|
ram dass in hell posted:Ok? It's not a question of onus, if, as Yinlock said, I can't hear a Bowie or Marilyn Manson song that I used to like, for example, without immediately thinking of the terrible things they did. It's not that I think I'm not 'supposed to' enjoy these things anymore, it's that I know the voice I'm hearing is the voice of someone who did awful things to people. I don't understand how other people don't have the same revulsion and instead are like woo ground control to major tom for the 50,000th time, but it's not because I'm saying the "onus" is on you not to listen, I'm just baffled at how you don't seem to understand the revulsion. If I saw a painting and liked it and then found out it was an original George W Bush I would probably like the painting a lot less, immediately, because of the artist and the type of person they are and the things they've done and did. I understand the revulsion and if avoiding the works of an abuser makes you more comfortable, then I support your doing so. I know that works have been ruined for me when I realized the extent to which the creators' lovely politics or personal behaviors are reflected in it. My point is more that the rejection of art by abusive artists is a personal or interpersonal one, rather than an ethical obligation to avoid consuming it, which is a fairly common position in my experience.
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 07:42 |
|
|
The "personal choice" of continuing to enjoy an abuser's creative work is hand in hand with the "personal choice" of excusing the abuse in other contexts. One might continue to listen to an abuser's music the same way they might vote for an abuser or defend their continued service because the "good" they do (in this context, an exceptional song or movie, as opposed to legislation) outweighs the relatively emotionally distant, unequivocal bad. They did the bad thing to a person you don't know, while the good thing they did touched you personally. It's the precise same phenomenon that leads to entire towns covering for the abuser star quarterback because we need him for the big game. The thought process behind it is, essentially, that your enjoyment of the work was originally independent of your knowledge of the creator, and as such you can keep it that way regardless of what you learn about them. Rather than being some sort of personal choice, it's a depersonalization of the choice: it's literally out of your hands what the creator or artist did to someone else, so you shouldn't feel any residual guilt from continuing to enjoy their work, right? Cognitive dissonance is something that takes active effort to overcome because it's a baked-in natural defense of the ego from admitting guilt or wrongdoing. The predilection of most people, then, is going to be to continue to enjoy the work because the alternative is essentially punishing themselves for something they didn't do, which takes willpower and has no reward beyond the fact that you've done the right thing, Where I stand on it is that it's not an on/off switch, but rather something to work on over time, because that's how feelings function. I personally have a hard time just breaking that connection instantly, but it's something I actively work on. There is an ethical obligation to eschew the works of these creators, and I'd posit that arguing to the contrary is itself just cognitive dissonance doing what it does. There are too many creators putting out too much excellent content, especially now in the age of the internet, to be knowingly platforming abusers of any sort. Not that scarcity would excuse it either. Solanumai fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Jun 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 20:31
|
|
|
I think there's a sizeable difference between (ranked from least problematic to worst): 1) Enjoying a bad person's art. 2) Financially supporting a bad person by purchasing their art while they're alive. 3) Looking the other way on a bad person's behaviour in order to elevate them to a position of power. And, honestly, I can't say why I'm able to separate the art and the artist in some cases and not others. I wouldn't watch a Polanski film, I don't think I'd watch anything with Kevin Spacey, I might watch a Woody Allen movie depending on certain factors (and indeed, thinking about how his being a gross gently caress informed his choices in the film), I wouldn't listen to Marilyn Manson or R. Kelly at all, but I would and do listen to Michael Jackson and 2Pac and David Bowie and I don't plan to stop. I can't make a logically consistent argument as to why I feel that way, I just do, and I don't feel it's morally wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
For me, personally, the stronger a connection I had with the work or the artist beforehand, the easier it is for me to dumpster it instantly because I can leverage the feeling of betrayal. There are of course degrees to it as with anything, and I'm not going to put someone on trial for listening to Bowie as a sole act. However, continuing to enjoy these works usually comes part in parcel with complete dismissal of the wrongs the artist committed for the sole reason that it was emotionally distant enough from the listener that they simply don't care about it, which is gross. If you can acknowledge the artist or whomever is a detestable, reprehensible, awful person and still enjoy their work, fine. You don't get to head-in-the-sand over the bad stuff because you like the good stuff though, that's just plain old cognitive dissonance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 21:03
|
|
|
