

Sexual assault, and why men don't get it - araneae
http://lepid0ptera.livejournal.com/78344.html

======
dkarl
First point: the entire post rests on invoking a double standard. Imagine how
it would feel if it was your daughter... in some parts of the world a raped
woman's life is ruined.... Um, bad intro, really bad intro. Sure, the idea
that any kind of sexual experience devalues a woman shapes a woman's
experience of sexual assault. However, asking men to get in touch with their
patriarchal, proprietary attitudes toward women's sexuality is not a good way
to further a discussion about sexual assault. Leading into my second point....

Second point: the male response to a story of rape is really their response to
an imagined scenario in which they're falsely accused of rape. This says a lot
about men's difficulty identifying with women. They find it easier to identify
with the man in the story, even though he's the villain and acted in a way
they never would. Since they're unable to identify with the woman, they
identify themselves with the man, and since they themselves are not sexual
predators, they imagine a scenario in which they have been accused of rape
because of an innocent mistake.

Naturally they recognize this is different from the original story, but they
are so unable to empathize with the female protagonist that the alternative
story they conjured, in which the man is a victim, is much more compelling to
them. They _know_ it's a different story, but it's so scary and real to them
that they simply _must_ discuss it. The original story of rape is so unreal to
them that they simply push it aside.

This lack of empathy for victims of rape is what needs to be overcome so that
men can have a more evenhanded response to stories like this. Instead of
asking men to imagine themselves as a patriarch whose honor and property have
been marred, ask them to imagine themselves _as a woman_. Ask them to put
themselves in the place of a woman and imagine the experience of a man shoving
his hand into their pants and groping them.

Empathizing with women does not come naturally for men, so men need to
practice and take a self-conscious, self-critical approach (as anyone would
when attempting to empathize with someone different from themselves.) They
need to be careful to balance their perception of the story. They should not
automatically replace the man in the story with themselves and let that
perspective define their response. If they easily imagine the man's point of
view and feel the intense emotions they would feel in his place, they should
work until they can imagine the woman's point of view and feel her emotions
just as vividly. Women can assist by describing a woman's experience.
Actually, I would say that guidance is essential, and men should pay close
attention. There's no lack of material available; we must simply avail
ourselves of it.

Again, it's the woman's experience that we should focus on. It's a bad idea to
invoke the brother's or father's response. Sure, every guy can imagine the
sense of shame, violation, and powerlessness they would feel about their
sister or daughter being raped -- feelings that may be analogous to the shame,
violation, and powerlessness felt by a rape victim -- but the fear in the
heart of every loving high school boyfriend approaching the door of his
girfriend's house betrays the assumption that his girlfriend's brother or
father would be similarly outraged by the idea of her having consensual sex.
The brother's or father's outrage does not depend on empathy and may be in
contradiction to the woman's own feelings. In this day and age, their reaction
seems pathetic and ridiculous, an atavistic twitch.

So the empathy must be with the woman herself. To have a balanced response to
the story, a man must identify with the woman as easily as with the man, and
should not simply project himself on the man but instead realize that the man
might have behaved in a way that they themselves would not. Until that is
achieved, men will respond to a very different story than the one told.

~~~
logic
Your second point, I think, too easily dismisses the fears men have.

Lacking evidence which suggests the guilty party, we are left to our own
natural sympathies. Women may have more sympathy for the narrative of a woman
assaulted, men may identify more with the story of a man falsely accused.

These are both perfectly natural responses, _as long as we recognize our
personal biases_ , and can accept evidence which contradicts them when it
becomes available. I can't see how it is productive to undermine either point
of view: they are both legitimate emotional responses.

~~~
dkarl
_they are both legitimate emotional responses_

... and people of both sexes should strive to feel both responses, instead of
reacting solely from the perspective that comes naturally to them.

------
logic
There seems to be a bit of "talking past each other" going on here, because
nobody is stopping to consider the real motivations involved. In particular,
while I think lepid0ptera has defined her side of the discussion well, I think
she may have completely misunderstood a strong motivator on the other.

Many responses on one side have been along the lines of "that kind of behavior
is reprehensible, but we have no idea if it happened here without an impartial
inquiry", perhaps going so far as to suggest that she was irresponsible to
name him publicly.

Responses on the other end of the spectrum have echoed the idea they
understand how horrible the experience was, because they've either experienced
something like this themselves, or know someone personally who has; again,
many going so far as to applaud her bravery in both coming forward and being
willing to name her assailant.

Consider perspectives.

