An open letter

From Information Is Beautiful:



Data from the UK. This made me feel a little sick, honestly, thinking about the vast number of traumatic and damaging instances which simply slip under the radar.

And the UK isn't anywhere close to the worst country for convicting rapists either. It's depressing.

This was the Sun front page on Oscar Pistorius joining the long line of men who (allegedly) murder their girlfriends:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/15/reeva-steenkamp-body-on-front-page

And apparently the New York tabloids managed to get away with pretty much the same kind of front page:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/15/new-york-tabloids-sun-reeva-steenkamp

Rupert Murdoch is one of the most vile specimens of excrement this planet has had the joy of producing. I weep for humanity.

Yeah, this whole line of grossness re: female murder victims is endemic to tabloid newspaper reporting everywhere: Murdoch is merely the most obvious bubo in a nest of putrescent sores.

And, of course, the whole thing ties into our general culture of perverse prurience re: pretty young white female crime victims.

I appreciate the sentiment but this seems like one of those misguided campaigns which is only going to elicit eyerolls from the intended audience. It's like the purple t-shirt anti-bullying campaigns, everyone gets to feel like they're "doing something" but other than making some people feel good about themselves it has no effect.

I think step one toward changing the culture in India is for law enforcement to treat it as a serious issue, not putting a PSA in the newspaper. But of course, Indian law enforcement has much deeper issues than merely not taking rape allegations seriously. But at least that would have some possibility of a real impact. This ad? I felt my eyes rolling a little bit, and I'm not even a rapist.

Thanks for that reassurance?

The lady doth protest too much. ;)

Beside, lots of abusers wouldn't even get it : they aren't disrespecting women, they're "putting them back in their place", it's discipline ! Can't you see ?

But it's still better than nothing.

See, this is the thing I always hear, and I don't think it's true. Because by "doing something" ineffective it takes the pressure off to do what is necessary to actually address the issue. Does anyone think this ad is going to stop even one incident of violence against women? I don't. But I do think it's likely that someone involved in placing this ad will feel like they've done something, and therefor doing more is not as urgent.

Uh.... and I'm expected to believe this guy has spent any time in NYC *at all*?

What does Kya tum jante nahin main kiska beta hoon mean? Google thinks its Finnish, hilariously.

Do you have any idea whose son I am?

No?

The NY Post had a sleazy front page? I am completely in shock.

That's probably just your uterus acting up.

Meanwhile, "Don't be that Guy" ad campaign in Vancouver cuts sexual assault by 10%.

I think we could do more to speak to men about this issue, but this is a good start.

The intended audience for things like that Times of India thing is not the die-hard, wife beating and sexual assaulting old guard. It's the young people for whom those guys may be the only visible example of male role models and what it means to be a man. This and other ad campaigns present an alternative, in an attempt not so much to change the current generation of misogynists but to head off the next one. It's just one push in a larger attempt at a cultural shift, making that "cool guy" role model seem like an old dinosaur.

Just saw this on tumblr. Not only is it a good campaign, but after reading the comments I noticed "Wait a minute holy shit the one on the right acknowledge male victims."

Progress up in this bitch!

There is something really, really weird about the left one. Not sure what it is. I can't see what that guy's face looks like but I have the impression that it's extremely insincere for some reason.

He's staring at his tiny wrist and wondering where it all went wrong.

Maybe he means, "I'm not in the mood to talk."

I reblogged that shit so hard. Although it would be nice if they could just type i as I. C'mon people, step it up, these campaigns are important!

I like the one on the right because it not only acknowledges male victims, the expression on the dude's face cracks me up.

Okay, sort of off topic but a conversation with my dad made me think of something. He works, among other things, with mentally disabled people.* He was telling me a long story about this case with a severely mentally incapable man, but what really stuck with me was the fact that he had groped a woman (and was fired on those grounds).** It really made me think, how far can you hold people responsible for this kind of harassment. He was clearly mentally disabled, but is this sexual assault such a basic instinct to a man, or is it a cultural thing?

And it sort of came back to a couple of unpleasant experiences I've had. I've talked about the fact that a rather unsavoury person reeking of alcohol tried to pick me up on the bus once (his opening line was "I like fun") before. This person was also clearly not mentally stable, and I never felt physically threatened, so I can joke about this experience afterwards. But I think, well, what if I was physically threatened. I certainly wouldn't joke about it, but I probably still couldn't hold it against him, since he was 100% responsible for what he said. But isn't that making excuses that will lead to very dangerous behaviour (mostly a very fucked up form of victim-blaming, though that in itself is super fucked up)?