Shere posted:If you can acknowledge the artist or whomever is a detestable, reprehensible, awful person and still enjoy their work, fine. You don't get to head-in-the-sand over the bad stuff because you like the good stuff though, that's just plain old cognitive dissonance. I agree. Sometimes it gets really uncomfortable because you'll hear people say like, "oh, those accusers are lying, it's all bullshit" especially with, like, Michael Jackson. I highly doubt that's the case, I think it's both true that he was an incredibly hosed up human being who committed some awful crimes, and he also made some amazing music. I wish he could've faced actual justice while still alive, but I'm not going to banish him from my music collection.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 21:15
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:You chose to emphasize and put in bold font a different part of the press summary than what you did before. Your original choice of bolding implied a certain degree of both-sides-ism (for lack of a better phrase), which is not the complete truth. The attitudes are more prevalent among Republicans and the relationship between defensiveness and myth belief is stronger among Republicans. The choice of emphasis in your earlier post, in the context of your other posts, appears to make this all about the Democrats. Perhaps this wasn't your intention? Discussion of lib vs left was brought in for the same reason. The defensiveness relationship has much more to do with ingroup-outgroup dynamics than other things (the defensiveness scale they used was meant to be applicable to various forms of ID by design) and those dynamics generalize to more than party. I don't see how it matters much whether someone openly agrees/disagrees with the myths if they're still more than willing to deny accusations against anyone they like and perceive as part of their ingroup. After all, that's generally what results in action (or more often inaction). And that defensiveness is essentially proof that their more general stated beliefs about sexual assault aren't really meaningful or accurate. Someone who claims to disbelieve sexual assault myths but then selectively applies them depending upon whether someone is a member of the ingroup or outgroup is just proving that their claimed belief in said myths was never really relevant or genuine to begin with. Democrats are more likely to say "sexual assault is a problem" because "people who are good on issues like that" is part of their personal identity, but their actual beliefs and opinions about specific situations is more revealing about what they really believe*. And when the vast majority of powerful people are members of one of the two groups in question, people outside of those groups are kind of inherently better simply by virtue of having a clearer-eyed view of a much larger swath of said powerful people. It doesn't really matter if the "independent" acknowledges allegations against both parties due to neither of them being their "ingroup"; they're still acknowledging them! * For example, the study mentions the following: quote:In one study, for example, Democrats were nearly twice as likely (62%) as Republicans (33%) to say men getting away with sexual harassment and women not being believed about their sexual harassment claims were major problems (Graf, 2018). Republicans (34%) were also slightly more concerned about women making false accusations about sexual assault and harassment than were Democrats (28%). This is not surprising, because Democrats want to think of themselves as people who care about those issues, while Republicans don't really care. And with the second question (that is honestly significantly more important than the first and has more relevance to the way people address specific claims of assault) there's not even much of a difference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 21:26
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I don't see how it matters much whether someone openly agrees/disagrees with the myths if they're still more than willing to deny accusations against anyone they like and perceive as part of their ingroup. After all, that's generally what results in action (or more often inaction). And that defensiveness is essentially proof that their more general stated beliefs about sexual assault aren't really meaningful or accurate. Someone who claims to disbelieve sexual assault myths but then selectively applies them depending upon whether someone is a member of the ingroup or outgroup is just proving that their claimed belief in said myths was never really relevant or genuine to begin with. Democrats are more likely to say "sexual assault is a problem" because "people who are good on issues like that" is part of their personal identity, but their actual beliefs and opinions about specific situations is more revealing about what they really believe*. quote:if they're still more than willing to deny accusations against anyone they like and perceive as part of their ingroup.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 22:54
|
|
|
