There’s been a bit of a fuss recently about seating of children on airplanes in New Zealand. A man who was seated next to a child travelling alone was asked to change his seat, because the airline has a policy against men sitting next to unaccompanied minors. The man objected, the fuss reached the press, the airline claimed that it was only doing what most airlines do on international flights. (Why not domestic flights?) In the fallout, there have been many cogent objections to the policy:
Mr Latta agreed studies of sexual offenders showed somewhere between 70 and 90 percent were male but the airlines’ policy would not help protect children.
“In 15 years of working with thousands of sexual offenders I’ve never treated or heard of a man who sexually offended against a child on a plane.”
New Zealand’s Green Party says the airlines policy banning men from sitting next to unaccompanied children is discriminatory and will take the matter to the Human Rights Commissioner.
Green MP Keith Locke said the policy was an example of moral panic about men posing as potential threats to children.
They’re all quite correct: It is a stupid policy, it won’t help children, it’s discrimination, and it’s moral panic.
It’s also an extremely common and widespread bigotry, although not one usually codified in policy.
Reading about the New Zealand flap, I was reminded of a study by anthropologist Susan Murray that was published in the academic journal Gender and Society. The study’s subject was men who work in child care in the U.S.. From Murray’s article:
In my study, many workers, both men and women, talked about how the men who are child care workers are subject to different unwritten rules regarding their physical access ot children. Specifically, in many centers, men are more restricted in their freedom to touch, cuddle, nap, and change diapers for children. As one worker who I surveyed stated, “I have worked in centers that employ male caregivers. Parents have on occasion been hesitant to accept them. One parent explicitly asked that a male caregiver not rub her daughter’s back at naptime.” […]
…My data clearly showed numerous cases in which parents clearly did not want their children taken care of by a man at all. Sometimes parents requested another caregiver for their children; at other times, parents refused to enroll their children or withdrew them once they discovered a man was working at the center.
The article goes on to recount many other examples of male childcare workers being discriminated against in this exact way – men are not supposed to be in physical contact with children. Murray, in a discussion of the implications of this, suggests that the bigotry against male caregivers is rooted in sexism and in bigotry against gay men (even if the caregiver isn’t gay).
In the case of men in child care, just the act of their caring for children calls into question their heterosexuality. The fact of their sexuality, whether gay or straight, need not ever be confirmed. It is their choice to do child care that arouses suspicion and leaves them vulnerable to homophobic reactions. Men’s actions become suspect because they are choosing to do something that women do and, even worse, because child care is undervalued employment for women. Gay is a sexualized identity. When a man admits to being, is discovered to be, or is suspected of being gay, his gay identity may come to define everything else. He is, then, seen as someone who is guided by sexual practices, thoughts, and feelings in all else he undertakes. Within the child care setting, anything having to do with adult sexuality is strictly off-limits. So, when a person’s identity as a gay person is discovered or even suspected (as may be the case with straight men doing “women’s work”), that person’s competence as a teacher/caregiver gets called into question. To the extent that being gay is viewed as a perversion, it is linked with other perversions, such as child sexual abuse.
Murray also discusses the “glass elevator” effect, in which men in childcare professions are promoted to administrative positions more often and more easily – an advantage to men who want to be administrators, but a disadvantage to ambitious women caregivers who’d like to advance, and to men who’d rather stay in direct childcare positions. The overall effect is to turn many child care centers into places where traditional gender roles are enforced.
[“Jeff,” a male childcare worker Murray interviewed, said:] “You just need to be ultracareful. In San Francisco the men Early Childhood Education teachers can’t have a child on their lap, the women can, but the men can’t. I’m thinking, what kind of a message does this send to the children?”
Murray concludes with the speculation that child care centers may be teaching children traditional gender roles: men as administrators and playmates, women as nurturers. This discrimination is bad for the men being discriminated against, and also bad for the girls and boys who are subjected to gender-discriminatory childcare.
Pingback: Creative Destruction
Pingback: Trevor
Pingback: » Career advice, jobhunting tips, and work hacks from childcare.wurk.net.
Pingback: What She Deserves
Pingback: feminist blogs
I would have to disagree with Murray’s suggestion that the discrimination stems from bigotry against gay men. In most cases, including the recent one, the reason for discrimination was because of the assumption that the men were or could have been sexual predators. The majority of the regulations applied to men, but not to women, are specific in that men should never have any physical contact with children. Given the increase in the panic over child abuse in recent years, this honestly is not surprising.
Also, Murray’s suggestion that this discrimination creates a “glass-ceiling” does not tend to hold up as most schools and childcare providers tend to not have many males applying for the jobs, either as a result of lack of interest or because of the common discrimination.
I would also argue that the message sent to children is more likely that men are somehow dangerous and threatening, or perhaps cold and uncaring given that men are restricted from physical contact with the children. Neither of them are helpful to children.
Actually, Murray’s belief that men in chidcare have a “glass elivator” is founded in evidence that men are, on average, promoted faster than comparable women in childcare professions. The research takes account of the number of men applying.
I think you’re right that the message sent to children is one that men are threats, or less caring. I don’t think this contradicts what Murray argues; these are not mutually exclusive messages.
I agree with jaketk.
I think when issues like this are raised there is a tendency by feminists to try and link them to Patriarchy, or Patriarchy-like structures – such as racism or homophobia. I think this is misleading in this instance. I don’t think the suspicion comes down being that someone could be gay, it’s a wider suspicion of male sexuality.
I vaguely recall Hugo Schwyzer’s writing on this. When he wrote that he has to be more aware of how he behaves towards female students than a female teacher, the reason behing this isn’t because he might be gay. I also suspect it can’t be pinned down just to being male in a female dominated profession.
strangely, I agree with Jaketk. I think this has more to do with the fact that men are more likely to sexually prey on children than women (which leads to the totally unwarrented assumption that any man in childcare is there because he’s hot for the kids) than with homophobia. Except, of course, for the kind of homophobia that conflates homosexuality and pedophilia.
Ampersand writes:
I completely missed elevator. My mistake.
While I am sure there are assumptions about the sexual prefernce of men who work with children, I do not think they are the primary reason for the discrimination since it is so specific to men with children. Overall, I do think assumptions about homosexuality and men in “women’s” fields is an issue, but typically it is in terms of the job itself, such as male nurses or secretaries.
Pingback: Objective Justice
I’d like to throw another interpretation into the mix.
There is a pervasive and underlying sexualization of minors in our media. Even though we know it’s wrong, we see increasingly sexualized images of younger and younger children of both sexes. It seeps into our consciousness.
We also tacitly accept that men are dogs and cannot control their sexual urges. We assume if a man sits next to an attractive woman on an airplane he’ll be interested/aroused.
We don’t want to openly admit we sexualize children but it’s in the back of our mind that men are helpless before sexualized objects.
So, people begin to think that single men are dangerous around children.
“(Why not domestic flights?)”
Probably because of the length of the flights. NZ is quite small, so most domestic flights wouldn’t take that long. A flight to Europe, OTOH, would probably be about 26 or 27 hours including stopovers.
I agree with jaketk. This is surely the airlines’ attorneys taking the liability protection track as far as they can. One child abuse prevention approach is to be proactive about making sure that passengers are not in a position where something could occur, and probably some lawyer pointed out that whoever is sitting next to the child could have fondling or other molestation opportunities. The few times that my husband and I have flown as a couple without the kids, we have been asked to switch seats so that I am sitting next to the unescorted child in our row, especially if the child is a girl, and this had nothing to do with the length of the flight.
The Girl Scouts have a rule that fathers or other men (even if they have gone through the volunteer screening) may not be alone with any group of girls (regardless of the size of the group), and also they cannot be with the group if the only other adult present is their spouse or other close relative. (Although the second part of the rule is true of adult women, as well – my sister and I or my mother and I could not be the only two adults with the group.)
I also think root has made a good point. This is the dark side of the rape culture – men just can’t help themselves, so we must protect our children from them at all costs.
So let me get this straight. Most rapists and child molesters are men. As women, we get harassed nad hassled on a daily basis by men, who then bitch that we hate them, when we’d be happy if they’d just leave us alone. We have to fight rape and wife-beating and child abuse, and do it against MRAs and FRAs who claim we hate men. God forbid, though, that you actually call men on a privilege–the ability to molest women, girls, and everyone else with impunity.
This is like those commercials that show men as crappy fathers. Sad fact is, women still do more childcare, so it’s the truth, what are they complaining about?
Bottom line is, I’ve had way more experience with men bitching about feminists than I’ve had with men bitching about other men. Hell, we’ve even got nice feminist men–supposedly nice feminist men–letting trolls bitch and moan about how evil we are. We’re supposed to take it. Then again, it’s not the nice feminist men that get called man-hating feminazi bitches, though.
If men don’t want to feared as predators in general they need to shut up about feminists who are fighting predators, fight on our side, and complain about the predators instead of about us.
Yeah, that’ll happen.
You must be joking. I’ve been called all that and more. I’ve been called a man-hating fag (isn’t that a contradiction?), a nazi, and hundreds of other names by anti-feminists over the years. And what I’ve been called is mild compared to what Hugo has been called. Name-calling MRAs don’t consider men like me allies; they consider us traitors.