A couple of weeks ago I was also similarly approached by someone at the gym. My gym has a program for mentally handicapped people, a group session where they do fitness with an instructor. After their session was over one of the guys starting bycicling next to me, trying to start a conversation. Now, my self-esteem is at a low point when I'm at the gym. I'm very aware of my weight and my body. Normally I would be able to joke his advances away, but not in that moment. If he was not mentally disabled I would have told him to fuck off, but that's obviously not okay in this situation (or at least in my opinion). But where do you draw the line?

I've been thinking about this for a while but that conversation with my dad made it stuck in my brain, so I was just wondering what you guys think about this.

*I'm trying to be very aware in using correct terms, but since the translation can be a little off, please correct me if I'm using offensive language.
** The work my dad does entails searching a workplace for people who are mentally or physically handicapped, and even though this man can not work anymore, they have found a suitable place for him. He is not kicked to the curb or otherwise mistreated.

My rule of thumb is: if someone cannot control themselves in an appropriate adult manner around other adults, then they should not be allowed around other strangers without some sort of supervision that help them do so.

This is a rule of thumb, and not a hard guideline, because at least in the United States, we don't have the sort of social services net that makes this possible for everyone to adhere to, even if they really want to. (Insert a rather long rant here about people who know full well they have serious problems with meeting basic standards of social decency, but have no real recourse beyond "commit a crime and be sent to prison" to keep away from situations where they will, because we have no fucking health care system that a civilized country would have.)

We do have certain aspects of it baked into the culture. Children aren't expected to behave to adult standards, but they're also expected to have some adult guardian around who can correct them if they're causing distress, damage, or other significant problems through their lack of adult maturity/long-term thinking/knowledge. If someone with an adult body has the social abilities of a five-year-old, then they need similar supervision. Or more, because an adult body is capable of inflicting a great deal more distress, damage, and other significant problems than a five-year-old's body can. If a five-year-old grabs a strange woman's breast, it's rude and startling, but will likely get laughed off while the child's nearby guardian rapidly intervenes and apologizes and scolds the child. If a grown man does the same, it's going to be much more upsetting all around, even if he has the same level of understanding that the child does.

And I think it becomes less complex, not more complex, when you have people who can act like responsible adults when they're sober and don't act like responsible adults when they're not sober. Because at that point, it is their responsibility while they're sober to act as their own guardian, and put restraints on the situations they'll be in so that they don't cause distress, damage, and other significant problems to people. If some guy gropes women when he's drunk, he's exactly as much at fault as if he did so when sober, because he didn't take appropriate precautions to keep himself from doing so.

Somewhat tangentially, this is a point of view I worked out partly through seeing a lot of discussions about, essentially, creepy people at conventions. Sometimes people would defend men who had been seriously harassing women based on "This person just isn't capable of understanding that stalking, groping, and repeatedly propositioning a strange woman who has repeatedly told him no is inappropriate behavior!" And my response at that point was the same. If someone is actually incapable of not refraining from significant inappropriate behavior, then they should not be allowed around strangers without some supervising guardian who can restrain them as needed.

See, this is not really an acceptable answer to me. There is such a thing as self-determination (I hope this is the right translation). If a person is not a threat to others, you can not just take that self-determination away. Obviously the behaviour I described is unwanted and unacceptable, but you can't just expect these people to not go outside without supervision (if they are clearly not a threat). There is a difference between douchebags using the "I'm just not capable of understanding" and actual people who do not understand. I get what your saying, but I don't think it's a good or realistic answer to this problem.

Edit: I see I'm being a little unclear, but I'm trying to make a distinction between physical harassment and verbal harassment, I guess. Physical is obviously enough reason to make sure this person can not be in situation where they are capable to do so (this actually happened in my first example). But the other examples are different, they are not physically threatening anyone, and I did not at any time suspect it might escalate into something worse, it was just verbal, and not aggressive at all. You can't take the self-determination of such a person away.

But... someone who is groping women is a threat to others. That's my whole point. I am not saying "People who can't dress to current social standards shouldn't go outside," or "People who have annoying voices shouldn't be allowed into public unsupervised."

I am saying that if someone is literally incapable of exercising self-restraint so as not to cause significant distress or harm to others, they need supervision.

"I am being annoyed and made unhappy by the social advances of someone sitting nearby" is minor distress, and may be solvable by just speaking brusquely to that person and asking them to stop. "I am being physically assaulted by someone" is significant distress, and if a person is incapable of refraining from physical assault, yes. They should not be allowed in public without supervision. Because they are a threat.

