Aha. This makes some things clearer for me. Perhaps I can also make some things clearer about my thought process:
The intent behind those two specific examples was to give something that seems only a little bit less bad than Judge McJudgington’s average rape case, and then give something utterly horrible that can fight for headlines with Jack The Ripper.
My motive for this was that when Judge McJudgington’s (really) average rape case (not the one I gave as example) makes the headlines, people thinkof the second example and go all indignant and want the rapist to be punished more than a murderer. Many people on the internets have this model of what “rape” is that matches the extreme example. However, I’ve also noticed that many (feminists and anti-male-apologists seem to come up more often here) others have for model of “rape” the first example, and anything that goes above that they will decry “rape and torture!” in the same way the previous category of people get enraged at the extreme case.
In all those situations, the headline article for Judge McJudgington’s case will cater to both of these groups and try to appeal to their emotions. Thus the entire spectrum, from both endpoints, gets blurred into a single word—“rape”.
That is why I chose those examples. They’re the two endpoints where, from my observations, the entire spectrum of the word “rape” get blurred into one when a large representative group talks about it (or a headline news article gets written).
My motive for this was that when Judge McJudgington’s (really) average rape case (not the one I gave as example) makes the headlines, people thinkof the second example and go all indignant and want the rapist to be punished more than a murderer.
I agree that this dynamic occurs and is extremely irrational. I just think the better solution is to avoid talking about extreme-rape as if it is something that actually occurs.
Many feminists find this dynamic very troubling. When they want to talk about rare prevention, people start talking about how to prevent extreme-rape instead of how to prevent average-rape. Thus, those feminists that I find worth reading (like the pieceI linked) tend to sharply challenge the assertion that extreme-rape occurs with enough frequency to deserve being the focus of attention (or receive any attention at all).
Unfortunately, most discussion about rape turns quickly into advice that is likely (1) already known to any person not currently living under a rock, (2) not a highly effective intervention, and (3) very judgmental. E.g. “Don’t accept drinks from a stranger at a party.” (1) Not exactly new advice to the listener (2) Doesn’t address the social context about other people at the party accepting or endorsing the consequences of skeezy sex (3) Implicitly, is quite judgmental about women even being at parties.
Unfortunately, most discussion about rape turns quickly into advice that is likely … (3) very judgmental. E.g. “Don’t accept drinks from a stranger at a party.”
(3) Implicitly, is quite judgmental about women even being at parties.
There is a point where this kind of re-framing and attribution of intent goes beyond ridiculous and becomes outright dangerous. The advice “Don’t accept drinks from a stranger at a party” is necessary wisdom for people living in the world that is. The same applies to the related personal security knowledge “Don’t walk alone at night in a dark alley” (Well, get a cab, you moron! And on the way, if a stranger offers you candy, don’t get in the van!.
It would be nice if the world was one in which it was not possible for people to have bad things happen to them. But we don’t live in that world. Yet there is a pervasive notion that acknowledging risks and taking precautions is in some way endorsing the need for them. Anyone who tells you to act as if the world is as it should be instead of how it is (on pain of being stigmatised as ‘judgemental’) is acting as an enemy, not an ally—they are sabotaging you.
(1) Not exactly new advice to the listener
That’s great. The cultural transfer of life skills is working as intended. Most instances where things like “look both ways before crossing the road” and “don’t accept drinks from a stranger at a party” are shared should be redundant.
(3) Implicitly, is quite judgmental about women even being at parties.
Wait, so when my mother was telling me this when I was 15, it was implicitly judgmental about women being at parties? (ftr: I’m male and always have been.)
I think the inference here is way too liberal and there’s way too much Find-The-Mysogyny being applied here. The advice is good, and if it happens to be even more important for women because they have the additional possible negative consequence of getting raped (or rather, much higher probability, since men can and do get raped at parties in rare occasions), then all the better for it to be said and applied.
Certain contexts may or may not make certain phrases like that one judgmental, and your experience may or may not show that such contexts usually do so for this particular phrase… but they don’t in my experience.
None of this was aimed as a rebuke to your main point that they can be extremely judgmental.
Your mother told you not to accept drinks from strangers at parties? Do you recall her rationale?
If there were no such chemical as a roofie, would the no-stranger-drinks rule at parties be a good idea?
Edit: Yes, it would be a better if men and women received the instruction equally, instead of the suggestion being directed predominantly towards women.
[the suggestion] was implicitly judgmental about women being at parties?
No, it was implicitly judgmental about the listener being at parties (i.e. your mother was expressing some amount of preference that you not go).
No, it was implicitly judgmental about the listener being at parties (i.e. your mother was expressing some amount of preference that you not go).
This is explicitly contrary to her explicit encouragement that I go to parties more when I was young. I didn’t really go out very often at all.
Your mother told you not to accept drinks from strangers at parties? Do you recall her rationale?
Yes. No. As far as I can recall/tell, it was a simple precaution against getting drugged or poisoned or just getting sick from drinking from a glass that a prankster or otherwise ill-intentioned stranger might have put something in, or even from just getting sick from drinking from a glass that a stranger has also drank from or spit in or whatever.