Shere posted:The "personal choice" of continuing to enjoy an abuser's creative work is hand in hand with the "personal choice" of excusing the abuse in other contexts. I would say when people start conflating art appreciation with the need to identify with and defend an artist (or politician), that's where #metoo comes in. Reading the rest of your post I get vibes that you want to treat leisure activities as some kind of moral test where people should only enjoy "good" activities by designated "good" people/brands, specifically this quote: quote:There is an ethical obligation to eschew the works of these creators, Which I think is perverting the intention of #metoo. The purpose of the movement isn't to be a bludgeon against things you don't like, nor does it have anything to with your moral absolution of "canceling" David Bowie. It's to hold the rapists and sexpests legally accountable for their crimes and dismantle the culture that enables and protects them. Part of that culture is the idea that there is "good" art by "good" people who would never do something like exploit vulnerable people, only "bad" people who make "bad" art would do such a thing. Or in politics, only the "bad" party would do such things. Whereas the "good" party would not, therefore any accusations against the good party are not only untrue, but also the work of the "bad" party. The bottom line is that if you are defending people because of your personal relationship with them, without knowing any specific facts of course, then that is why #metoo exists. e: Oh and since it wasn't clear I mean "you" in the general. Not "you" the specific poster. Not accusing you specifically. ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Jun 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 22:54
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Which I think is perverting the intention of #metoo. The purpose of the movement isn't to be a bludgeon against things you don't like, nor does it have anything to with your moral absolution of "canceling" David Bowie. It's to hold the rapists and sexpests legally accountable for their crimes and dismantle the culture that enables and protects them. Part of that culture is the idea that there is "good" art by "good" people who would never do something like exploit vulnerable people, only "bad" people who make "bad" art would do such a thing. The origin of #MeToo came from Tarana Burke after she was teaching a thirteen year old girl who had confided that she had been raped and later wished she had told the child she had also been raped. When it later became more popularized through Alyssa Milano, "If all the women who have been sexually harassed or assaulted wrote ‘Me too.’ as a status, we might give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem." The movement's roots have always been about empathy, healing, and de-stimagtizing sexual assault. Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Jun 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:While these goals are not against the intent of MeToo and I also REALLY agree with you, this not the intent of MeToo Part of de-stigmatizing sexual assault is to bring it to a point where the police will actually believe the victim instead of immediately writing them off as "asking for it" or "that person would never abuse someone!" The reason I never spoke with my mother, who was a police officer, about my own rape was she always made it clear that if it happened it was always your own fault. It really hosed me up for a long time to have those combination of factors in my life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 23:18
|
|
|
I think it's a question of agency, and centering the victim*. I was pressured into sex while very intoxicated (and of legal age, to be perfectly clear) on two separate, unrelated occasions and if someone asked me "were you sexually assaulted or raped?" I would say no. Because that's how I, personally, feel about what happened, and no one gets to tell me about my own life. If someone in the exact same circumstance said they felt they had been raped, then I would accept that too, without reservation, because it's fundamentally their choice how to feel about it. I think making a safe space for victims to talk about their experiences and pursue legal action if they feel that's the appropriate course of action, is far more important than making sure every instance of questionable sexual behaviour is punished to the fullest extent of the law. The most important thing in this sort of situation is to make sure the victim holds all the cards, and they may play the cards or hold them at their sole decision. This applies equally to victims of rape, and who identify as victims/survivors/etc., but do not wish to name their accuser for any reason or no reason at all. It's their choice. * I'm vaguely uncomfortable with the word "victim" in the case I described, because while I was the "recipient" of a potentially criminal action, I don't actually consider myself a victim of a crime. But I don't think there's a better word to use.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 00:42
|
|
|
PT6A posted:* I'm vaguely uncomfortable with the word "victim" in the case I described, because while I was the "recipient" of a potentially criminal action, I don't actually consider myself a victim of a crime. But I don't think there's a better word to use. silicone thrills posted:Part of de-stigmatizing sexual assault is to bring it to a point where the police will actually believe the victim instead of immediately writing them off as "asking for it" or "that person would never abuse someone!" Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Jun 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 01:14
|
|
|
I think people get way too caught up in verbiage to the point where it feels like something out of the CIA playbook to kill time. I consider myself a victim. I was a child. I was raped. It hosed up how I thought about things for a long time. It severely hurt my ability to have normal sexual experiences. Sometimes people will talk over me to say YOU WERENT A VICTIM YOU ARE A SUVIVOR and its like. gently caress off Karen and let me tell my story.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 02:00
|
|
|