ETA: It occurs to me that I obscured matters by not defining "appropriate adult manner" sufficiently. After all, someone who's being slightly rude could be said to be acting inappropriately, and someone goofing around could be said to not be acting like an adult, but I'm not trying to restrict that! What I meant was in a much narrow sense of ability to reach the bare minimum courtesy levels. "Able to meet the same standards of behavior that we expect from twelve-year-olds," perhaps. "Able to meet the standards that do not usually cause people to call for, or actively desire, assistance in escaping that threat."

I was just making this distinction in an edit:

I guess my real question comes down to how to react to the second. Just saying it's unacceptable behaviour? And if that doesn't work?

"Able to restrain oneself from committing illegal acts" perhaps.

Hm. Well, with the second, I would start with treating it the way you'd respond to the same problem coming from someone who isn't (to your knowledge) challenged in the same way. "I'm sorry, but I'm busy and don't want to talk." One can be polite and still enforce boundaries, and if the other person takes it poorly... You've been polite. You are not obliged to humor someone who is harassing you, even if they don't understand it's harassment. Your boundaries are legitimate.

If they react poorly, that's...sort of their problem? "Able to be out among strangers unsupervised" should also mean "able to handle polite rejection of social advances made towards strangers." If you want to be extra-nice to someone, you can be! But you aren't required to, especially if humoring them is causing you distress. I believe very strongly in the right of a person to enforce personal boundaries.

I think my rule of thumb--again, not applicable to every situation, but to most--is that if someone is unsupervised, you start by treating them as an adult. (Or at least as you would a preteen.) They were, after all, considered sufficiently in control of themself to be treated like an independent adult by whoever brought them there. Try to be especially clear, try to be polite if you can manage it, but you don't have to sit there and pretend to like the conversation if it's upsetting you. If they react in an angry and hostile manner, then in a place like the gym, you get a manager to deal with it. Just like you would if someone without disabilities happened to be getting angry and loud at you because you didn't want to talk.

That can get into fuzzy areas, but, yeah, I think that's a nice succinct way of putting it. With an asterisk as needed for "or other explicit rules of the situation at hand," to cover things like rules posted at pools, rules printed in convention programs, and so forth.

This isn't depressing or anything. OK, that's a lie.

Things people say to female journalists.

Feels weird creepy to me because it's done by Student Health Promotion Office and --maybe it's just due to how the reflects highlight the dude's hair and such-- he looks to be at least 50. Which creates a context that's probably not what they were going for...

It is interesting, though, to see that it's pretty much exactly the same shit that gets said to us when we game or blog, right down to the rape threats. So it's not just gamers or geeks that are fucked up in that way, it appears to be most western socialized men. Which is.... unspeakably more depressing, actually.

Not just Western, as the stuff in India and the Middle East has shown. So...are we just down to "male culture" being the problem? I'm gonna say that as blanket statements go, I can say that with very little exception.

Well, we can blame it on the modern idea of masculinity which is wildly different from 50 years ago and certainly many historical ideas, or to get to the deeper root of the problem, patriarchy.

That prettymuch covers it, really, patriarchy shits on everyone who's not on top. Average men have to put on the tough front and respond aggressively and never show weakness, while women have to be quiet and submissive and not try to make themselves known or encroach on men's worlds. Step out of line in either direction and get attacked. Men who step out of line are pussies or fags, women who step out of lines are bitches or sluts, etc.

I'm not really clear what you're saying here, with regard to "modern" masculinity. As bad as it is right now in the western world for women, this is pretty much the best time and place to be a woman. 50 years ago was Mad Men. Right now in South Africa, one third of women say they've been raped in the past year.

So while obviously the things being said to women on the internet or to reporters in person are bad, the fact that we're now hearing about them and talking about them is good. That wouldn't've happened 50 years ago. Step one of dismantling the patriarchy is breaking down the real barriers that make non-straight-white-males second-class citizens, and that part is moving along nicely. Step two is changing people's attitudes, and that basically boils down to two things: educating young people and waiting for old people to die. We can't do much about the latter except maybe fighting against universal healthcare, but I think this thread and the Skeptics one show that we're doing a pretty poor job on the former. Young boys are arguably more sexist and homophobic than men 20 or 30 years older. That's not a recipe for positive social change.

I think part of the problem is that we don't really have a definition of modern masculinity. Instead we have a romanticized version of traditional masculinity represented in sports and media. James Bond is a great example; in much the same way that Bond presents a fantasy world where Britain is still a major world power, the character himself represents a fantasy version of the ideal man from the 50s: he's handsome, he's stoic, he slaps women and then seduces them with little more than a few words, a nice suit and a lingering stare. If you're going to get a better version of modern masculinity, you first have to articulate what that is, and then make it appealing enough that boys will aspire to it.