If there were no such chemical as a roofie, would the no-stranger-drinks rule at parties be a good idea?
I don’t understand the relevance / what you mean. If you mean if there were no harmful drugs or other bad stuff that could be invisibly inserted in drinks, then not particularly (the above reasons would still be valid, but not really worth having such a strong admonition for).
But this feels like asking “If physics never allowed car accidents, would the always-wear-a-seatbelt rule in cars be a good idea?”
Aha. This makes some things clearer for me. Perhaps I can also make some things clearer about my thought process:
The intent behind those two specific examples was to give something that seems only a little bit less bad than Judge McJudgington’s average rape case, and then give something utterly horrible that can fight for headlines with Jack The Ripper.
My motive for this was that when Judge McJudgington’s (really) average rape case (not the one I gave as example) makes the headlines, people thinkof the second example and go all indignant and want the rapist to be punished more than a murderer. Many people on the internets have this model of what “rape” is that matches the extreme example. However, I’ve also noticed that many (feminists and anti-male-apologists seem to come up more often here) others have for model of “rape” the first example, and anything that goes above that they will decry “rape and torture!” in the same way the previous category of people get enraged at the extreme case.
In all those situations, the headline article for Judge McJudgington’s case will cater to both of these groups and try to appeal to their emotions. Thus the entire spectrum, from both endpoints, gets blurred into a single word—“rape”.
That is why I chose those examples. They’re the two endpoints where, from my observations, the entire spectrum of the word “rape” get blurred into one when a large representative group talks about it (or a headline news article gets written).
I agree that this dynamic occurs and is extremely irrational. I just think the better solution is to avoid talking about extreme-rape as if it is something that actually occurs.
Many feminists find this dynamic very troubling. When they want to talk about rare prevention, people start talking about how to prevent extreme-rape instead of how to prevent average-rape. Thus, those feminists that I find worth reading (like the piece I linked) tend to sharply challenge the assertion that extreme-rape occurs with enough frequency to deserve being the focus of attention (or receive any attention at all).
Unfortunately, most discussion about rape turns quickly into advice that is likely (1) already known to any person not currently living under a rock, (2) not a highly effective intervention, and (3) very judgmental. E.g. “Don’t accept drinks from a stranger at a party.”
(1) Not exactly new advice to the listener
(2) Doesn’t address the social context about other people at the party accepting or endorsing the consequences of skeezy sex
(3) Implicitly, is quite judgmental about women even being at parties.
There is a point where this kind of re-framing and attribution of intent goes beyond ridiculous and becomes outright dangerous. The advice “Don’t accept drinks from a stranger at a party” is necessary wisdom for people living in the world that is. The same applies to the related personal security knowledge “Don’t walk alone at night in a dark alley” (Well, get a cab, you moron! And on the way, if a stranger offers you candy, don’t get in the van!.
It would be nice if the world was one in which it was not possible for people to have bad things happen to them. But we don’t live in that world. Yet there is a pervasive notion that acknowledging risks and taking precautions is in some way endorsing the need for them. Anyone who tells you to act as if the world is as it should be instead of how it is (on pain of being stigmatised as ‘judgemental’) is acting as an enemy, not an ally—they are sabotaging you.
That’s great. The cultural transfer of life skills is working as intended. Most instances where things like “look both ways before crossing the road” and “don’t accept drinks from a stranger at a party” are shared should be redundant.
Wait, so when my mother was telling me this when I was 15, it was implicitly judgmental about women being at parties? (ftr: I’m male and always have been.)
I think the inference here is way too liberal and there’s way too much Find-The-Mysogyny being applied here. The advice is good, and if it happens to be even more important for women because they have the additional possible negative consequence of getting raped (or rather, much higher probability, since men can and do get raped at parties in rare occasions), then all the better for it to be said and applied.
Certain contexts may or may not make certain phrases like that one judgmental, and your experience may or may not show that such contexts usually do so for this particular phrase… but they don’t in my experience.
None of this was aimed as a rebuke to your main point that they can be extremely judgmental.
Your mother told you not to accept drinks from strangers at parties? Do you recall her rationale?
If there were no such chemical as a roofie, would the no-stranger-drinks rule at parties be a good idea?
Edit: Yes, it would be a better if men and women received the instruction equally, instead of the suggestion being directed predominantly towards women.
No, it was implicitly judgmental about the listener being at parties (i.e. your mother was expressing some amount of preference that you not go).
This is explicitly contrary to her explicit encouragement that I go to parties more when I was young. I didn’t really go out very often at all.
Yes. No. As far as I can recall/tell, it was a simple precaution against getting drugged or poisoned or just getting sick from drinking from a glass that a prankster or otherwise ill-intentioned stranger might have put something in, or even from just getting sick from drinking from a glass that a stranger has also drank from or spit in or whatever.
I don’t understand the relevance / what you mean. If you mean if there were no harmful drugs or other bad stuff that could be invisibly inserted in drinks, then not particularly (the above reasons would still be valid, but not really worth having such a strong admonition for).
But this feels like asking “If physics never allowed car accidents, would the always-wear-a-seatbelt rule in cars be a good idea?”
Ozy Frantz tried to remedy that on zir blog.