And yes, I let some MRAs post here (although I ban the most extreme name-calling ones). My own thinking is made stronger and more effective through civil debate, and so I use my website to facilitate such debate, both for me and for feminists who find this style of discussion worthwhile.
But that’s just how this blog is run. Many of my favorite feminist blogs either don’t allow anti-feminists at all, or allow anti-feminists but don’t have any civility expectations, and that’s fine with me. It’s a big web, and there’s no reason to expect everyone to have the same approach.
Agreed: I doubt it’s about anti-gay male bigotry, but about concerns that males in general are more likely to be sexual predators — to feel they have the right to pursue such desires. Moral panic, in that sense, sure.
As for lawyers, oh certainly it’s that defensive logic. I once worked with some at a bank, implementing a policy about whether we could link to Web site in a publication. No way, unless we had permission from the NYT, CNN, etc. first. And this was for an internal publication!
I have worked in daycares & afterschool programs for quite a few years, and I remember being astoundingly pissed off one day when I was forced to leave a 4 year old room to change diapers in a 1 year old room. Why? The regular teacher in the 1 year old room was a man, and since we were short-staffed, he wasn’t allowed to change diapers in the room by himself. Instead, I was placed in his room, by myself, to change the diapers of toddlers I didn’t know. Apparently, the knowledge and care that the male teacher had concerning these children was much less important than his ownership of a penis.
The anti-male perspective usually ends when the kids are out of diapers, though. The glass elevator definitely exists when the program is for school-age kids. It’s parents as well as childcare administrators. Parents, in my experience, will almost always take a discipline problem more seriously if a man or an older (looking) person relays the information. Also, parents won’t tend to argue about payment if the director is a man, especially a big man. As a smaller, youngish looking woman, I have no chance. My authority is always questioned by the parents, even if I have strict control over the kids. My biggest pet peeve, though, is that a guy teacher can get away with being a lazy ass a lot more easily than a woman. I guess it’s just enough that he showed up and let one of the kids ride piggyback, huh?
/bitter
man does this hit home for me. my very first job was in a daycare center back in the 70s. and now, i stay home with my 2 girls. there is an automatic suspicion that i’m some kind of pervert because i want to be around children and i love taking care of them.
i’ve always loved kids. i can’t help smiling and reacting to them when i see them when i’m out doing the shopping or something. some of the moms react weird when i smile and say hi to the cute kid in their cart. i always make sure to tell them i have two toddler girls at home to try to put them at ease.
but the other thing i’ve noticed is in the daycare my girls are in (i need to have 3 days a week when i can do shopping, dr appointments, cleaning etc., so the girls go part time to daycare) the same old sexist attitudes abound. especially the daycare center they’re in now as opposed to the one before on the college campus my wife attended (it was destroyed by katrina). as i listen to my older girl play-act her day (when she doesn’t realize daddy’s eavesdropping) i hear her say all kinds of subtle and not-so-subtle sexist things. they make her play more with the girls and separate the boys into different lines & play groups. this annoys her because her 2 best friends are boys and she’s a rambunctious, adventurous, tomboyish kid. so she doesn’t like the teachers who more strictly enforce the boys together/girls together rules. as soon as we’re able, we’ll be taking them out of that center and looking for one less sexist. (and racist… my older girl cannot distinguish between the colors black and brown because brown people are called black, so she thinks that the brown crayon is the black crayon. also, she called my mom, who’s a very dark tanned native-american, black one day and that really upset my mom. my daughter said that her teacher told her that her maw-maw was black but her daddy was white (i took after my irish dad in looks). it surprised me that the teachers would point out that difference to her so directly.
at the daycare they were in at the college, the boys played dress-up and kitchen as much as the girls played with cars and rough-housed. and she never noticed that some of her classmates were darker-skinned than others.
maybe it’s not that the daycares are different but she’s almost 4 at this one and was just past 3 at the other one. but i think it’s the cultural influces of being in a place where the purpose of the daycare center is to teach ECE to adults vs a daycare center where the purpose is to prep the kids for kindergarden & “socialization”.
but back to the “male childcare givers must be perverts” theory… it really hurts me to know that there are people out there who think that i could ever conceivably hurt a child. that my motives for loving and caring for babies and children must be because i want to molest them or something.
i think this attitude prevents men who really do want to be more active and affectionate fathers/caregivers from doing so. it’s just easier to shut down those feelings than risk being accused of something dirty if you give your daughter too long a hug or a light kiss on the lips instead of the cheek. after shutting down that affection long enough (and it doesn’t take long) i think guys just believe that it doesn’t exist and don’t even realize that they’re missing something.
sorry if i’m a bit rambling & incoehrent tonight… we all have a dreadful case of the flu combined with katrina-cough, and it’s really wiped me & the girls out. fortunately my wife hasn’t caught it and she can take care of us sickly types. but at least the meds are good %-)
“Most rapists and child molesters are men. As women, we get harassed nad hassled on a daily basis by men, who then bitch that we hate them, when we’d be happy if they’d just leave us alone. We have to fight rape and wife-beating and child abuse, ”
Is it any wonder that there is so much suspision about men, when you have the likes of ginmar about, that can only talk of men in the negative and dismiss any issue that comes up.
I don’t want to cause offence here but you have to admit that Feminism is complicit in the whole Men = abuser situration, i am not saying it is wholely guilty but it has contributed to the problem.
This is gender profiling, and is no different from racial profiling. Just becasue men statisticly commit more child abuse, does that mean that me as an individual is any more dangerouse than the woman I am with?
This is the cance for the feminists to demonstrate they are about equality for all and not just about women.
We have reached a very sick point in our society that views all men a dangerous, too both women and children, ignoring the fact of how many men sacrifice their lifes for women and children, the fact that a man is more likely to help a woman and children than harm a woman and children.
I work in the voluntary sector and see first hand men self selecting away from working with children, its just not worth the comments and hassell to them. But I guess that this is what some feminists want.
And Finally Ginmar, men work on a daily basis to prevent rape, and child abuse, feminists are not the only ones that are doing it! If it was something that was condoned within the male community, can you explain why rapists and child abusers have to be seperated in prisions from other prisoners?
I think our society has reached a sad point when a man is profiled for wanting to work with young children. Gender profiling is a damaging as racial profiling. I think that it only serves to reinforce the idea of females as caregivers when men are pushed out of that role through the fear of being considered a pervert.
But far more socially acceptable.
Yes, but most men are not rapists or child molesters.
Ampersand:
No more so than it is a contradiction for a man to be a misogynistic heterosexual.
When I was little, I can remember being afraid of men – anyone who wasn’t my father, really. No history of abuse, and my best friend was a boy who lived across the street from me, but adult men scared me. Looking back, I’m trying to figure out what it was I was so afraid of, and it may have had something to do with the fact that male relatives were more likely to tease and make fun of me. It may have had more to do with the fact that they made me feel stupid and belittled than that I was afraid of molestation, but I definitely didn’t trust them.
It seems to me that the bias against men being responsible for children extends through elementary school; at least at my elementary school, all the teachers except for the gym teacher were women. Once I got into middle school, the number of male and female teachers balanced out, and remained about even through college. I’m not sure how I would have handled a male teacher when I was little; probably I would have gotten used to it. It’s more likely that my fears were a result of the bias against men taking care of children than something that can justify that bias.
Gee, Wookie, thanks for proving my damned point ever so eloquently. Yeah, fight are fighting sexism? With the exception of Amp and a few others who actually do fight sexism, they’re just invisible–because there’s way more men fighting feminsts. Cry me a fuckin’ river already. How do they fight sexism without fighting sexists? Becuase those are everywhere. Even you post on a feminist blog and whine about how I MUST hate men. Until men stop raping women, they can just bloody well cope with it.
Daran, you’re just plain being dishonest again. Amp’s nailed you for it over and over again so I’m not really going to bother, except to say, you know—You don’t get a damned door prize just for not being a rapist. That’s how hard it is being a straight guy in today’s world—if you’re not a rapist, you expect a prize. Note to DAran: that’s your cue for willfully ignoring the sarcasm and whining about it. We live in a rape culture that blames women for rape instead of men and you yourself have been nailed for crappy behavior toward feminists right here on this blog. I very much doubt you’re a feminist or so much as entitled to talk about feminists. That doesn’t stop you, though. You’re just determined to get in every shot at feminist you can, though. If most men aren’t rapists, what are they doing to stop rape? Harassing feminists? Blaming victims? Where are all these men? With few exceptions they’re guys who are more than content to let the anti0feminst nutjobs make them look good.
Amp, I have to say I think this is probably the start of a whole other conversation, but you should see my email and the comments I have to screen. Why do anti-feminist men want to emasculate feminist men? I have to say, too, that I find anti-feminist views utterly repugnant. Of course, that’s my opinion and on my blog they don’t get the light of day unless I want to remind people they’re still there. But there’s already too much woman-hating stuff in the world, why give more of it any exposure? But, anyway, let a man express any unqualified support for feminisn and other men emasculate him, other him, insult his sexuality and so forth. I think it’s deeply revealing about the anti-feminist mindset.
