally, this program courts some of the most vulnerable people by promoting itself as a trustworthy organization, and tells them that their alternative is “jails, institutions, or death.” At the same time, predators and violent offenders are routinely court-mandated to attend: http://stinkin-thinkin.com/keep-coming-back/

Beebe is certainly responsible for his behavior, but I believe that it's significant that he was able to justify contacting Seccuro as a step on his road to spiritual enlightenment -- religious atonement. Granted, his fellow AAs advised him against contacting her, but in a secular arena, "making amends" would mean turning himself in to the cops, and no one advised that or took the initiative to do it for him. But, he prayed on this, and God told him to get out the vanilla-scented paper.

I think that the AA angle of this story is important, because it provided a rapist with a spiritual justification for taking this action (because he would have latched onto the AA idea that Seccuro had a part in her own rape, and that her response to his "amends" was her own business). He did this while engaged in a religious program, which is considered the gold standard of addiction treatment by the courts and the medical community, despite the fact that it has no success rate to speak of. This is an arena in which sexual predators are granted anonymity.

Does anyone have any ideas about why this topic receives so little attention in the skeptic community, especially among people who advocate for keeping quackery and religion out of public policy?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | May 3, 2011 5:28 PM

@Xerxes

I suspected so, but erred on the side of asshole. Apologies.

Sorry I just don't get it... you think rape IS the product of a wholesome mind? You'll have to straighten me out because I know that's not what you're saying!

Wholesome mind means nothing. It's a tautology. If you rape you obviously didn't have a wholesome mind. it's circular like I said. Unless you want to clarify the definition you're working under.

The basic thing: Most rapists are "normal" given perhaps different upbringing or a different cultural emphasis or education they would not rape...and the fact that they do is largly because of what you're saying "They have a "wholesome" mind so they can't be a rapist". "I can't be evil I'm a good person" defense.

Someone who rapes is not necessarily insane. You desperately DESPERATELY want to believe that someone who has a 100% fully working mind as much as yours can still be a rapist. Sorry they can. A normal person can be a nazi, a normal person can be a rapist, a normal person IS capable of horrible things.

Deal with it.

And no saying you agree and then keep insisting "No there's something that separates them from me" is not a fucking argument. The thing that separates them from you is that they raped someone...there is no quality that makes them less than you sorry.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 3, 2011 5:30 PM

How can it be said people are the recipients of "unearned" advantages, if those "advantages" are never realized?

I don't think you've understood me. Members of groups enjoy systemic advantages over members of non-privileged groups, even if they are unaware of it; indeed, that unawareness is itself often one of the manifestations of privilege.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | May 3, 2011 5:33 PM

How can it be said people are the recipients of "unearned" advantages, if those "advantages" are never realized?

Posted by: fuckin' kristinc | May 3, 2011 5:38 PM

It's amazing how many people will feel totally OK with patting an unknown girl in a shopping mall. They don't do so with little boys (people often mistake my youngest for a boy and she is "safe"). But girls' bodies can be touched.

I have two kids, both of the pretty, rosy-cheeked-cherub type. One is a girl and one a boy. For some time my son wore his hair long and plain, and for some time my daughter wore a short buzzcut.

When people thought my son was a girl, they would call him honey, sweetie, compliment his beautiful smile (or tell him to smile) and touch him on the shoulder or head.

When people thought my daughter was a boy they would call her champ. They did not touch her. They asked her what she was up to that day (implying she had interesting activities to do).

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 3, 2011 5:42 PM

@friendthegirl: You're right about all of these problems, but I'd still say that they're not universal. It's a highly flawed organization, and one that can, at best, move at the speed of frozen molasses to address problems, but it is still helpful for some people. There are plenty of AAs who'd have told Beebe to contact the police and who have turned in people who talk about having committed serious crimes in meetings.

I agree 100% about the "don't take your meds" recommendations, though - I've seen it and it's horrifying. Again, though, not universal.

My favorite G.O.D. acronym is "good orderly direction." In other words, trying to behave oneself in a sane and responsible manner.

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | May 3, 2011 5:46 PM

@kristinc
Not to mention the amount of agression I get if I tell people to please leave the girlie-girl alone and that the tomboy is actually a girl, too (But she's wearing blue!, a capital offence, obviously)

Posted by: Wildlifer, Zombi chasseur de tueur | May 3, 2011 5:47 PM

@607
A junior high school friend went through pretty much all of that and was raped by the math teacher's son. He didn't really mature physically until 18 and got it real bad in gym class too - standard jock bullying of a smaller undeveloped classmate. Anyway, he only told me of it after I told him I had been cornered in the bathroom and groped by the guy.