silicone thrills posted:I think people get way too caught up in verbiage to the point where it feels like something out of the CIA playbook to kill time. Yes, absolutely. It's up to any person what they want to refer to themselves as and how they want to feel about the things that happened to them. The reason I didn't say victim/survivor without qualification is, in that circumstance, I didn't personally consider myself a victim or a survivor, because that's how I feel about the experience. If someone wants to refer to themselves as either one in the same circumstance, that's solely their choice and they are allowed that choice without judgement based on how they feel about their experience. I've seen similar things with cancer patients. Some people like the "battle" phraseology, others don't because it implies that people who die from cancer didn't fight hard enough. Some people dislike the term "disabled" and others feel that any attempt to paper over the lovely aspects of a disability is patronizing. No side is "right" in this circumstance, and I think when we're talking about things like this, we have to center individuals and abide by their wishes rather than telling them how they do or should feel about some aspect of their life. When it comes to the way we feel about our own experiences and our own lives, no one gets to tell us poo poo, whether it involves sexual abuse or rape or literally anything else. To me, a key part of MeToo is about holding that space and having these discussions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 02:51
|
|
|
There's often a lot of discussion about what #metoo wasn't able to accomplish, but I do want to talk about a way it helped me personally, or at least allowed me to view things through a better lens than I had before. Growing up after what happened to me, I shouldered my experience and knew about my mother's experiences with sexual assault, but I still thought of it as a marginal, uncommon experience, something maybe ten to twenty percent of the population had to deal with. That misconception led me to having some pretty bitter and overly resentful attitudes towards society at large, a certain presumption of, "Odds are, you couldn't possibly know what it's like for me." I remember in college hearing from female peers that they'd rather die than be raped and that didn't help. I remember reading Margaret Atwood "Rape Fantasies" and getting the completely wrong read from it, that a large swath of our population imagined themselves in the perils I had actually gone through. Something this movement has done is prompt a lot of people to talk about their experiences that have never spoken about it before, and I just remember scrolling through the hashtag mentions on Twitter and people bravely talking about the horrors they'd gone through. It really sobered me up from my pity party and woke me up to just how common this is, that what I'd gone through and my mother went through weren't just strokes of bad luck but a horrifying "rite of passage" that many women had forced upon them. It made me re-evaluate a lot of my older, more bitter attitudes about things. As wrathful as I feel about how little justice is being pursued on so many fronts, I do feel like I've become a better person through us all talking about this, and I'd never felt so much relief as when I've posted in-depth things about it on here and elsewhere. It really shows the power of community and sharing in the face of these horrors, and as sad that this community even has to exists is, at least we have each other more than, I think, before serious public discussion began on this topic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 20:42
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:weren't just strokes of bad luck but a horrifying "rite of passage" that many women had forced upon them. Imagine I posted a version of  that's nodding
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2021 01:26
|
|
|
Agreed. This is coloured by my own experiences which were very minor compared to a lot of people's, but I do sometimes think about what justice looks like. For me, it's not saying to the people responsible for the bad things that happened to me, "oh my god, you're awful and you need criminal punishment." Other people might feel differently and I respect that. But, for me, if all MeToo does is maybe save someone in the future from going through the same poo poo, because someone thinks "oh, this ain't right," then that's still an accomplishment I can feel good about. After those incidents, I was near the other side of the situation, when someone I had gone out with once or twice came round my place absolutely shitfaced, and I had that same choice to make: whether this was "okay" or not. And, I have to tell you, it wasn't a hard choice and anyone who tells you differently is full of poo poo. Was that informed by my past experiences, or by society in general? I don't know. At the end of the day, I immediately rang a cab and made sure she got home safe, I was out $20 for cab fare, and I've never questioned my choice. Not because I was afraid I'd be cancelled, not because I was afraid of being accused of a crime, but simply because it wouldn't have been right. Maybe it's a failure of MeToo if not everyone gets their just desserts, but, at a point, I'll take "a better future" as a consolation prize.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2021 04:41
|
|
|