One side is terrified of the idea of an assault like this (either on
themselves, or on a loved one), which informs their view of the situation.
They put themselves in the shoes of a potential victim, they empathize, they
appreciate the emotional and potentially physical harm that could occur. This
gives their reaction to a post like the one made earlier essential context:
they believe a woman was attacked, with no witnesses, leaving her in a
uniquely helpless situation that she'll relive in her mind for the rest of her
life, but at least she has the courage to name the man who did this to her.

The other side is terrified of the idea of being falsely accused (either
themselves directly, or someone they care about). An accusation of sexual
assault can end careers, take away essential freedoms, mark them for life in
both a professional and personal context. They empathize with another possible
victim here: someone falsely accused. This also gives their reaction essential
context; they are watching someone's career and personal life dragged through
the mud, accusations and discussion threads that will live online in
perpetuity for future employers and lovers to see regardless of the outcome
forcing them to relive this experience for the rest of their lives, without
any kind of due process for the accused.

I think it would do everyone good to take a deep breath, try very hard to set
aside their own prejudices, and understand why the other side is reacting the
way they are. I'd like to think, especially here, that most participants are
trying to act in good faith. Perhaps a little perspective would help.

------
TomOfTTB
I'm sorry but this whole discussion has been beyond obnoxious as far as I'm
concerned. It started with people taking one drunk jack ass and extrapolating
that to slander the whole male tech community and now we have someone taking
one insensitive comment and extrapolating it to slander all of HN (the other
comment she quotes just pointed out it would have been a better idea to go to
the police)

Does the author really believe anyone in their right mind would think it was
ok for a man to stick his hand down a woman's pants uninvited?

~~~
xentronium

        Does the author really believe anyone in their 
        right mind would think it was ok for a man to 
        stick his hand down a woman's pants uninvited?
    

That.

Even more, she cites a comment which really explains everything:

    
    
        I'll probably get downvoted for asking, 
        but I'm curious, would everyone be as upset 
        over this had it been a drunken female guest
        inappropriately grabbing a guy's package? And 
        if the male blogger had then written a similar 
        blog about being sexually assaulted at a party, 
        naming the female who grabbed him?
    
        I'm not endorsing this sort of behavior obviously, 
        but the public shaming element here seems fairly
        twisted. If a sexual assault occurred she should go
        to the police about it and press charges. 
        Not start an internet witch hunt.
    
    
    

You feel ashamed? You're getting abused? Go to police and social services for
god sake.

------
grovulent
I don't pretend to know what it's like to be a woman - nor really how
situations like this are to be resolved positively for both parties.

However, one thing that strikes/confuses me is that while some women may wish
to paint the current poor girl's reaction as some kind of universal truth -
I've heard of zillions of yarns where it went exactly the other way... i.e.
the guy and girl end up having a night of great sex because he was bold enough
to go all in (pun a little bit intended).

This schism in results tells me that only one thing can be known for sure. If
you're going to go stampeding for the crotch, make sure you've picked a girl
that's up for it. Don't know how to pick such a lady? Don't know if you know
how to pick such a lady?

Buy her flowers then... and we can all be spared these excruciating
discussions on a place where we'd all feel much more comfortable chatting
about code.

~~~
cowpewter
I think it can definitively be said that if you kiss a girl and she shoves you
off and tells you she's not interested that she's not 'up for it'.

------
noonespecial
All good points. Men really _don't_ get this issue from the female
perspective.

But umm, showing up on a male dominated board, picking a few admittedly lame
comments and then busting on the entire group for their cluelessness?

I also saw a great deal of support for Noirin, a great deal of concern for the
state of the tech community and some really good discussion on how the problem
might actually be fixed.

There exists an enormous asymmetry in power between men and women when it
comes to sex, and so it generates equally large asymmetry in consequence when
it comes to accusing men of misdeeds. This causes a great deal of fear and
mistrust from both sides, which leads to huge differences in perspective.
(Sorry to go Yoda there) To say this causes lively debate is somewhat of an
understatement.

------
Lewisham
I think the talking past each other is largely because the argument was
polarized before it begun:

 _Women_ \- Think men don't understand the seriousness of sexual assault, know
women who've been victims

 _Men_ \- Think there are women who cry wolf on sexual assault, know men
who've been victims of that

...and so we inevitably reach this cross-talk where men are saying "where's
the proof?" or "innocent until proven guilty" (which is largely what I saw
from HN), and women are responding with "why aren't you treating this
seriously?"

Drunken louts are not just a feature of tech conferences, they're everywhere.
It is only coincidental that the last time I told a guy to "shut the fuck up
and leave. Now." was at an academic conference after he made some particularly
offensive comments to a married woman. I think most men are aware of thing
like this, and do what we can.

