Friday, November 08, 2013

Sticks and stones...

The thing is, it does no good to turn to polemics and personal attacks. No matter what "side" you're on in this horrible situation, we need to be seeking understanding and trying to build consensus, to move forward constructively as a community. Name-calling doesn't help.

 I'm sure I am occasionally guilty of excess vitriol. I apologize in advance if that ever is the case!



Edited to add: found some other comments by this guy on reddit: (sorry the formatting is ugly, I'm on my phone.)  Look the last paragraph!

 267 Jujitsu (i.imgur.com) submitted 6 hours ago by DeadPoolKatanaRama 134 commentsshare sorted by: best you are viewing a single comment's thread. view the rest of the comments →

 [–]succhialce 30 points 5 hours ago BJJ is without a doubt the best martial art for rape defense. My children whether male or female will train. permalink

 [–]Barneyk -9 points 4 hours ago At least 99% of rapes are not about being physically overpowered so it doesn't really apply very often at all. permalinkparent

 [–]DidNotJustShart 5 points 4 hours ago I get what you're saying, rapes often occur under other circumstances such as drugging or alcohol, but I would like to see where you get this 99% figure. Regardless, a woman who knows jiu-jitsu would do much better against a rapist than one who doesn't as long as other factors aren't in play. permalinkparent

 [–]timothytandem -4 points 4 hours ago She can try to jiujitsu herself out of a roofie. Huehuehuehue

11 comments:

fizbo said...

This is rich, given that two entries ago you wrote a whole article that pretty much just said, "anyone who disgrees with me is a rape apologist."

Now, "rape apologist" might not be as crude as "cunt," but it's just as damning, and perhaps moreso in this context, and that guy can't help that he's inarticulate.

Georgette said...

I disagree. I did not say anything remotely like "anyone who disagrees with me is a rape apologist." People disagree with me on a regular basis on a variety of topics (if you're a facebook friend of mine, this will be obvious to you.) And I don't call them rape apologists.

Now, if they are saying things that are feeding into rape culture... heck yeah, I will criticize their position. Is this unreasonable?

I rather explicitly referred to the comments themselves as rape apologetics, and not to the speakers as apologists. I think it may be a fine point, but, there's a WORLD of difference between criticizing ideas espoused and calling the speaker crude anatomical names. At least I was making arguments in a polite manner, disagreeing with their ideas.

That guy most certainly help that he's inarticulate, unless he has some form of typing Tourette's.

fizbo said...

What I mean is that calling someone a rape apologist (or calling their comments rape apologetics -- mere semantic distinction, in my opinion) is going to have a very chilling effect on conversation. The fear of being branded as such and having to defend oneself is enough to make most people not bother to speak up, and that certainly isn't going to help consensus-building.

As I read it, your article categorized lots of statements made by what I imagine are largely well-meaning, normal (although perhaps misguided, I dunno, not the point here) people as rape apologetics. Looking over it again, I still think "anyone who disagrees with me is spouting rape apologetics" is a pretty fair summary of the article. (Disagreement regarding the LI stuff, not disagreement on any arbitrary topic, obviously.)

Shutting people out of the conversation in this way is completely contrary to any consensus-building objective.

More practically, it's also very unlikely to win anyone over to your side. People who already agree with you will nod smugly, and people who you shut out will feel shut out.

Georgette said...

Well, you make a good point. I definitely don't want to chill conversation. What would you suggest we do as a community when people say things which are clearly feeding into rape culture..

Let it go?

Approach them privately and try to engage them and educate them?

I can't just let it go. If everyone just shuts the heck up and "lets it go" when they hear this stuff, it will continue. Racism, sexism, all kinds of prejudice need to be fought out loud, openly and on a daily basis.

Given that I am just one person, and I can't be everywhere all the time (thank god, and nor do I want to be) it's unrealistic to think that I could be the one to approach people individually for persuasive/educational reasons. I think the best I can do is explain what I think the problem with the argument is, and hope that people reading it can improve on my perspective and use it when they have those interactions.

The whole point I think you're missing is still that there is a BIG difference between "calling someone a cunt" and "arguing with someone politely."

Georgette said...

One more thought.

Rape apologetics is EXACTLY the kind of conversation that should be chilled. Just like calling someone a nigger, a dyke, a wop, a retard...

So yeah, if being called out publicly for making shameful comments is going to chill those comments, I'd consider that success.

Felicia said...

Can't say this enough: You ROCK, Georgette!

I can't tell you how much I admire not only your outspokeness and willingness to call this slut-shaming sh*t exactly what it is, but that you call all the neandrathals with the limited vocabularies who can't think of anything to say to you other than "You're a CUNT!" out for acting a fool (or rather, you let their words speak for themselves) over and over again is commendable. So many would have just said "You know what? It's not worth the hassle and sh*tstorm that results so I'm out" - but you keep going. Trust and believe you have more support and head nods in agreement than the naysayers think.

Thank you for doing what you do. I hope you never, ever stop.

Georgette said...

Thanks Felicia, that really means a lot. :)

SavageKitsune said...

Some people say things without even realizing how they are coming across. If people call them on it, hopefully they will learn to at least stop and think before they post, "Is this really the point I want to make?" Some of them are probably not intending to come across as assholes. I've called people on things and had them say, "Wait, that's not what I meant," and we were able to dialogue from there. If one is going to be an asshole, best be one deliberately and wholeheartedly.

Ryan said...

You're doing amazing work on this issue Georgette and I encourage you to stick to your guns. If rape apologists have a problem with what you're saying, they should perhaps stop perpetuating rape culture instead of whining about being called names. You've never said "anyone who disagrees with me" is a rape apologist, you've clearly said "people who say or believe x, y, and z" are engaging in rape apologetics, which is absolutely the case.

Ryan Bingham said...

Are you still planning on writing Part 2 where you were going to tell us what the female DA had to say about why the verdicts were handed down as they were?

I noticed you had mentioned previously the following in regards to the standard the defense had to meet:

"While it is a valid defense that the victim consented to the sexual act, the defense has the burden of proving consent by a preponderance of the evidence (that is, more likely than not). The requirement in D.C. for independent corroboration of a sexual act was abolished for women in 1976 and for members of both genders in 1985."

If you give us some more insight as to how the defense was able to prove that 'more likely than not' the sex was consensual I would appreciate it. Thanks!

Ryan Bingham said...

Are you still planning on writing Part 2 where you were going to tell us what the female DA had to say about why the verdicts were handed down as they were?

I noticed you had mentioned previously the following in regards to the standard the defense had to meet:

"While it is a valid defense that the victim consented to the sexual act, the defense has the burden of proving consent by a preponderance of the evidence (that is, more likely than not). The requirement in D.C. for independent corroboration of a sexual act was abolished for women in 1976 and for members of both genders in 1985."

If you give us some more insight as to how the defense was able to prove that 'more likely than not' the sex was consensual I would appreciate it. Thanks!