For want of a better place or time: other posters disliked how I described the general public's perception of Biden and Trump's treatment of women. Leaving that to one side, for the record, I hope I have been clear that I believe and have said Reade's accusations were serious and credible. In a just world they would have been treated as such, and investigated thoroughly; instead she was predictably attacked and slandered, just as Trump's allies attacked and slandered his accusers. Powerful men are rarely called to account; Weinstein and Epstein are exceptions, not the rule. I hope she finds justice and peace. I seriously doubt either Trump or Biden will ever be held to account, of course. Three decades ago my sister quietly sat me down and explained she'd been raped some months prior by a classmate while half-passed out drunk on a couch. She blamed herself for getting drunk, told nobody, quietly got STD tested out of town so nobody could see her at a clinic. When she told me I wanted nothing more than to find the rapist and break his loving legs. My sister then explained she'd waited to tell me until he'd flown home overseas after graduation to avoid "any scenes". That was my introduction at 23 to how hosed up society is on the issue of rape. My sister didn't consent, and I have zero problems believing Reade didn't consent to any sexual assault from Biden. I really don't have anything to contribute to this thread other than the above. Apart from trying to help my sister come to terms with what happened I've never had to deal with anything similar. Apologies for the intrusion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:For want of a better place or time: other posters disliked how I described the general public's perception of Biden and Trump's treatment of women. It uh, doesn't seem like you think you did anything wrong? It seems like you arrived in the thread to tell us that no, we MISINTERPRETED those lovely little euphemisms you were using, and kept using after people asked you to stop, because OBVIOUSLY you believe Reade, so we should have known you were just saying what OTHER PEOPLE think? Can you see how that might come across?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:When she told me I wanted nothing more than to find the rapist and break his loving legs. My sister then explained she'd waited to tell me until he'd flown home overseas after graduation to avoid "any scenes". Here's something else I'd like to bring up. First up, I fully understand your reaction so I don't want it to seem like I'm picking on you or anything. But to any other guys who might read this, please DO NOT do this. this is exactly why I'm always hesitant to tell any of the men in my life about the poo poo that's happened to me: because the first response is always oh boy, time to make this all about me! Finally I get to respond by doing Angry Rightous Man Things and live out the Liam Neeson film that's permanently playing in my head! Regardless of how correctly it's directed, the last thing I want to hear when I'm telling someone about the sexual violence I've experienced is more loving male anger. Firstly, I'm telling you something deeply personal and it would be nice if we could talk about me for a minute, and what it means, and why I'm telling you this, not about how you want to deal with it. Second, if I'm telling you this, it's clearly because I love and trust you deeply and DO NOT WANT YOU TO DO SOME DUMB poo poo AND GET ARRESTED. I've got my own way of dealing with things, and I would like to know that if I tell you something I don't have to plan in advance for you reacting violently because then you're just another loving facet of the guys I'm telling you about! Sorry I know this sucks and other people might feel differently, I know I'm projecting like a lighthouse but I gotta say something
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2021 23:46
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Here's something else I'd like to bring up. First up, I fully understand your reaction so I don't want it to seem like I'm picking on you or anything. But to any other guys who might read this, please DO NOT do this. this is exactly why I'm always hesitant to tell any of the men in my life about the poo poo that's happened to me: because the first response is always oh boy, time to make this all about me! Finally I get to respond by doing Angry Rightous Man Things and live out the Liam Neeson film that's permanently playing in my head! Regardless of how correctly it's directed, the last thing I want to hear when I'm telling someone about the sexual violence I've experienced is more loving male anger. Firstly, I'm telling you something deeply personal and it would be nice if we could talk about me for a minute, and what it means, and why I'm telling you this, not about how you want to deal with it. Second, if I'm telling you this, it's clearly because I love and trust you deeply and DO NOT WANT YOU TO DO SOME DUMB poo poo AND GET ARRESTED. I've got my own way of dealing with things, and I would like to know that if I tell you something I don't have to plan in advance for you reacting violently because then you're just another loving facet of the guys I'm telling you about! Completely agree with this. I remember telling one of my ex boyfriends some poo poo that was happening to me at home and he got all puffed up and acted like he was gonna go fight my dad or something and it was just like "dude that wont help me, also he will literally shoot you and i'd rather that didn't happen" so all it does is create stress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2021 23:54
|
|
|
silicone thrills posted:Completely agree with this. I remember telling one of my ex boyfriends some poo poo that was happening to me at home and he got all puffed up and acted like he was gonna go fight my dad or something and it was just like "dude that wont help me, also he will literally shoot you and i'd rather that didn't happen" so all it does is create stress. Yeah that's it, it's like you realise the reason these men do this and you don't is because they have a violence in them that you lack and that's why I'm telling you this, do you think I choose to share this because I want you to be a big patriarchal tough guy about it???