I do know that a great many of my friends have kept silent for fear of attracting the response I do. I’ve been threatened, told I deserve to get raped, and so forth. The thing is, those are things that men actually do to women in real life. As a gay guy, it’s something that you have to face, too. It’s a real threat. That just fascinates me. The straight male’s inviolate sexual identity is such that he can rape and gay bash with impunity, but gay men and women are not allowed to so much as defend themselves against it. Rebellion is not allowed. Tell me that’s not a rape culture.
Anyway, I posted late last night and I totally blanked on some of what you must go through. I’m sorry about that. I have to point out something, though. At least before I went to Iraq, I would have perceived the threats I get very differently. Now anybody says anything to me I’m in their face. That’s very definitely a side effect of being a soldier, and it makes guys really really frightened. Another reason to keep women out of combat, huh? I haven’t grown six inches, and in fact I lost a lot of weight in Iraq. I just gained so mething along the way, and I’m not quite sure what it was—a command of myself that men might view as theirs? Smething else?Whatever it is, I’ve realized that I can fight back, and it shows. It’s really interesting making guys back down. If that attitude doesn’t, the explanation does.
It’s so weird that the insurgents in Iraq express less vile sentiments than do the anti-feminist guys here at home. They appreciate bravery as a characteristic, while these trolls find it frightening when it comes in a non-white-hetero-male package. Maybe it’s because they lack it themselves. Beats me.
I need way more caffeine so I’m going to go set up a caffeine IV.
No kidding, Ginmar!
It’s like all those damn Muslims complaining about being profiled as terrorists and not allowed to travel because of their religion! Sad fact is, Muslims still do commit more terrorist acts, so it’s the truth, what are they complaining about?
Or all those black people complaining about being profiled as criminals, and being stopped in nice neighborhoods! Sad fact is, black people still are poorer and commit more violent crimes than whites, so it’s the truth, what are they complaining about?
How fucking disgusting.
—Myca
I agree with root. I don’t think it’s so much about homophobia as about the widespread patriarchal assumption that men are helpless in the face of any sexual urge that comes along.
There’s also the common notion that men are naturally attracted to people (male or female) who are significantly smaller, weaker, younger and poorer than they are (people they can dominate), while women want people who can dominate them. If it’s “normal” for all men to want to have sex with younger, smaller, weaker people AND “normal” for them to “lose control” and act on their desires no matter what, then having sexual contact with children isn’t perverted for men; it’s just a question of being “normal” to a higher degree.
And many men actively work to shore up these myths about themselves because it shifts the blame to women and children if the men misbehave (“well, what did you expect, leaving her with a strange man?”). I think this is a case of PHMT.
Myca, says all that needs to be said.
I am sorry that you have got so offended by my comments Ginmar, was not intended.
I am sorry that you have such a low opinion of men, I see men on a daily basis, working against rape and child abuse, but I guess that I must live in a bubble, seperate from this rape culture you live in. I see men that police our towns and cities, I see men that have enacted laws to protect victims of rape, I see men working with rape projects to ensure that they have anougth support and funding to continue their work. It is a shame that you cannot see this. And you know what some of these men would not identify themselves with feminism!
I came to this discussion, because this is a discussion close to my heart, as I see in my work, men are self selecting away from working with groups that involve children, this worries me, there are plenty of men coming foward to volunteer in the voluntary sector but so many of them, when we are discussing what they can do, express a concern of working with children and the current climate we live in that implies that any man seeking out work with children must have alterior motives.
But hay lets keep up the gender profiling, lets keep forcing men to distance themselves from children, it will keep feeding the feminists with amunition to use against men for not getting involved enougth.
I will end by saying that I feel that the media is most to blame for the current climate, but I do feel that feminism has been complict in creating that current climate.
In my experience, the gender-equalization is generally happening, but is going to other way — more restrictions for women childcare workers, rather than less for men.
The sister is a childcare worker, and her center has all sorts of restrictions, one of which is that no worker — male or female — is ever allowed to be “alone” with a child. One of my sister’s co-workers (female) was suspended for two weeks for closing the bathroom door while changing a child’s diaper. There was no implication of abuse — merely a violation of a clear rule: Open doors at all times if you are the only adult in the room.
As for lap-sitting, I’m not so sure that is a bad rule. Men can get erections for non-sexual reasons, too (like having to pee), and just like it’s not sexist to say only pregnant people can get abortions, it’s not necessarily sexist to set a rule that all children most be at least 12-inches away from a functioning penis (whether that penis is on a man or a woman).
Another problem is that men in school and pre-school are very much supposed to be the honorary male role-model and are expected to behave in a “masculine” way. Men who are too “feminine” doesn’t have it very easy. Thus the men in these proffesions end up reinforcing gender roles instead of breaking them.
I have, as usual ambivalent feelings about the airline thing. As for the Girls Scouts, I can attest to the fact that the organization has a bout a thousand stupids rules which all seem to stem from an absolutly phobic attitude toward liability, and many troop leaders and parents ignore them. My daughter’s leader is a man, BTW.
I know of two cases here in MI in which girls were molested on airplanes when they were unaccompanied. One resulted in charges and I believe a conviction (the girl was very young, it was the 80’s). The other was more recent, and the girl was 12 or so. They were unable to convict and the family unsuccessfully sued the airline. The problem was the lack of criminal conviction. I believe the 12 year old because at that age and in high school creepy men seemed to come out of the woodwork for me and other girls. Our Algebra teacher used to press his buttocks up against the girls (me included) when he was “helping” the student behind them. The English teacher “Dr. Grabber” got all touchy feely. The yearbook teacher always got girls on his lap and offered me rides home all the time and eventually dated a student. One teacher was fired and tried for statutory rape, another was fired for having sex in school with a student. Yet another started calling a student (and freaking her out) all the time to chat after his wife left him. A friend had a long time friend of the family feel her up. My mother had a stranger stroke her leg in a movie theater when she was 11. I was offered money for sex in a mall at 12, my sister was flashed at the same age, and recently a friend admitted that when she was 11, unaccomanied on a plane, the man next to her fondled her. These are only the cases I know about. In all of them, with teachers and strangers, we were too young and intimidated to say anything to the men, and mostly we told no one at all.
So you bet I am careful with my daughter. I don’t practice apartheid on men, but I watch them carefully, hoping I can detect if they are creeps or not. And I am hopefully teaching my daughter NOT to be intimidated and to tell me if someone gets too “friendly”. Child rapists may be few and far between, but men getting their jollies off touching young and easily frightened children are a dime a dozen.
As far as the issue of whether or not male child-care providers are stigmatized as ‘probably gay’ or not, I think that both what Amp was saying and jaketk’s point of view are accurate.
I absolutely do think that when a man engages in stereotypically ‘female’ pursuits like childcare, he’s branded as effeminate, less manly, and probably gay. In fact, I think a lot of this (although not as much) carries over to male teachers all the way up through high school, and that it also ties in to our culture’s deep-seated distrust of education and intellectuals. I blame the patriarchy and our cult of masculinity for this. Oh, and President Bush. Because he’s fun to blame, and he certainly doesn’t mind bashing smart people.
I don’t think that it makes much sense to lump all of this in under homophobia, though. I mean, one of the bits from the article was, “one parent explicitly asked that a male caregiver not rub her daughter’s back at naptime.” I doubt it’s because she thought he was gay. I think that another huge part of this is the idea that men are dangerous monsters, that perfectly normal male sexuality is creepy and scary, that all men are rapists and child molesters, etc. That’s something that I think the attitudes of the patriarchy reinforce, but I’ve mostly heard it articulated outright by folks like Ginmar, so I tend to think that both sides take a hit here.
Wookie — I don’t believe that “feminism” is to blame for this or that femisim is about bashing men. You’ve been here a while, and you’ve seen what Ampersand posts . . . he is a feminist, and he recognizes injustice when he sees it, and has always tried to address it, whether it’s men or women getting the short end of the stick. Sticking ‘feminism’ with the blame for this moral panic isn’t that far off from what we’re saying this policy does to men. That being said, yes, I think some types of feminism do think of men as inherently violent monsters with creepy, scary sexuality, and I think that those types are dumb.
—Myca
Actually, it is quite sexist to suggest that. On one hand it suggests that men are getting random erections frequently. However, unless the guy is taking Viagra, it is far less likely to occur. On the other hand it suggests that a man who have erections would not have the deceny not let a child sit on his lap or to remove a child if he thinks he is about to get an erection. Both serve only to further the myth that men are incapable of controlling their desires and are some sort of threat. It also suggests that women do not get aroused by such things, which is probably far from the truth. The only difference is that male arousal is noticeable and visible. But regardless of that, it sends the wrong message to a child when you restrict them from having physical contact with another person, male or female, based solely on the actions of other people.
My foster father constantly goes through this because he works from home and is the primary caregiver. Even though most of the social workers know him and his wife well and trust them with the high-risk children they take in, it is still an issue he has to face. With his own children, or the ones he has adopted, he can put his foot down, and often does. But with the foster children, he constantly has to call his wife if a child needs to go to the doctor, or if some sort of medication needs to be applied, or a kid needs a bath. If he does it, they will revoke their foster parent status. Even when the child is more comfortable with my foster father, he still is not allowed to do it.