Is he still "privileged"?

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | May 3, 2011 5:50 PM

Is he still "privileged"?

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 3, 2011 5:52 PM

So is Ing going to come for my RealAtheist™ card also?

I'd settle for everyone who wishes to yammer on and on about their magic sky fairy deciding that the word really meant good orderly direction and proceeding accordingly. It would mean less litter, more on time tax payments, and perhaps even drivers who use their turn signals.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | May 3, 2011 5:54 PM

Christopher Hitchens, writing about the recent killing of Bin Laden, reminded me how much some cultures really do disrespect women. They don't just hate women, they hate any so-called "feminine" aspects of culture. Speaking about Osama Bin Laden, Hitchens wrote:

The West, he maintained, was rotten with corruption and run by cabals of Jews and homosexuals. It had no will to resist. It had become feminized and cowardly. One devastating psychological blow and the rest of the edifice would gradually follow the Twin Towers in a shower of dust. Well, he and his fellow psychopaths did succeed in killing thousands in North America and Western Europe, but in the past few years, their main military triumphs have been against such targets as Afghan schoolgirls, Shiite Muslim civilians, and defenseless synagogues in Tunisia and Turkey.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | May 3, 2011 5:56 PM

And it's a fucking obnoxious post hoc of theologically based methodology....in my personal opinion.

I'd rather some evidence based method of addiction treatment or self betterment.

@Lynna

Wern't the Nazis/Don't the NeoNazis promote(d) a MASCULINE Christianity in contrast to the feminized versions they look down on?

Also Focus On the Family decried feminized virtues like 'compassion' in favor of masculine 'holding people responsible' when it came to firefighters letting a house burn down. Note that it manages to be both sexist, sociopathic and insulting to men.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 3, 2011 5:59 PM

I wasn't talking about myself. Dipshit.

Posted by: Wildlifer, Zombi chasseur de tueur | May 3, 2011 6:03 PM

@616
Fuckin Kristinc

You obviously missed the post where it was clarified that I wasn't using the word in the same manner that you are.

The first time I ever heard it used to describe differences was last week in the Nazi thread.

Obviously with that definition, yes I am privileged.

Posted by: fuckin' kristinc | May 3, 2011 6:10 PM

The first time I ever heard it used to describe differences was last week in the Nazi thread.

You fucking never heard it used to describe "differences" because that's not what it fucking means, and no one said it did. You fucking invented that in order to have a strawman that was within your puny and laughable abilities to knock down.

Privilege means privilege. It aligns exactly to the fucking dictionary definition. You just aren't enough of a fucking worthwhile human being to admit it, because then you'd have to realize you aren't a fucking special flower, just like every single one of the other I don't have any privilege, hurrr durrr idiot squad.

Posted by: MudPuddles | May 3, 2011 6:13 PM

@ Ing,

We agree: Yes, everyone can do it, and no, not everyone does. The difference is psychological, and frequently also environmental. I never claimed that someone has to be insane to be a rapist - obviously they don't. Yes someone the same as you or me can commit rape. But at the moment they commit to that sociopathic act they quite clearly are not the same as us. There is a difference between being capable of rape (everyone) and being prone to committing rape (people who are pre-disposed to it or are led to it by whatever factor). And I would argue that claiming otherwise simply supports the rape myths which justify or excuse the act. I understand your point, but don't agree.

Posted by: fuckin' kristinc | May 3, 2011 6:17 PM

I never claimed that someone has to be insane to be a rapist - obviously they don't.

That's exactly what you did claim over and over. Try again.

Posted by: JustALurker | May 3, 2011 6:29 PM

LOL. We're on the Internet in a thread that was designed to create discussion regarding "man guilt".

GRRRRRRRRRRRR. It was not created to discuss that you inconsiderate fucking moron. Re-read the title and the actually stories this thread was SUPPOSE to be about and then re-read the thread you derailing self-involved sack of shit.

There were two fucking sentences regarding PZ shame of his fellow man and the comment that fuckers like you would come in here like they do every thread about women and specifically NOT about men and bitch about "THE MENZ PROBLEM". Fuck off. How fucking dense are you?!?!

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 3, 2011 6:36 PM

@Mudpuddles:

This is what you said of rapists originally:

They are mentally ill, twisted, deranged, evil scum.

Now you have moved on to

The difference is psychological, and frequently also environmental. I never claimed that someone has to be insane to be a rapist - obviously they don't. Yes someone the same as you or me can commit rape. But at the moment they commit to that sociopathic act they quite clearly are not the same as us. There is a difference between being capable of rape (everyone) and being prone to committing rape (people who are pre-disposed to it or are led to it by whatever factor).