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 00:01
|
|
|
There are other guys that when hearing about any sort of "problem" feel they are being told about the issue as a means to seek help or advice, and can get frustrated when it is either a complex issue or--when diving deeper into it--critical details are withheld that (they feel) should have been shared from the start. This is a communication issue as much as a cultural. Though i dunno how much extra care in prefacing would help with the dudes that are trigger happy to jump to ultraviolence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 01:55
|
|
|
Corky Romanovsky posted:There are other guys that when hearing about any sort of "problem" feel they are being told about the issue as a means to seek help or advice, and can get frustrated when it is either a complex issue or-- when diving deeper into it--critical details are withheld that (they feel) should have been shared from the start. This is a communication issue as much as a cultural. Though i dunno how much extra care in prefacing would help with the dudes that are trigger happy to jump to ultraviolence. I'm not clear on what point you're trying to make here?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 01:59
|
|
|
Let me try to again. I've seen conversations where (later on) it is unclear if someone is trying to commiserate or figure out a real life problem over some very mundane stuff like dealing with the post office, and it goes on for a hundred posts. It starts out with "oh this X is such a bother" but later statements from the person reveals the crux of the problem is Y, but then after a hundred more posts Y was actually resolved before the whole conversation started and they are hung up on Z. People feel like they were being strung along. The audience here was expecting this to be a conversation about how to clear some bureaucratic hurdles. Their expectations were informed by their culture w.r.t. conversation and how the communication was structured. The onus is on both parties to overcome cultural and communication hurdles; culture takes a while to shape, and so communication needs to be more flexible in the short run. In the personal story shared further up, the guy should have wondered a bit more about why he was being shared that information before going aggro. It sucks getting aggro is a part of many people's culture, wish that would change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 02:51
|
|
|
I think a huge part of American culture is violence and people want to "do something" and violence is the only action they know how to take., especially since the law isn't useful when it comes to this subject AND people have watched way too much loving TV. It's engrained in our entire society from how we handle any foreign actions to how many parents think its acceptable to punish their children. People are built to want to DO SOMETHING but a ton of people never learned that sometimes sitting still and letting something play out is doing something. My husband is great about this because when it comes to me dealing with my trauma and my family and how those things intertwine his literal only stance amounts to "my hope is youll find ways to deal with this that keep you from pain and ill take your lead" and its been pretty wonderful. But also sadly when it comes to say: rape : a ton of people won't believe you if you didn't violently fight back because our culture is so loving poisoned. So its like "oh did you fight off your assaulter? no i'll fight them for you then!!!!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 03:43
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Here's something else I'd like to bring up. First up, I fully understand your reaction so I don't want it to seem like I'm picking on you or anything. But to any other guys who might read this, please DO NOT do this. this is exactly why I'm always hesitant to tell any of the men in my life about the poo poo that's happened to me: because the first response is always oh boy, time to make this all about me! Finally I get to respond by doing Angry Rightous Man Things and live out the Liam Neeson film that's permanently playing in my head! Regardless of how correctly it's directed, the last thing I want to hear when I'm telling someone about the sexual violence I've experienced is more loving male anger. Firstly, I'm telling you something deeply personal and it would be nice if we could talk about me for a minute, and what it means, and why I'm telling you this, not about how you want to deal with it. Second, if I'm telling you this, it's clearly because I love and trust you deeply and DO NOT WANT YOU TO DO SOME DUMB poo poo AND GET ARRESTED. I've got my own way of dealing with things, and I would like to know that if I tell you something I don't have to plan in advance for you reacting violently because then you're just another loving facet of the guys I'm telling you about! You're 100% right. I've noticed this pattern with sexual assault particularly, but also in other things (and it's not strongly gendered in that it does also happen to men who talk about their problems with other men). I can only speak for my own experiences, but it's like, "simmer down and imagine for a second that I'm actually reasonably smart and capable, and have not come to you to talk about something with the express intent of you 'taking control' and fixing the problem." What if, god forbid, there's not actually a trivial solution and I'm just talking to you to work through some poo poo because I love and respect you? In my view, good responses to that sort of thing are: "Is there anything I do to help you?" "What, if anything, would you like me to do to support you?" "That's quite poo poo, can I go get you a cold beer/cigarette/etc.?" (semi-joking on this one because it's not always helpful)
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 03:58
|
|
|