It is smart to be aware of all adults who touch children, not just men. The look that comes across my foster father’s face when random women come up to his 5 year old son and touch his face or squeeze his cheeks is very obvious, as is his clenched fist. But that does not mean we should automatically assume every person, particularly every male, is somehow a threat to a child because some other guy did something to a child. It is not only unfair, but the reality of the situation is that such behavior probably serves to help mask the real abuse. After all, you are busy looking for a strange man, not your boyfriend or the girl who babysits for you.
It is possible to be aware of those dangers without discriminating or stereotyping whole groups of people.
Historically speaking, children have been considered sexualized beings. Our current view is actually contrary to what was thought, and is still thought, in most cultures. The only real similarities our views and ancients one have in common is that the child should not be forced. Outside of that, humans have always had some sort of attraction to children. The images of 10 year old girls dressed in napkins and shoestrings do not help. I think most people who have attractions to other people are capable of controlling themselves and operating within the rules of society. There may be an element of projection going on (certain people are attracted to children and attempt to disguise it by being over-vigilant and accusing others, mostly males, of such attractions), but I still think it has more to do with the perceptions of men as uncontrollable predators.
Ginmar:
I haven’t said anything about wanting a prize. What I object to is being blamed for rape purely because I’m male. I don’t consider not being blamed from something I haven’t done or supported in any way to be a prize.
I assume this is a reply to my comment number 20 above.
Yes, I deliberately ignored the sarcasm and responded to the literal statement. It was a quick response which I didn’t put a lot of thought into. So what? How was that whining?
The culture is heterogeneous. There is an element which blames women in general for the rape of women, but it seems fairly marginal, albeit vocal. Much more common is the blaming of victims. Note that “women” and “victims” are overlapping but different groups. You appear to be one of a large number of people who blame men collectively. I blame rapists for their individual actions.
I don’t consider myself to be a feminist, no, although I’ve been called one. I do, however subscribe more or less to the principles elucidated by Cathy Young. As far as talking about feminists is concerned, everyone who lives in a place where freedom of speech is respected has the right to talk about whatever they choose. But in particular they have a right to talk about what effects them personally, as femininism does and has done me. As for my choice of forum, I’m well aware that this is private property, and I am here at Ampersand’s sufferance, same as everyone else.
Most men do very little. Most women don’t either. Most women do nothing at all to help male victims, but that doesn’t make them responsible for the problem.
At a guess, hundreds of thousands of men are sexually penetrated against their will every year in the US, mostly behind bars. When you blame men, collectively, you include them in your blame. So who is victim-blaming here?
Antifeminist nutjobs make everyone look good. Fortunately, Ampersand doesn’t allow them here.
[…]
I haven’t seen any woman-hating stuff here. Criticism of, hostility towards, or even downright hatred of feminists (which I’ve also not seen here) is not the same as women-hating.
The antifeminist nutjobs who behave like that are beneath contempt.
That too is disgraceful and I condemn it utterly.
I notice you refer to straight males but gay men and women. “Males” would be appropriate if you meant “men and boys”, but I can see nothing in the context that would suggest you intended to include straight boys but exclude gay boys and girls. I guess you choose the word because it is dehumanising: animals can be males but only humans can be men and women.
Apart from that, I notice once again you are blaming an entire class – straight males for what only some of that class do.
“”In 15 years of working with thousands of sexual offenders I’ve never treated or heard of a man who sexually offended against a child on a plane.””
In Inga Muscio’s new book she talks about seeing a man acting extremely inappropriately with a girl traveling alone with her younger brother. Inga informed the flight attendants who moved the kids, but nothing beyond that was ever done. I’m sure stuff like that happens all the time but it never gets reported.
Myca, give me a fucking break. You’re being willfully disingenuous. Men rape. Muslims do not bomb. Nice strawfeminist, though. Good job.
Wookie, just come right out and say that any criticism of men gives you hives. Your ‘you just hate men, but I won’t come right out and say it’ schtick just gets more and more tedious as time goes by.
Daran, you’re tedious. I said what I said, and you want to pick it apart. You don’t believe sexism exists? I’m not going to waste my time with you. Amp might, but I don’t have to. I don’t believe in re-inventing the wheel with MRA trolls who whine that sexism doesn’t exist, women don’t have it so bad, and that the real victims are men. Until you actually respond to what I said and not with what you believe all feminists say, I’m not bothering with you.
ginmar:
Irony meters around the world went into overload with that last sentence.
Ginmar: I suggest you do more research in many of your claims. Men are as likely to be abused and to be an abuser in a relationship and the most likely person to abuse a child is the MOTHER, not some stranger or a man at all. Under your thinking, we should look at banning mothers from their own children for their own safety then shouldn’t we?
You may also be interested in a recent study of school children that found the boys were more likely to be abused by their girlfriends than the reverse and the rate of being force in to having sex was about equal too! So here we have all these girls raping boys yet is there any help for them in it or any shelters for the abused men who wish to protect their children from abusive mothers? Nope, the men are expected to just put up with it and deal with it.
Now you complain about MEN but most of those MRAs and FRAs are actually for just having an equal chance as women for help and to see their children. Yes there are some radicals just like there are some radical feminists which you appear to be one of. I deal with people on both sides frequently and while I have NEVER seen MRAs and FRAs say they believe raping women is acceptable or even let men off for being a pedophile, I have seen plenty of feminists say women raping men doesn’t happen or it is just desserts for them since SOME men rape women. I have also watched as our judicial system has allowed women out of jail time for raping boys because they were too pretty to go to jail and those who rape 12 year old boys and become pregnant receive very little punishment and then the young boy nailed for child support of all things. Yes, can you picture a 12 year old boy facing jail unless he pays child support to a woman old enough to be his mother and was his teacher that raped him as fair and proper?
I would suggest you read more and look closely at the studies and swear less at those who are polite and just disagree with you. It may be your swearing the general threatening attitude to others that causes the threats you complain about more than anything else and you are creating a self perpetuating problem by coming across as a violent individual that hates men causing the problems you then use to justify the behavior you use.
I don’t have a problem with airlines not seating men next to unaccompanied children on long flights. Airlines do not have the ability to identify pedophiles with any degree of accuracy. They are limited to the much rougher sorting mechanism of gender, which is unfair but relatively effective. And there’s no “right to a particular airline seat” or even a “right not to be thought a potential deviant”, so the men in question aren’t having their rights infringed. If they were, that might make this a more difficult question. but as they are not, there doesn’t seem to be any conflict.
I do think it’s wrong that men who work in childcare or teaching are viewed with suspicion. In this case, unlike the airline scenario, the ability to assess behavior and screen out people with inappropriate motives is much greater. I don’t think there’s anything wrong per se with a day care or school being cautious about the men they hire – background checks, careful observation, etc. – but once that’s done then teachers and day care workers should get the benefiit of the doubt, same as women do.
Ginmar, nice invasion of a thread about men to turn it into a thread about you. I guess it’s true that we become the thing we hate; you’re acting like an MRA troll.
Gee, Robert, like your conservative, insincere, trolling feminist blogs’ constantly matters. If you weren’t Amp’s friend you’d have gotten banned a long time ago. I don’t give a f uck what you say. When it comes to feminism, you’re nothing.
Really, Daran? Gee, I guess I’ve been told. Who better to lecture me than “I’m-going-to-defend-jaketk-‘s rape victim-bashing antics’Daran.
Like I give a shit. Either find some new tricks or don’t bother. I’m not responding to you from now on. Amp might have the patience but I don’t. Unless you actually try and listen to what feminists actually say instead of twist it, all you’re going to get is being ignored. And good riddance.
Against every bit of my better judgement, I’m going to take what you’re saying seriously, and assume that, insulting and bigoted though it has been, it’s probably possible to figure out what it is that you’re actually saying.
When you say “Men rape. Muslims do not bomb.” I figure you could mean any one of a number of things.
One possibility is that you’re saying that commiting rape is a necessary component of being a man, but commiting terrorist acts is not a necessary component of being a Muslim.
A second possibility, if I take what you’re saying literally, is that you’re saying that no Muslims commit terrorist acts, but some/all men rape.
A third possibility is that you’re saying that although not all men are rapists, all rapists are men (Not all M=R, but all R=M), and that it’s true both that not all muslims commit terrorist acts, and that not all people commiting terrorist acts are muslim (Not all MS=T, not all T=MS). Christ, my philosophy professor would be so proud of the venn diagram I have in my head right now.
Okay, so I THINK that what you’re saying is option three.
The only problem is that we know your second statement in option three is untrue. Men aren’t the only ones who rape. Certainly, they’re the majority, although when it comes to small children (the group we’re talking about) the male/female gap narrows. Moreover, the people who advocate racial/religious profiling against middle-eastern/Muslim folk believe that those folk are likely to make up the vast majority of terrorist threats.
I hope that it can be agreed that the number of terrorists among the muslim population, like the number of rapists among the male population, taken as a percentage, is tiny.
The question, therefore, is whether it’s permisible, in decent society, to punish/treat badly/profile/harass/insult members of a certain group based on the bad behavior of other members of that group. I believe the answer is no, and that’s why I oppose ‘random’ traffic stops that seem to end up targeting black people, that’s why I oppose the profiling of Muslims, and that’s why I oppose this.
