@abe4eva@ErickaSimone@fkamiah17 We are saying half the species wanders around in a state of vigilance because we don't know which of the other half are offenders. Men can either listen and acknowledge this and show themselves to be the safe ones by doing so, or argue back saying that their hurt feelings are more important and hence show that they're not. You've been given a chance to choose here.
I will add that no guy should assume they're one of "the safe ones". They should try to be one, sure. But the important thing is that they keep trying, like, keep an eye on themselves, watch themselves like a hawk.
It's the people who consider the very notion PREPOSTEROUS that they could be part of the problem, who never do the work on themselves.
Years ago, I read a blog post from someone who'd worked at a rape crisis center. This person observed that there's something that would come up over and over in the accounts: the guy seemed perfectly normal, until all of a sudden he turned into a sexual assaulter who couldn't be reasoned with. It was like dealing with a completely different person.
I wonder what goes on with those guys. I don't imagine most of them were quietly planning an assault and biding their time until the right moment. Far more likely, they were perfectly normal guys who couldn't imagine they were the sort of person who would engage in sexual assault. And then they did.
I don't know that there is any one mental trick a guy can employ to make sure they'll be one of the safe ones. But you know, I have to believe that making a conscious effort helps.
@kingbeauregard@afewbugs@ErickaSimone Just being aware of how even small things are processed by women helps - that's why the "not all men" trope is so pernicious. You might know that you're not "that guy". We can't tell you apart from the ones who are.
@kingbeauregard@afewbugs@ErickaSimone I used to live with one of those "normal" guys. When I tried to speak to some people I knew who lived near us, they managed to display a textbook version of cognitive dissonance - believing me but not believing it of him at the same time. "I didn't think he was like that" etc.
I understand how there'd be an initial period of cognitive dissonance, but pretty soon, people need to decide whom they believe. Sometimes, you do have to choose.
Now, here's where I torpedo my own argument. Many years ago, in the paleolithic days of the Internet (this was pre-Web, that's how old it was), a bunch of us decided to meet up at a location not terribly far from me. I let one of those people from farther away crash at my place (a married woman). Well, in the weeks after the event, I noticed that people started cooling towards me, and one of them eventually told me that the woman was spreading rumors about me trying to get into her pants. So it does sometimes happen that false accusations occur, and that's what makes it thorny.
(Eventually I simply walked away from that set of friends, because the well had gotten so poisoned that there was no point. A year or two later, one of the people who felt I was the instigator, emailed me and said the woman had recently done the same thing to him. I wasn't particularly sympathetic to his plight.)
All in all, I think all a person can do is listen to the accusations and decide whether they're internally consistent. The reputation of the guy should almost never be a factor though, because any number of ostensibly trustworthy guys prove to be anything but.
@kingbeauregard@afewbugs@ErickaSimone That's a really horrible experience and I'm sorry it happened to you. And here's my caveat: the nature and frequency of acts of aggression/intimidation against women are so all-pervasive and happen every single day.
The "yeah but this one woman" (and I'm not referring to your personal experience, rather how it's used in the media and wider society) is legitimately dangerous for 51% of the population.
Tara Reade singlehandedly destroyed the MeToo movement. So much good is destroyed by liars.
In my particular tale of woe, I wasn't privy to the other side of it; but I do notice that it took a while for any of them to breathe a word of it to me, and even then it was just one person. I infer that the woman in question cautioned all the people she was talking to, not to bring it up with me. That strikes me as a matter of "internal consistency": like, if I really did the thing she said I did, why not call me out on it? Why not do so publicly? Why make certain I wasn't in a position to defend myself? The game of tiptoeing behind my back was a red flag.
@kingbeauregard@afewbugs@ErickaSimone Exactly. It's the fact that the extremely rare cases of women lying get much more media attention than the day-to-day cases (unless they involve the police, these days, or the woman is murdered).
In your case, it may well have been a way of "controlling the narrative" - the longer she had to embed her version of the story with the group, the more difficult for you to refute it without sounding like you were lying.
What an appalling experience.
@kingbeauregard@afewbugs@ErickaSimone The most important lessons are always the most difficult to learn, and the most profitable, in the long run.
You'll find your "bullshit radar" will become more finely tuned but we all have to be careful not to go too far in the other direction. Some people do tell tiny lies as a form of self-protection, or because they're too scared to tell a difficult or embarrassing truth. I'm not excusing it, but trying to be more understanding.
I do think a person should have some process by which to evaluate accusations, because false accusations do happen. The best statistics I can find suggest that they're between 2% and 8% of accusations, so clearly a small minority, but by no means a negligible issue.
So, what do you think of Emmett Till? Was his lynching a small price to pay for always believing women uncritically?
Add comment