86
87

Zerlina Maxwell said men can prevent rape - and recounts for Salon the nightmare that followed thereafter (salon.com)

submitted ago by cos

all 26 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]AngelaMotorman 3 points4 points ago

Don't miss the fact that this has also been posted, under its original title, to /r/nottheonion ...

[–]nukefudge 0 points1 point ago

and it's in a few other subs as well...

[–]keakealani 9 points10 points ago

I completely agree with the sentiment, but I just really don't think the Fox News audience is the first place to start when we're talking about making feminist/progressive conversations :/

I mean, yes. The things that Fox News people and Republicans and conservatives say on this subject are almost always gagworthy and disgusting and vile... and eventually, that kind of shit does need to be addressed.

But there are lots of purported progressives, people who claim to be advocates for feminism and women's rights and empathy... who still hold onto these kinds of claims that rape prevention starts with victim-blaming and woman-blaming. And I would like to say those people have a higher chance of maybe turning around and actually "getting it", more than Hannity will, at least not any time soon.

I'm not criticizing the message, and I'm not trying to victim blame, but I just don't see the point of trying to get these messages through the thick skulls of Fox News.

[–]somniopus 23 points24 points ago

It's evangelism 101: if you have a message, and you acquire a platform from which to effectively share that message, you take advantage of it. Even if the target audience isn't perfect, maybe there's the three individuals in the crowd who take something away from hearing the message. Maybe not; but at least you tried.

I agree with you, for the most part. It's just, I would have taken the opportunity too. It's not the ideal situation, to be sure, but memes can be powerful. Maybe some Fauxhead's daughter hears this and something clicks.

[–]nonpet 6 points7 points ago

Agreed. Shutting up about it doesn't help anyone. I would have taken the chance too.

[–]notalady 7 points8 points ago

So she should only be preaching to the converted?

[–]cos[S] 0 points1 point ago

While I agree with the sentiment that if you're on Fox, say it on Fox - don't pass up the opportunity to stay it - I also don't think you're giving keakealani's comment a fair reading. It wasn't about preaching to the "converted" (which does have value too!). It was about preaching to the receptive, many of who have not been "converted" in terms of your analogy.

[–]notalady 0 points1 point ago

I think it's a mistake to think that all the audience of Fox are people who've thought about issues like this and are antagonistic to them. Just as it would be a mistake to think that all the audience of MSNBC, say, are all going to be in favour.

Some people are people who've strayed in thinking it's an actual news channel, others are people who are in the room when someone else chooses the channel, still others are people who might agree with Fox on some issues and not others.

Yes, if you don't want to reach the maximum number of people who will argue with you and insult you and generally be vile, then this is the wrong place to be. But it is also likely to be one of the audiences that most needs to hear this. If you want to reach the maximum number of people who've never been asked to consider their actions, I cannot think of a better place to go.

[–]cos[S] 0 points1 point ago

I ... do not understand how this comment of yours is a response to what I said in my comment above it. Did you mean to make this comment in another subthread here?

[–]notalady 0 points1 point ago

Maybe you didn't understand my original comment? I'm saying Fox will have people who will be receptive, and need converting.

[–]cos[S] 0 points1 point ago

I understood and even kind of agreed with your first comment, but you don't seem to have read mine.

[–]notalady 0 points1 point ago

maybe I didn't understand it, you did read a little contradictory to me. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

[–]cos[S] 0 points1 point ago

Neither. Perhaps because you tried to read it in that frame, it made it impossible for you to see what I was saying. Or maybe you did see what I was saying but viewed it as tangential because you really wanted to interpret my comment as agreement or disagreement so you cast it into that form.

[–]Origami_mouse 0 points1 point ago

The comments on that page just make me angry. Why did I think it would be sensible to keep scrolling past the end of the article?

[–]nukefudge -2 points-1 points ago

“If you train men not to grow up to become rapists, you prevent rape.”

i realize this isn't the most in-depth, detailed article ever, but... this sentence struck me as somewhat amusing (possibly morbidly so).

you'd think the problematique could be phrased in terms such as "we need to change the many societal patterns that lead to the likelihood of rapes happening", for proper complexity. just saying "train men" seems to reduce the phenomena in a rather too simplistic way.

...and no i'm not saying "oh well women need to change too!" - at least not in the direct sense as used above. but those patterns are insidious, and distributed throughout society as a whole, so sometimes some of the people who need a different understanding are in fact women (and no we're not talking about some sort of rape "candidates" here, and certainly not rape victims). but that's another story, and not specific to the above. suffice to say that all people should be able to walk around freely without fearing for their wellbeing.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]LonelyVoiceOfReason 29 points30 points ago

They know it's wrong and they don't care.

Studies regularly show that people who have done thing which are obviously rape do not consider themselves rapists.

[–]Vorpal_Hammer 44 points45 points ago

The idea of sitting down with my son and teaching him how to not rape girls makes me sick.

Why? You don't intend to discuss consent with your son at some point? I don't know how old he is now, but I've had discussions of that nature with my daughter ("Now sweetie, the princess can choose who she wants to marry. No one should be able to tell another person who they can kiss - this is just a silly story."), and she's only 5.

Having that discussion is telling him how not to rape. You don't object to that, do you?

[–]alli3theenigma 7 points8 points ago

Thank you so much for this.

[–]gazork_chumble_spuzz -1 points0 points ago

Why? You don't intend to discuss consent with your son at some point?

I intend to discuss these things with both my son and my daughter - how to make sure they have consent, and how to be very clear about giving it (if you mean no, then for pete's sake, say NO! don't freeze up and hope the person will magically read your mind!). But I don't think for a second that either of my kids needs to be taught not to rape, like Ms. Maxwell believes that men need to be taught.

[–]Vorpal_Hammer 6 points7 points ago

But if you do that, then you have taught them how not to rape. That's the point that I (and Ms. Maxwell) was making.

So I'm not sure what you're objecting to, exactly.

[–]Vorpal_Hammer 1 point2 points ago

Adding to my earlier thoughts, why, if teaching your son/daughter not to rape is such a concern for you, are not not bothered by explicitly teaching your son/daughter how not to be raped? I don't disagree with what you told them, exactly, but the phrasing seems to put the onus on your kids to communicate clearly in what is likely an overwhelmingly stressful and confusing situation.

If they (and we can only hope this never occurs, but statistics indicate otherwise) were the victim of sexual assault, and they did not speak out with a clear NO at the time - perhaps due to a fear of physical reprisal or other factors - wouldn't what you said to her echo in their minds, making them feel at least partially responsible for the situation?

I don't think that's what you meant to say, by any means. I'm not accusing you of anything. But I am wondering if you have considered how you might be heard.

[–]bainen 35 points36 points ago

I'd say the idea here is not that a person is born a rapist, or that all men have the idea that raping someone is acceptable. These ideas aren't being put out as if we live in a cultural vacuum. We live in a society where images of sexual violence are to some degree accepted, and we need to educate people that these ideas are wrong. You don't sit down with a two year old and tell him not to rape when he grows up. You make sure that when they see a movie or tv show or hear friends talking about sexual violence that they understand that it's not cool or acceptable. You make sure that when they go to college that they understand that taking home a girl too drunk to walk is rape. That silence is not consent. That when a woman changes her mind you walk away. Rape is not always (and usually isn't) a violent random crime.