I believe that what you’re saying is that the percentage of terrorists/terrorist supporters among the middle eastern Muslim population is small enough that the rest of the group shouldn’t be profiled because of it, but that the percentage of rapists among the male population is large enough that the profiling of the rest of the group is justified.
I disagree. I think that that slope is too slippery to head down, and once we decide it’s okay to treat anyone like that, it just becomes a numbers game, and morality and decency head out the window.
—Myca
Well, Myca, here’s a fucking clue for you. Try asking me.
Yeah, yeah, I’ve heard it before. Why don’t you ask me? Well, because once someone uses a few catchphrases, there’s no real need to wate any time. Robert, Daran, and Jaketk all used up their lifetime allotment of anti-feminist catchphrases quite a while ago. Wookie is on his/her/it’s way.
Here’s the simplified, even an anti-feminist should be able to get it version:
Rape is so normalized and so much a fact of male privilege that female rape of men/women/whatever is so rare as to be statistically irrelevant. Do men get raped? Yeah, by other men. Men rape. They rape in huge numbers–see Amp’s post on how many men are rapists—and then they face a cadre of sympathic police, judges and a public which is predisposed at blaming the victim. See Nick Kiddle’s posts on the subject.
If men who committed rape were blamed and tried and convicted and reviled by men who then supported feminists and didn’t—like Robert, for example, or any of the trolls who clog up feminist sites—–just try and argue and argue and argue but never for one fucking minute tried LISTENING —then we could not be said to live in a rape culture. But in fact we do have a rape culture. Rape is legitimized by a culture that keeps women intimiated by men for fear of rape, which to add to their intimidation, they know will be blamed on them. Society does this in a whole bunch of different ways. It accepts rape as an ordinary event in women’s lives, to the point that women get blamed when men rape them. Women don’t ‘get raped’—men rape them. Furthermore, ordianary men in college, ordinary men at work, ordinary men at school, and in the army, and everywhere rape women. Nevertheless women get told only to avoid rape by strangers, who don’t do that much raping. If a man rapes you, there’s a very good chance you’ll know him. That means that people will not believe you when you say you’ve been raped by a man. People don’t want to believe it’s so widespread and so normal—normal for men, that is.
As for ‘Muslims don’t bomb’ it’s very simple. Once someone tells you Allah told them to kill, they’ve stopped being a Muslim. It’s like those people that say that Islam requires women to veil. It doesn’t. Either they’re ignorant or they’re using it, but they’re not Muslims. Once they pick up a bomb, they stop being Muslims.
Next time you want me to clarify something, ask.
Fair enough. The “no true Scotsman” defense. In that case, I need you to understand that no men rape either. In my estimation, as soon as someone has comitted rape, he stops being a man.
See? No men rape.
This is nonsense, it’s word games, and it’s bullshit, and you know it. But, by all means, feel free to say whatever you like to feel more comfortable in your bigotry.
And here’s one back: next time you expect to be treated with an ounce of fucking courtesy, try treating the people around you with the same.
I tried taking you seriously. Don’t worry, I certainly won’t make that mistake again.
—Myca
Ginmar, I don’t think you get to decide who’s a Muslim and who’s not. That aside, semantical sleight of hand doesn’t change Myca’s underlying point; Muslims get profiled because there are some terrorists who are Muslim (or “perceived as Muslim”, in the case that your absurd redefinition was accepted by anyone other than, well, you), and if we believe this to be unfair as a matter of principle, then the principle should hold for other groups as well.
Hell, Myca, I was going to go after ginmar’s “logic”, but you’ve done far too good a job for me to jump in.
The talk about the Girl Scouts’ attitudes towards men is interesting. During the various lawsuits, etc., regarding the Boy Scouts’ membership policies, the GSUSA has been held up as a model of tolerance. But an examination of their operation seems to show that in fact they are more sexist and intolerant than the BSA is. I’ve seen numerous postings on Scouting lists that tell of GSUSA Councils that discourage men from participating, and GSUSA Troops that makes it very difficult for fathers to participate with their daughters. They don’t let men be “principal leader” of a GSUSA Troop (although that may have changed just recently), and unlike the BSA they have no programs for the opposite gender at all.
I wonder why this is. Is it an attempt to manage a perceived risk? Is it an attempt to show girls that women can be leaders in the absence of men? Do they think that there is an advantage for the girls to have activities in the absence of men?
“Women don’t ‘get raped’…men rape them.”
ginmar, do you see the usage of “get raped” as rhetoric that shifts the blame for the crime to the victim? Because if so, blaming the victim is nothing unique to rape. After all, people “get mugged”, “get robbed”, “get shot”, “are defrauded”, “get murdered”, “get abused”, etc., etc. It’s a description of something that happens to someone, it’s not a rhetorical device to blame the victim.
You may also be interested in a recent study of school children that found the boys were more likely to be abused by their girlfriends than the reverse and the rate of being force in to having sex was about equal too! So here we have all these girls raping boys yet is there any help for them in it or any shelters for the abused men who wish to protect their children from abusive mothers? Nope, the men are expected to just put up with it and deal with it.
Citations, please.
Ampersand doesn’t appear to be here at the moment. If he was, then I suspect that he’d be suggesting that people cool it a little.
I’m made this point elsewhere, but it might be worth making again.
I’m not sure the fuss was strictly about the “seating of children on airplanes”. A man who was seated next to a child travelling alone was asked to change his seat, he complied and then spent the rest of the flight brooding over it and then complained. I’ve some sympathy. It’s just totally offensive to ask someone to move seats because you suspect if they were left in their seat then they might abuse a child.
I’ve no problem with airlines looking out for children travelling alone (which may be very intimidating for them even without the threat of child abuse). I’ve no problem with them moving the child. But there are discrete ways of doing things and there are ways which are totally crass and insensitive and are just asking for trouble.
I pretty much agree with Bean when it comes to the airplane issue. It’s kind of a hassle, but not a big deal, and I can understand why they’re careful. Now, of course, it would be much better to deal with the problem while the tickets are being sold, of course, rather than waiting until everyone’s on the plane, going to some guy and saying “hey, you have to move so you don’t molest this kid.”
Regardless, it was more the issue of male childcare providers/teachers that was bothering me, as well as the underlying attitude that men are these awful, scary, child-molester monsters who will hurt anyone they get near.
—Myca
I think that another huge part of this is the idea that men are dangerous monsters, that perfectly normal male sexuality is creepy and scary, that all men are rapists and child molesters, etc. That’s something that I think the attitudes of the patriarchy reinforce, but I’ve mostly heard it articulated outright by folks like Ginmar, so I tend to think that both sides take a hit here.
My question is, is the idea that perfectly normal male sexuality is creepy and scary and abusive, or is the idea that creepy, scary, abusive sexual behaviour is normalized for men in this culture? Who is being asked to adapt here, and how?
Next time there’s a thread about rape, I had better not see any of the commenters currently complaining about “bigotry against men” picking apart the overly trusting behaviour of rape victims (why did she drink alcohol, why was she out at night alone, why did she trust a date or a male friend or a security guard).
Quentin0352:
IIRC the person most likely to non-sexually abuse a child is the child’s mother, while the person most likely to sexually abuse it is the mother’s male partner. The high risk from the mother would appear to be an artifact of its spending far more time with her than with other adults. (Children are more likely to suffer an accident in the home, than playing on the highway, but that doesn’t mean that highways are safer places for children.)
Studies without proper, verifiable citations have zero credibility.
My experience with MRA’s is that most of them appear to be lunatics. I hope that I’m wrong, and it’s just the empty vessels making a lot of noise.
I haven’t. I have, however, seen a lunatic MRA applauding the murder of women. I have seen other MRAs reluctant to condemn him. I know that not all MRAs are like that (I’m an MRA myself), but if these people are as representative as they appear to be, then the movement is in a truly sorry state.
Cite?
Woah, there.
See, this is what annoys me. Someone here comes across as a bit different, whether it be jaketk or in this case ginmar, and suddenly there’s an all-out no-holds-barred attack on them. Yeah, she’s pretty obnoxious, but that doesn’t make it right to misrepresent her, (She does not complain about threats more than anything else.)
Nor does anything, anything at all, excuse anyone threatening her. Yeah, I know you said ’cause’, not ‘excuse’, but the effect of your remark is to transfer responsibility from victimer to victim.
I didn’t mean to imply that Quentin was mounting such an attack all by himself. I was referring to the general way this thread has gone, in particular how it has become personalised. Apologies to Quentin for making it look as though it was specifically him I was complaining about.
Oh bloody hell. I can’t even post what I intend to, let alone respond cogently. Ampersand, is there any way to implement a “delete your own post” button?
I said:
Didn’t I just take Quentin to task for exaggeration?
Bedtime for me, I think.
Men being discriminated against somewhere, cry me freaking river. Who cares, seriously. Men get everything, if women are getting a little bit of privilege somehow, I’m fucking ecstatic. And maybe if most men didn’t excuse rapers and victim blame as much they do, I’d feel okay about having my kids sitting next to some man I don’t know. I think its a great idea but of course when you rebel against men’s privilege to take up whatever space they want and molest who ever they want, they get pissed off. I’m sure this will change in seconds when enough outraged men complain, don’t worry men you’re being looked after. Your interests are pretty much the only interests that matter anyway, right.