HN attracts a more thoughtful/passive/insensitive (depending on point of view)
approach to most things, so the "innocent until proven guilty" line seemed to
be the general vibe I got from the commentary. I think that's the most even-
handed such an issue can get.

------
nailer
Does anyone have a cache of the article?

<http://blog.nerdchic.net/archives/418/> is down, and I'd rather read whatever
happened directly from one side than from a third party.

Edit: relevant part (they're at a pub):

 _"And then I went to the loo, and as I was about to go in, (name), who had
been speaking in the Hadoop track, called me over, and asked if he could talk
to me.

I’m on the board of Apache. I’m responsible for our conferences. I work on
community development and mentoring. If you’re at an Apache event and you want
help, information, encouragement, answers, I will always do my best to
provide. So this wasn’t an unusual request, and it wasn’t one I expected to
end the way it did.

He brought me in to the snug, and sat up on a stool. He grabbed me, pulled me
in to him, and kissed me. I tried to push him off, and told him I wasn’t
interested (I may have been less eloquent, but I don’t think I was less
clear). He responded by jamming his hand into my underwear and fumbling."_

OK I'm going to agree with the author here (assuming this is true). If you're
escalating without complaint, there's nothing wrong with putting your hands
down a woman's pants. If she's indicated she's not interested though, it's
being an asshole.

~~~
cowpewter
Someone pasted the content of the post in the other thread:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1875865>

------
nkurz
Lepid0ptera ---

A think you may be concentrating on a different subset of the commentary than
I am. I see a lot of different viewpoints:

1) Wondering if we should trust only one side's account without knowing all
the details.

2) Wondering if she's being irresponsible by _not_ escalating it to a police
matter.

3) And yes, wondering if she's making too much of a deal about nothing.

I'm most interested in the second. I feel like she's getting push back from
people who feel that by trying to handle the matter herself, she's not
properly adopting the socially acceptable role as a passive victim. I think
you might miscounting some of these responses as being in the dismissive
category when they are actually something else.

Or maybe I'm miscounting the 3's as 2's. Or maybe I'm misconstruing her
response as being extra-legal --- for all I know, she's decided to file
charges AND name names. In any case, I find the HN discussion more useful than
silence, and better than most of the internet discussions I see elsewhere.
Certainly a greater variety of viewpoints would be help this process. You're
bold and write well --- if you're not already here, come and join us rather
than pointing out the lack of diversity from afar.

------
DjDarkman
> It hurts and is potentially embarrassing and SCARY, because it is a prelude
> to rape,

Agreed. It is also highly unprofessional.

> which in turn is a prelude to death and/or babies

I think this is a little bit over the top, there are short-term birth control
pills and most rapist do not kill their victim, and this is no longer the
case:

> Fathers have killed daughters for getting raped, husbands have killed or
> abandoned their wives for getting raped.

Accusing someone with rape has been used as a weapon for a long time now, I
don't think it's that surprising, that a lot of people are skeptic.

------
xentronium

        I am 25 years old, and I have had sex with 50 people.
    

Dunno, why, but I find that really, really amusing. Because, you know, men are
filthy animals, right?

~~~
ugh
I accidentally upvoted you. It goes without saying that the disgusting crap
you wrote there should be downvoted.

(Edit: And now I don’t get why I’m being downvoted. What’s in any way amusing
about having sex with 50 people? Sex is fun and sex is normal, why shouldn’t
everyone have as much as he or she wants to? She never said that men are
filthy animals if they have a lot of sex. She never said that she ever
assaulted anyone – that’s what she criticizes, not sex. Sex is not the same as
assault. I thought that was obvious.)

~~~
anigbrowl
I'm not disgusted. The irony is that the essayist seems to be assuming all men
are sex-hungry primitives, and 'keeping score' is exactly the sort of thing
that makes male chauvinists so annoying. Although her points are completely
legitimate, they're obscured by the generalizations and condescending tone.

~~~
nkurz
For what it's worth, she goes on in the comments to point out that some
significant number of those 50 were not men. Seeing that she consciously chose
the inclusive '50 people' rather than '50 men', I think you may be reading
something into the essay that was not intended.

~~~
anigbrowl
I never assumed she was talking about 50 men, nor do I see what difference it
would make. It's the scorekeeping style that struck me as absurd in this
context.

~~~
nkurz
My apologies then. I wasn't sure if your response was directed at the original
or the edit, and apparently I was wrong. The original didn't strike me as
focused on scorekeeping.

~~~
anigbrowl
No need to apologize, everyone has a unique perspective on issues like these.

------
johnl87
I kind of stopped reading at the 50 dudes in 5 years part. She pretty much
lost all credibility at that sentence.

------
lokeshverma
This is bad :(