silicone thrills posted:I think a huge part of American culture is violence and people want to "do something" and violence is the only action they know how to take., especially since the law isn't useful when it comes to this subject AND people have watched way too much loving TV. It's engrained in our entire society from how we handle any foreign actions to how many parents think its acceptable to punish their children. People are built to want to DO SOMETHING but a ton of people never learned that sometimes sitting still and letting something play out is doing something. That's not an American thing that's a human thing. I don't know where you're going to find a society where the reaction isn't going to be I'm going to hurt the person who hurt my loved one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 15:18
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:That's not an American thing that's a human thing. I don't know where you're going to find a society where the reaction isn't going to be I'm going to hurt the person who hurt my loved one. Cool 2 sentence dismissive reply! You could respond with compassion or understanding or in any of the ways other posters have gone out of their way to explain above. How on Earth do you not see that "RAWWWRR HERE COMES MORE MALE VIOLENCE" is absolutely not appropriate? It's not a human thing, it's specifically an idiot thing, an inability or unwillingness to understand and empathize with the human being in front of you. For context I recently told one of my parents about a situation with a landlord who tried to blackmail me into sex for my security deposit to be returned and they told me I should have just put another lock on the door. I'm probably never going to be able to talk to them the same way as long as a live, as a result. ram dass in hell fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Jun 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 15:31
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Here's something else I'd like to bring up. First up, I fully understand your reaction so I don't want it to seem like I'm picking on you or anything. But to any other guys who might read this, please DO NOT do this. this is exactly why I'm always hesitant to tell any of the men in my life about the poo poo that's happened to me: because the first response is always oh boy, time to make this all about me! Finally I get to respond by doing Angry Rightous Man Things and live out the Liam Neeson film that's permanently playing in my head! Regardless of how correctly it's directed, the last thing I want to hear when I'm telling someone about the sexual violence I've experienced is more loving male anger. Firstly, I'm telling you something deeply personal and it would be nice if we could talk about me for a minute, and what it means, and why I'm telling you this, not about how you want to deal with it. Second, if I'm telling you this, it's clearly because I love and trust you deeply and DO NOT WANT YOU TO DO SOME DUMB poo poo AND GET ARRESTED. I've got my own way of dealing with things, and I would like to know that if I tell you something I don't have to plan in advance for you reacting violently because then you're just another loving facet of the guys I'm telling you about! I know this might come off as white noise, but I really appreciate this. I don't recall if it was here or in the thread that lead to this being reopened for discussion, but I've mentioned that my wife is a survivor and it all happened years before I met her and I struggle a lot sometimes with keeping my mouth shut because Circumstances dictate that he's part of conversation at my in-laws' house. See, my father-in-law was a transmission builder (fun side note: in the handful of years I've been around, I've not once heard him use the full word for 'transmission') in South Florida in the mid-80's/early 90's. One of the installers or one of the other builders, I don't really know, I kind of tune out and just nod along when this conversation comes up - usually on the back of "there sure are some hosed up people down here in South Florida, especially those n-words, they're nothing like the ones back home in Rhode Island!" - long story short this builder or installer or whatever drugged and "tried to do poo poo to [my wife]" (I haven't pressed her on what that specifically means, and it's not really my business to IMO). This scumbag gets in a scuffle one night with an armed (Black, my father in law will make sure that you understand that the person responsible here is Black) man, got himself shot, and bled to death in an empty gas station parking lot. My father-in-law will bemoan it to the high heavens - "he was such a good friend," "I really liked that guy," "he was such a great builder!" and it's everything I can do to not scream that the man he's standing there informally eulogizing got what he loving deserved and died a lowlife scumbag's inglorious death because he laid his hands on your daughter and my loving wife.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 15:41
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Here's something else I'd like to bring up. First up, I fully understand your reaction so I don't want it to seem like I'm picking on you or anything. But to any other guys who might read this, please DO NOT do this. No, no, you nailed it. My sister actually told me at the time she had specifically waited to tell me until there was literally no chance I could do anything, something like "I knew you'd feel this way". I mean I was 23, she was my only sister, and we were all the family each had, our parents had both died before I turned 20. So looking back, I shake my head at 23-year-old-me trying to play hothead, but at the time I didn't have the advantage of three decades more life experience.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