A lottle of both, I think.
I absolutely agree that creepy, scary sexual behavior is normalized in our culture. My favorite (favorite?) example is how stalking is still viewed in many circles as basically sweet, romantic behavior. “Ooh, he followed you home and stood outside your window and sang to you to win your love? How sweeeeet!” Yeah, no, not so much.
On the other hand I also do think that actually normal male sexuality is viewed as creepy and scary. These are flip sides of the same coin. One enables the other. Normal, healthy things, are demonized while fucked up things are accepted.
Back in the feminism and anti-feminism thread, Polymath, Ismone, and Daran had an interesting exchange here, here, and here. Polymath is a male feminist, Ismone is a female feminist, and Daran is an MRA. Recognition of this phenomenon is an experience that cuts across genders and backgrounds, and it isn’t something that can be dismissed as the ravings of a MRA. I, too, grew up thinking that to be sexually attracted to a woman was somehow disrespectful. That to be a ‘good guy’ I needed to pretend that my sexuality wasn’t there. I didn’t say anything at the time of Polymath’s post, but I want to mention now how much I appreciate it and share his experience.
—Myca
Lottle? Interesting neolgism. I wonder what it means.
—Myca
Neither as the issue is not about male sexuality whatsoever. The perception is that all males are sex offenders and therefore a threat to children and untrustworthy. That is blatant discrimination, and is completely unacceptable in any other area. I do not understand the rationalization of it against men.
And technically you said the same thing in both statements, so you might want to rephrase one of them so that you have an opposing argument.
The message being sent by such acts is that no males are trustworthy. For the men who work with, father, or take care of children, this is a major concern. While some men abuse their position, as do many women, it is still unfair and improper to cast all males in such a light. Every experience is different, and if I asked my foster father about his experiences in dealing with female social workers, doctors, or child care service providers, I am certain he would say those are the women he would be least likely to trust. Most of the children he and his wife take in are high-risk foster children. Most of them have been shuffled through the system, abused, abandoned and are basically thrown at him and his wife because no one wishes to deal with them. The majority of the people handling these cases are women, and they have done some of the most careless work possible.
That said, it would be utterly ridiculous for anyone to suggest that because some women screw up and some women hold slanted views towards children, males, and their responsibilities that it would be fair to characterize all women who work in that field as bad, immoral, or threats to children.
I’m more concerned with the day care case than the airplane case (although in the airplane case, a rule that children travelling alone need to be seated in the front row, where the flight attendants can see them, would probably suffice. That’s the rule some airlines use).
Anashi, either you’re against sexism or you’re not. If your view is “sexism against men is grand, but sexism against women is bad,” then that’s female supremicism, not equality.
Men being discriminated against somewhere, cry me freaking river. Who cares, seriously. Men get everything, if women are getting a little bit of privilege somehow, I’m fucking ecstatic.
Do you recognize that if this is your philosophy, your feminism loses all moral standing? Feminism has gained moral standing by advocating for an egalitarian agenda of equitable conditions between the sexes. What you’re laying forth is simple identity group self-help politics; “get me more”.
Nothing wrong with that, but it has no claim on the consciences of anyone outside the group. If you don’t care that men are being discriminated against, then men don’t need to care about you being discriminated against.
Even taking your statement as granted, I doubt that it therefore follows that they did shoddy work because they’re women. Doesn’t Occam’s Razor seem to indicate that their half-assed work comes from the same source all of our half-assed work comes from, namely laziness and institutional inertia?
—Myca
When men pretty much control the world, beat women in the street for not wearing what men deem appropriate, pour acid on them, etc., etc., you talking about female supremacy makes me laugh really hard. Women need to stop being nice about these things, and when they stop being nice men have problems with that. Wonder why. Most men don’t care that women are discriminated against. As you, yourself have shown on many occassions, Robert. Amp and Robert, you’re only interested in feminists that play nice, who are all about men getting more privilege. And don’t presume to tell me what kind of feminism I practice.
Anashi, I don’t “presume to tell you what kind of feminism you practice”; I didn’t say anything about what kind of feminism you practice. I just said I think you’re morally wrong.
Saying that in a world where women get acid poured on them or get beaten in the street for dressing the wrong way, worrying about the problems of male child care workers seems petty, is fair enough. But you could say the same thing about worrying about a 15%-25% pay gap between men and women, or worrying about the small percentage of women in governing positions in the US, etc – in fact, about virtually all concerns of American feminists aside from rape and physical abuse. I disagree with the philosophy that says that only the worse injustices in the world are worth worrying about, and all other injustices are laughable.
Finally, I think your philosophy is bad for women. Sexism is a broad system, not a series of independent, unrelated injustices. You can’t overturn the system that says women must be caretakers if you don’t simultaniously overturn the system that says men can’t be caretakers.
anashi, so I guess all men are evil in your opinion the way you are talking? Sure sounds that way with ginmar. Hint, most men DON’T rape and MOST men are not out to oppress women. What do we want, equal rights AND equal responsibility. If women want to be in the military, fine, just make them meet the same standards. To tell them they can meet a lower standard and be equal with men is NOT equality, it is special treatment. The same goes in most areas.
Now, as to those asking me to cite things, I’ll provide links to the mentioned items and also some interesting information on the general topic. BTW, if you think women don’t rape men then you can just skip my links and post since it won’t fit your world view. And a quick note Daran, I want not attacking ginmar but her attitude and language as well as her false assumptions. If she wants to go around screaming and cussing that is her choice but my pointing out that behavior tends to cause others to return it is not an attack to my knowledge. No different than telling someont that goes around punching people for fun that they will get punched back and shouldn’t complain.
Now for the links….
http://www.tampatrib.com/MGBW1T2U2HE.html
Interesting language they use in the rape section with “nearly” to increase the number used for women and “over” for men instead. Raw numbers would be 9 and 11 percent. Do you think all of those are homosexual rapes then and if so, then with those numbers being so high, using the logic I am seeing then ALL homosexuals are a serious rape risk and should be banned from sitting near other males, correct?
Now for the other request…
http://www.tampabays10.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=21598
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176375,00.html
Notice what her lawyer said? Now picture that excuse being used for a male!
Now I realize women spend more time with children than men but the numbers are MUCH higher and even taking that in to account it would be pretty close with women most likely being leaders. The following is just those who KILL their children but it is a good example.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm03/figure4_2.htm
Here is an interesting article I believe should be read by those interested in all of this.
Now, I can tell you from personal experience that a WOMEN claiming abuse is taken very seriously around here. I can also tell you that a MAN being stalked, threatened and abusing children is laughed at. I was investigated and cleared repeatedly on all kinds of claims by my ex-wife who was trying to have me jailed on false charges. Even with her own best friends, family, audio tape and the court’s own Children’s Advocate stating her claims were all false were not enough to get anything done. They STILL refuse to talk to any of us about the abuse of my children that we can prove and have requested repeatedly. Meanwhile the children are living in a crappy place that is trashed instead of a real home that is clean and has room for them and even after the death of one child they STILL refuse to even talk to me but they have investigated me time and time again at her request.
So yeah, please do tell me how men run things and how we have all the power. Sorry but watching my children be abused and KILLED by a psycho woman that has stalked and threatened me while I can’t even get a protective order or her charged and somehow I am the one with all the power and control because I am male?
I am all for equal rights but don’t tell me things like this and then I see 12 year old boys that were raped by female teaches having to pay child support to them, when abuse shelters refuse to help men who are abuse but help women who throw a punch and then get pissed he hits back and when courts force men to pay child support for children DNA proves are not theirs, then obviously saying men are in control of everything doesn’t apply. Special rights and equal rights are NOT the same thing and to ignore those problems while screaming at others for trying to address them isn’t going to help your cause any.
Amp, I agree with you. I think that sexism is a major problem in virtually every country in the world, especially those that were colonized out of western Europe. I want equity between the sexes, not a reversed position of privilege.
That is I want men and women to have equal privilige in all things, and not a reversal of the current misogynistic structure. Inequality is bad for everyone, though you express this much better than I do.
Myca, anybody who can’t see we live in a rape culture isn’t worth my time. That means you.
And as for Robert….I told him he wasn’t worth my time and he just keeps proving it.
RonF, give me a fuckin’ break already.
Oh, yeah, DAran, sweetie? Why, yes, I am patronizing your MRA ass. Cites? N o, don’t bother. Same shit MRA types always troll. Go read some of Amp’s posts on DV. Then fuck off. I’ve had it with coddling trolls.
What the christ. Here’s a little lesson, y’all.
Quentin0352: “Hint, most men DON’T rape and MOST men are not out to oppress women.”
Most men don’t kidnap strange women off the street and put their penises in orifices of her body without her permission. Many, MANY men continue to have sex with their girlfriends or wives after she has indicated that she has lost interest in the sexual encounter and doesn’t want to continue. That is rape, but they don’t know it is.
Most men don’t sit in conference rooms cackling and holding cigars and plotting the downfall of uppity women everywhere. Many, MANY men spend hours of every day refusing to acknowledge their privilege–the privilege they get from being the default gender, from having the name that is taken, from being the ones benefitted by the rape culture, from owning their sexuality, from owning the conversation, the business, the house–and that is the oppression of women, but they don’t know it is.