Do you see why one might think that the former characterization might make it difficult to work with people who have raped in order to prevent future rapes and address the problems that led them to rape in the first place? The latter characterization is a whole lot more nuanced and compassionate.

A compassionate understanding why someone rapes is not the same as approval of that person's raping others.

Posted by: Wildlifer, Zombi chasseur de tueur | May 3, 2011 6:40 PM

@Fuckin kristin

You fucking never heard it used to describe "differences" because that's not what it fucking means, and no one said it did. You fucking invented that in order to have a strawman that was within your puny and laughable abilities to knock down.

Privilege means privilege. It aligns exactly to the fucking dictionary definition. You just aren't enough of a fucking worthwhile human being to admit it, because then you'd have to realize you aren't a fucking special flower, just like every single one of the other I don't have any privilege, hurrr durrr idiot squad.

You're projecting.

I don't run in your circles. People I live and work with don't talk about a one-legged man's privilege over a legless man's. They don't talk of it being a privilege NOT to be raped or sexually assaulted or live in fear of either (ya know, the differences between people's lives).

I already admitted using it in the manner you do, rather than as I've always used it (e.g. royalty, founding fathers, wealth & power), yes, as a 51-year-old white male I'm privileged.

There, I said it again. Hope you read it this time.

Posted by: Nepenthe | May 3, 2011 7:04 PM

@624

Agent Smith, if there's one myth that needs to be left behind, it's the idea that rapists randomly find themselves in situations where they are "tempted" to rape. What actually happens is that they make those situations happen and they make sure to be there. Whether it's finding someone disadvantaged or out of place (the man who raped me specialized in foreign exchange students, and I have a mental illness), finding someone who is already two sheets to the wind, or finding someone who won't be believed (a prostitute, a child), they try to rape. That's why most do it more than once.

Posted by: Agent Smith | May 3, 2011 7:13 PM

Privilege means privilege. It aligns exactly to the fucking dictionary definition.

It's been a while since I lugged my trusty New Oxford Dictionary (printed 1998) off the shelf. This is no trendy online lexicon. This is a solid record of vocabulary usage, with time-tested definitions. Let's turn to privilege, which sits between privet and privity, and see what this august tome has to say.

privilege, noun, special right, advantage or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

That corresponds exactly to how people have been using it in the thread. What's more, it's the FIRST definition, not some special case used only by the terminally sociological! A crucial point is that if a group has a deficit or disadvantage imposed on them, another group without that deficit is privileged by comparison. The baseline, or "no advantage", compared to a disadvantage, equates to an advantage - which fits in with the dictionary definition.

Right, time to return ol' Oxford to the shelf, since my desk is small, and I need room to read Android in Action.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | May 3, 2011 7:19 PM

You just aren't enough of a fucking worthwhile human being to admit it, because then you'd have to realize you aren't a fucking special flower, just like every single one of the other I don't have any privilege, hurrr durrr idiot squad.

If you really think that this is what it's about, then you're a complete and total self-absorbed lunkhead. Now fuck off and quit giving wildlife biology a bad name.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | May 3, 2011 7:23 PM

Oh JESUS. I am officially out of this thread.

Posted by: Wildlifer, Zombi chasseur de tueur | May 3, 2011 7:31 PM

@642
I never made that argument.

I said the word has never been used in that manner in my circle of co-workers, family and friends, i.e. life, not that it couldn't be.

Sorry I'm not up on all the feminist lingo and usages (had to look up cissexual yesterday).

Posted by: Agent Smith | May 3, 2011 7:39 PM

Nepenthe @624

You're right that many rapists set out to engineer situations to make it easier for them to commit rape. But, as with any other crime, there's a fair degree of opportunism, with perpetrators deciding on-the-spot to rape someone even though they hadn't considered it before. Of course, anyone who keeps seeing normal social situations such as being alone with a woman as opportunities to rape probably needs psychiatric help, even if they haven't done anything yet.

Of course, a perp is never a victim of a situation, random or otherwise. No matter how angry or frustrated they are, how vulnerable or isolated the other person is, or how little force it would take to act against the other person's will, what happens is the perp's responsibility, one hundred percent.

Posted by: fuckin' kristinc | May 3, 2011 7:42 PM

They don't talk of it being a privilege NOT to be raped or sexually assaulted or live in fear of either

The $64, 000 question: do you understand now how this in itself is an example of their privilege?

Posted by: Wildlifer, Zombi chasseur de tueur | May 3, 2011 7:56 PM

@653
No I don't as I hang around and work with more than just men.