I get that hothead response, you just want to protect someone you care about. At the same time, and I'm not speaking to your reaction to someone you know who was personally hurt, but there's a lot of performative anti-rapist poo poo out there. You catch it in media all the time when rape is invoked to create a villain character because a writer has no imagination, or people just going on and on about how they'd sterilize rapists or cut their balls off, etc., especially if they're pedophiles. The thing though is... this last spring, I actually found my rapist's account on Facebook. It kinda blew my mind he was out of jail since he was a general miscreant, so that was one shock, but something that I can't get over scrolling through his posts was... a meme with someone blowing the head off a dude who was claiming to be a pedophile. Was really tempting to comment on that, "Oh word?" gotta tell you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
I had a conversation with a friend of mine I recently reconnected with on facebook, her and I were talking about the small town we grew up in and it kinda dawned on me one day, knowing the statistics on sexual assault and somewhat obviously that we went to school with a bunch of people who were sexually assaulted. In the age of the internet, I wonder what's its like for women to have to confront this stuff all the time and see the people who did things to you or told you to shut up and see their exploits of how they are good people. Digging DEEPER into that, it meant that you went to school and might of been or maybe still are friends with someone who sexually assaulted someone. And its weird feeling, as a guy, because you like to think that all your friends would never DO something like that. She relayed to me that someone had assaulted her and was talked out of saying anything or that she must of been wrong about what happened and its just sad. My only real contribution to this thread outside of this story is that we as a society need to reframe to what men can do about changing male culture. The talk about what women should do to prevent sexual assault puts a real undue burden on the people who are being targeted. The biggest thing, in my mind, is that we are not owed anything and that male worth shouldn't be tied up in perceived sexual conquest (or violence but that's for another thread). Anyways, I try to do better and give to BARCC: https://barcc.org/ when possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 22:50
|
|
|
ram dass in hell posted:Cool 2 sentence dismissive reply! I was disagreeing with the OP's statement that it was specifically American thing. I did not advocate for violence, I stated a violent reaction is universal across cultures and nothing specific to modern America.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 01:53
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I think there's a sizeable difference between (ranked from least problematic to worst): I've bolded the part that's key for me. My view is basically why should I feel guilty about enjoying art made by a terrible person when the art doesn't reflect the specific ways they are terrible, and I am not paying, have not paid, will not pay for, and discourage others from paying for any of their art? It's not that I'm rationalizing or depersonalizing or working through cognitive dissonance. It's that it literally does not bother me because I am hurting nothing and platforming no one. If it does bother me I delete the music/movie/whatever. Maybe this is some kind of character flaw or neurological defect on my part but that's just how my brain works. I don't have to make a conscious choice to force whatever the artist did from my mind. My big issue ATM--and the main reason I'm in this thread, to see other people's thoughts on--is that so much of media is shifting to streaming. Loads of people who listen to music basically all day every day do so exclusively through streaming services. It's even more extreme for films. So what the gently caress can you do? There's no way to subscribe to Spotify except R Kelly, Leviathan, Dissection, or Burzum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 06:29
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:I was disagreeing with the OP's statement that it was specifically American thing. I did not advocate for violence, I stated a violent reaction is universal across cultures and nothing specific to modern America. Okay but here's the thing: why? Why did you feel the need to clarify that? What exactly are you adding to the conversation at hand by doing so?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 07:05
|
|
|
Could somebody explain this Cosby release to my pea-sized brain?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 18:18
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Could somebody explain this Cosby release to my pea-sized brain? They used illegal evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 18:23
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Could somebody explain this Cosby release to my pea-sized brain? From what I understand the DA signed a deal with Cosby during the Constand case that they wouldn't criminally prosecute him if he testified in her civil case against him. Evidence from his testimony in that civil case was then used in his later criminal case by the DA against him which the PA Supreme Court considers a violation of that deal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 07:42 |
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Could somebody explain this Cosby release to my pea-sized brain? From my understanding, an earlier prosecutor had decided not to press charges in order to allow Cosby to be forced to testify in a civil trial. Without the threat of self-incrimination, Cosby wasn't able to invoke the 5th and that's when the deposition happened. Later DAs didn't feel bound by the earlier agreement and used that deposition in the trial which his lawyers successfully argued was illegal evidence. E: ^Yeah, what they said
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 18:35
|
|