THEY DON’T KNOW IT IS.
You don’t have to be a CONSCIOUS sexist to be a rank, vile sexist.
If we apply the same logic used in the instances of men left alone with children, technically it does not. Women make up the majority of the social workers, care providers, teachers, etc., and cause the majority of the mistakes, mishaps, abuse, deaths, and overall shoddy work. Based purely on the logic of frequency, we should assume it has something to do specifically with women, either as a result of cultural, social, and/or biological norms.
However, just like the statements made against men, this does not make much sense, though it is technically a logical conclusion. The reason for this is that such behavior is not mutually exclusive. Women are not the only ones who do shoddy social work and men are not the only ones who sexually abuse. Following Occam’s Razor, the best conclusion is that they both are elements within human nature, not a specific gender. The theory cannot be applied selectively as it would render it useless. It must be applied in the same fashion to all instances. Being such, one should conclude that male abuse and female abuse stem from the same source therein making both males and females untrustworthy. Of course, this would render it impossible to leave a child alone with an adult, so it appears people are favoring the instance that is already accepted, which leaves us in exactly the same position we started.
Mary:
How do we change this, because it isn’t beneficial for those with the privilege (men) to acknowlege the privilege. If they will not acknowlege the privilege then how do we erradicate sexism?
As far as taking names, owning buisnesses, and homes, I know many women in my area that kept their name or didn’t marry. Women own local profitable buisnesses, and own their own homes. I do not allow anyone male or female to trample on me. I am a human being not a door mat.
I’m curious to know what dialogue I should engage in with the men around me in order to help them understand that they benefit from rape even though they aren’t rapists themselves. And I would like to open these dialogues without coming across as a misandrist or lunatic. I
Just a side-note: this thread strikes me as rather odd. I am not entirely sure why, but something feels out of place, particularly since anashi’s first post. It’s not an ad hominem or anything. I am just unsure what to make of this thread and the discussion.
Quentino, sweetie, fuck off. If I hate men, asshats like you are exactly the reason why. Think about it, dipshit. If you can’t ask so much as ask me to clarify what I mean then do you think you’re presenting the picture of someone who can be trusted to take ‘no’ for an answer? Good job. Thanks for making my case.
Daran,
Regarding the 12 year old boy and the teacher, I believe that he is referring to the Mary Kate Latourneau (sp) case. Though, I’m not sure that child support was ever awarded in the case, and I think the boy’s Grandmother took their first child while she served out her prison term. Of course, I could be wrong.
Radical feminism is “morally wrong,” Ampersand?
If you can’t ask so much as ask me to clarify what I mean…
Other people (myself included) have asked you to clarify what you mean on many, many threads here. Your response is universally profane, insulting, and non-responsive. Why should anyone assume they would get any other response from you?
Neither as the issue is not about male sexuality whatsoever. The perception is that all males are sex offenders and therefore a threat to children and untrustworthy. That is blatant discrimination, and is completely unacceptable in any other area. I do not understand the rationalization of it against men.
Well, neither do I. But you know what? Women deal with that all the time. When men rape women, the women frequently have to deal with people asking them why they allowed themselves to be vulnerable to men – by being alone with one, by getting drunk, by going to a house where men live, and so on.
Either men are generally dangerous or they aren’t. Either men can be expected to control themselves or they can’t. I do not accept these arguments that it’s “bigoted” not to want your children left alone with a men when you’ve spent your whole life being told that you cannot expect men to control themselves when they’re alone with you, and observing that you will be blamed if they “lose control” and hurt you.
And technically you said the same thing in both statements, so you might want to rephrase one of them so that you have an opposing argument.
I can tell the difference between saying that men are normally inclined to be abusive and saying that men are taught that being abusive is normal. If you can’t, that’s on you. See the comment re: stalking.
The message being sent by such acts is that no males are trustworthy.
The message being sent by blame-the-victim narratives is that no males are trustworthy. Many men (particularly MRAs) are quite happy to endorse that notion if it means they won’t be held accountable for their abusive behaviour; they then turn around and get shirty if they’re denied what they want by someone trying to avoid the abuse that they pretend they have to perpetrate.
Again, either men are trustworthy or they aren’t. If you want women to trust men, I do not want to see you complaining about a woman when she puts her trust in a man and gets raped for her trouble. I expect you to be in her corner, defending her and her right to trust men. That’s all I said.
Of course, you could simply argue that women and/or children generally lie about rape anyway, but if you make that argument you’re a straightforward misogynist and thus beyond argument.
While some men abuse their position, as do many women, it is still unfair and improper to cast all males in such a light.
Aww, that’s sweet. Some men and many women.
The majority of the people handling these cases are women, and they have done some of the most careless work possible.
The relevant question, as far as gender goes, is not “are there women who do badly?” but “have the male social workers done any better?”.
I missed the point where anyone stated that all women are competent and caring.
If we apply the same logic used in the instances of men left alone with children, technically it does not. Women make up the majority of the social workers, care providers, teachers, etc., and cause the majority of the mistakes, mishaps, abuse, deaths, and overall shoddy work. Based purely on the logic of frequency, we should assume it has something to do specifically with women, either as a result of cultural, social, and/or biological norms.
However, just like the statements made against men, this does not make much sense, though it is technically a logical conclusion.
Nice try. For the amount of time they spend with children, men sexually abuse children a lot more often. (Yes, before I get flamed, I realise that this is still a small number of men.)
Physical and emotional abuse are a different matter and yes, there is something closer to gender parity there (indeed, women may commit more of those kinds of abuse). But child molestation is not a gender-neutral crime any more than adult-on-adult rape is.
The question is not whether incompetence is widespread in a profession largely inhabited by women; that could be a function of the job and not the people who perform it. The question is whether, considering the percentage of social workers who are women, women are more likely to be incompetent.
And here we have great examples, please note I have attempted to be polite, have brought sources showing my claims and though Amp says that this type of behavior is to be banned by anyone that is an MRA, it is obviously allowed and encouraged by someone that is a feminist. I never could understand how people could complain about being oppressed or anything else while having a double standard like I am seeing here. Saying men not stopping when a woman changes her mind in the middle of sex is rape, fine but I hate to tell the ladies here that men experinece that pretty frequently too so how broad of a definition do you wish to have? If she orgasms and then tells him to leave her alone. how much time does he have to stop before it is rape? What if he does the same, is he to be ridiculed as a “quick draw” or etc for orgasming be3fore she is done or is she a rapist?
Beyond that you will see I have cited my sources and backed what I said, none of them has been attacked or even disputed but instead somehow I am the one attacked and the unreasonable individual with some kind of a problem. Now if you are unable to attack my points or even address them and feel your only shot is to cuss and attack me then it says an awful lot about where the real problems are and it would explain why so many women refuse to call themselves feminists. But hey, your choice to see kids killed and to watch as women walk for abusing them.
I’m sure that if your child had died you would defend the father that killed the child as it seems is going on here after I have had to deal with my ex-wife killing a child. Strange part is all the talk about women being around the children more, yes she was but that was HER decision and not mine as she found no reason to even allow me the amount of time the court stated I should have, much less any extra time.
“Radical feminism is “morally wrong,” Ampersand?”
It sounds like that’s what he’s saying. Honestly, I don’t really care what Amp believes about my morals. I guess he can take two paragraphs I wrote and decide from that what I believe. Wow, I wish I could do that. It must be some kind of super power or something.
Mendy:
I not to sure how what in general would be the best way so I will just offer a personal thought,
Admittedly the phrase that “men benefit from rape” is not inaccurate, but does make me cringe somewhat; I am not entirely too sure why that is, but perhaps it sounds initially somewhat like an indictment.
If brought up in a conversation in manner like the following I would be more receptive…
“A major benefit of being a man is there a very significant less chance of being raped by a man.”
These benefits include.
1. The experience of rape itself
2. Altering your public life style because the fear of being raped e.g. changing how you interact with people and carry yourself during day to day life
3. (Plus other benefits, which I do not know)
Still I must admit from my perspective I still do not think of it in terms of being a benefit to man, but rather a disadvantage of being a women e.g.
“A major disadvantage that woman face is that they have much more chance of being raped by a man that men do.”
The reason is that I think of a benefit in general of possessing something e.g. my medical benefits. I do not see (whether I do or not) that I will lose anything, if there are fewer women being raped.
I never could understand how people could complain about being oppressed or anything else while having a double standard like I am seeing here.
Yes, the fact that a woman was rude to you on the Internet is proof that misogyny doesn’t exist.
Saying men not stopping when a woman changes her mind in the middle of sex is rape, fine but I hate to tell the ladies here that men experinece that pretty frequently too so how broad of a definition do you wish to have?
And which men have you been talking to about this, exactly?
If she orgasms and then tells him to leave her alone. how much time does he have to stop before it is rape? What if he does the same, is he to be ridiculed as a “quick draw” or etc for orgasming be3fore she is done or is she a rapist?
Oh goody, we’re going to nitpick based on the assumption that women are lying harpies who will bring rape charges for any little thing.
Well, now I know what your real problem is.
I don’t even know why things like this piss me off as much as they do. I don’t know whether amp feels pressure to show that he’s fair to the male contingent that frequents his blog or if he sincerely believes the things he does. Whenever men start talking about how oppressed they are a vein in my head starts pulsing…He calls it an injustice, I call it a stupid waste of my time…Sorry, if I don’t care about men not being able to change babies nappies or being able to rise above there low status in child care. What the fuck, I mean if you look at it, schools are really child care and guess who get to be the leaders there, men are principles mostly. But no we need to have men be in leadership positions everywhere or it must be some kind of injustice. Every time men take over jobs done by women those jobs are conferred a certain level of respect. Think of chefs and hairdressers, etc. Great now we can have this in childcare too, oh wait we already do. Whenever I see a man taking care of a child, women fawn over that man, like he’s some kind of special animal. Omg, what a guy. *puke* These are the things in my mind whenever I hear complaints like this. If women don’t want their kids taken care of by men, I consider this good sense for many reasons.
“Men being discriminated against somewhere, cry me freaking river. Who cares, seriously. Men get everything, if women are getting a little bit of privilege somehow, I’m fucking ecstatic.” anashi
Everything? Where do I apply?
“And maybe if most men didn’t excuse rapers and victim blame as much they do, I’d feel okay about having my kids sitting next to some man I don’t know.” anashi
Now you’re getting seriously naive. In my nearly fifty years I have NEVER heard anyone, male or female, defend rape. Apart, of course, from when the rapist is female.
re male victim of statutory rape and child support.
here
Apparently a boy can legally be raped by a woman AND then raped by the CSA as well.
In my nearly fifty years I have NEVER heard anyone, male or female, defend rape. Apart, of course, from when the rapist is female.
And the other poster is naïve?
I’ve read this before. Believe it or not, it doesn’t surprise me that you’ve never heard anyone say “gee, rape is great, I’m going to go out and rape somebody right now.”
Listen more carefully. Read a few verdicts. Do some research on the law and how it’s changed within your lifetime. Read some more of Menweb for crying out loud.
Ginmar:
The irony is, if I wasn’t fond of you, Ginmar, I would have banned you a long time ago.
Speaking of which, I think the new comments rule is going to be that anyone I think is degrading the conversation gets banned.
So if you’re rude but also sometimes say things I find very insightful and interesting, you’re probably safe.
On the other hand, if you’re polite on the surface but I think you treat other posters here with over-the-top passive-aggressive contempt, and you’re not interesting, then I’ll feel free to ban you. Ditto if you’re rude without being interesting. If you think either of these categories apply to you, and you’d rather not be banned, then please improve your behavior.
JamesQ:
Thank you for the answer. One problem I have in discussing the rape culture is that personally I haven’t been raised to defer to men or to fear rape (either stranger rape or aquaitance rape), so I find it difficult to express that fear adequately.
I also think I agree with “advantage/disadvantage” versus privilege. But, I am still reading, thinking, and discussing these things with other people. To me privilege is something that is supported by unfair law. An example of this would be Jim Crowe laws which gave white’s privilege over people of color. There aren’t any laws that I am aware of that legally give males default privilege over women, but I could be wrong about that as well.
“And the other poster is naïve?
I’ve read this before. Believe it or not, it doesn’t surprise me that you’ve never heard anyone say “gee, rape is great, I’m going to go out and rape somebody right now.” Elinor
No. I won’t accept this. There are posters here saying that men benefit from rape and support it. This is not true.
There aren’t any laws that I am aware of that legally give males default privilege over women, but I could be wrong about that as well. Mendy
Yes I’d be very interested in some examples of this.
Well then, Amp, when does Robert get tossed? Because I wouldn’t be rude if he weren’t so insincere about feminism. I’m sick of dealing with that mythical strawfeminist he believes in. He keeps pitching at her and I’m sick of it.
Robert, you quoting me demanding to be asked for clarification is just fucking rich. You’re not interested in feminism at all: You don’t listen, you don’t care, you j ust want to argue with that strawfeminist you believe in. Good bye. That’s it for me. You don’t exist.
I’m sure that if your child had died you would defend the father that killed the child as it seems is going on here after I have had to deal with my ex-wife killing a child.
Gee, a troll reading minds of those strawfeminists again! How amazing! Anybody stop to consider that this magical mind reading ability might be a byproduct of a rape culture? How about taking a stab at that? It’s really amazing how many MRAs have this ability.
Nothing I like better than some troll telling me what I’d do for some child I don’t even have if that imaginary kid got killed because the troll can read my mind and the future. For fuck’s sake, already.
He was refering to this case.
Elinor writes:
Two wrongs do not make a right. Enacting discrimination against males because there has been discrimination against females does nothing but worsen the situation.
That maybe be true, but that has nothing to do with assuming all men are pedophiles. I understand your hesitation to trust people. No one is obligated to trust anyone they do not want to. But there is a difference between a lack of trust, like not allowing my 13 year old cousin to remain alone with a strange woman, and discrimination, like accusing the woman of being a pedophile because of some other woman’s actions. The former is reasonable. The latter is nothing more than projection.
According to your logic, we should assume is it that women are more likely to be incompetent. You cannot have it both ways. If we are to assume that men are untrustworthy because of the frequency men commit sexual abuse, then the same logic must be applied to women.
Why is that everytime a case where a women has sex with a schoolboy that’s splashed across the news, but if they reported every rape that happened to women they’d have to cover it 24/7, guess it just isn’t sensational enough to hold our attention. Men benefit from rape because they get to control women’s behavior with it. We get to stay at home because were to afraid to walk out at night. I get emails sent to me telling me how to avoid rape, when men don’t get any emails telling them not to rape. Its their problem not ours. Read any thread on rape and you’ll see men constantly blaming the victim, saying she should have done something to prevent it. Why don’t they condemn the raper and talk about ways men can stop rape? Because I believe they sympathize with him.
Never. This is my blog, not yours, and you don’t get to decide who gets tossed. Deal with it.
Take responsibility for your own actions. Robert doesn’t hold a gun to your head and force you to be rude; that’s a choice you make.
Look, treating the other posters with respect is supposed to be a condition of posting here. I like you, and I like your blog, but if you can’t deal with treating other posters with respect, then you’re making things worse here, from my perspective.
I deleted the last sentence of your post, which was just too much of a personal attack on another poster for me to stand.
I’ve been thinking of the findings at two swedish childcare-centers in Sweden, Tittmyran and Björntomten. They started studying gender-roles among both staff and kids.
Unfortunately all I could find in english is a short paragraph in this text on pp 103-6.
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:DWBgaZ6SqJsJ:144.82.31.4/reports/WP12%2520innovative%2520developments%2520in%2520care%2520work%2520full.pdf+tittmyran++gender+OR+boys+OR+girls&hl=sv&lr=lang_en
It is slightly off-topic, but so is the discussion of all the ways men benefit from rape, and at least it concerns gender-roles in childcare.
gwallan, I’m not interested in going back to square one with you. anashi is right about the tendency to blame the victim (she shouldn’t have done this, she shouldn’t have done that) and to regard rapists as good boys who made a mistake, got caught with a lying bitch, etc.
In my country a 24-year-old rapist was recently given a reduced sentence because he was a pillar of his community, and because the 89-pound 12-year-old he assaulted was intoxicated and had been sexually abused in the past. The judge decided that she was probably the sexual aggressor and he was a good boy who had made a mistake.
It’s everywhere and if you don’t see it, you aren’t paying attention. Read about the New Bedford gang rape case. That’s well within your lifetime. Read about the psychological theorizing around “seductive children,” the pedophile’s rights movement, the hatred spewed at the complainant in the Kobe Bryant case, the MRA manifestos blatantly calling for the decriminalization of simple rape.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Enacting discrimination against males because there has been discrimination against females does nothing but worsen the situation.
Okay. I understand how, in practice, this sets up a vicious circle. However, telling women that they will be blamed for men’s bad behaviour towards them and towards their children, but that nonetheless they should be willing to risk it, is not acceptable. If you want women to trust men, hectoring us about how unfair we are is not the way to go.
That maybe be true, but that has nothing to do with assuming all men are pedophiles. I understand your hesitation to trust people. No one is obligated to trust anyone they do not want to. But there is a difference between a lack of trust, like not allowing my 13 year old cousin to remain alone with a strange woman, and discrimination, like accusing the woman of being a pedophile because of some other woman’s actions.
Okay, now you’re splitting hairs, and also I don’t know where these “accusations of pedophilia” showed up in the narrative. You don’t trust the strange woman with your cousin because you think she might be a pedophile (among other things, perhaps), no? If parents showed up the door and said “I don’t want my child left with a man, but I won’t say why” would that make you happy?
Thought not.
According to your logic, we should assume is it that women are more likely to be incompetent. You cannot have it both ways. If we are to assume that men are untrustworthy because of the frequency men commit sexual abuse, then the same logic must be applied to women.
Okay, a lesson in eighth-grade science is clearly needed here: have you not heard of controlling for variables?
You’re refusing to do it, or to acknowledge that other people have done it. That makes your conclusions invalid.
the MRA manifestos blatantly calling for the decriminalization of simple rape
Cite?