How Dare I Speak The Truth--posted by Tony Garcia on 11/01/2012
Earlier today I saw a ranting post about abortion. I was trying to turn over a new leaf and not cross mediums (eg bringing Facebook onto blog or email/chat into blog). But this person's horrifically broken logic is so frightening that I needed it out there to demonstrate why the debate only continues to devolve.
I try not to get too political on Facebook, but does someone have to publicly say something like this once a week now? Like I've said before, I would feel a whole lot better about this position if there was ANY attention paid toward ending rape and rape culture. But, frankly, until someone from the republican party says he or she is going to at least ATTEMPT to look at policies that would protect women from this brutal violence, I don't want to hear one more thing about ending a woman's right to reclaim her personal freedoms.That was followed up with a comment by the same author.
I know this is going really far out on a limb here, but I would love to hear a man that's experienced rape and knows the degradation and powerlessness that haunts a survivor talk about it with other men that clearly don't have a clue. It feels to me that if these political candidates can publicly call rape, "legitimate rape," "the rape thing" and "force-able rape" without shame or fear, and without any kind of recognition of how they might be minimizing and discounting the experiences of women who have survived sexual violence, then they're already past the point of being able to really hear and empathize with a woman's point of view. (Emphasis added)I responded only with "Absolutely disagree".
The very premise of the person's original position is deeply flawed. "If rape exists then all abortion must be available." Mind you, this person is pro-abortion and very much anti-fetus rights (not trying to alter the labels of the debate, just trying to keep the labels for this person as accurate as possible). I disagree with the very premise of the post.
I disagree with the comment as well. Unless I am missing something, the implication is that men who have been raped need to educate men who have not before the have nots can formulate their own opinion. This is an oft repeated statement in the abortion debate, that some class of people (usually all males, or all males who are anti-abortion) should not be listened to because they are not a part of the other class (usually women, or pro-abortion people). This is a ridiculous expectation of discussion. To put this kind of exclusion on a public law issue is irresponsible.
Imagine, only rich people are allowed to discuss tax policies for the wealthy. Only landowners can discuss tax levies. Only business owners can discuss labor laws. Only people who have been brutalized by police can have an opinion on police brutality laws.
Why did I comment, though? Because the person claims to be "open for discussing hot topics" and "able to have mature discussions" and is "a moderate". Deep down I have never believed any of those claims, but I could only take them at their word. I offered only that I disagreed and right away I received a chat request. Why in chat? To prevent the appearance of disagreement in public. The chat was brief. The thing that ended it was me saying that some women make it up.
Person: they think women make it up.(Emphasis added)To which I replied (brace yourself, it is highly offensive): "Some women do".
So maybe it would be great for a man that has experienced it to talk about it publicly.
You are misreading this in a profound way.
Me: no, but me not being raped does not mean i have not abillity to think about the issue critically, have an opinion on it and dare to say that women could be not on the same page
"...and empathize with a woman's point of view" implies that the woman's POV is of higher regard on the matter.
Person: Okay, but you haven't called it "the rape thing" "legitimate rape" implying that there is illegitimate rape, and "forceable rape" implying that woman are making up their claims.
The response? "I have to go...I can't talk about this with you."
Of course they could not talk about it. Their moral high ground was being challenged. Of course they could not talk about it. Those who often profess the ability to handle discussions usually cannot. Of course they could not talk about it. Those who preach the requirement of others to be tolerant are often the least tolerant people around...and this is no exception.
***** UPDATE (edited) *****
Not that it really matters, but I find it comical that the person unfriended me on Facebook (oh gasp) within minutes. Wait, that is not the comical part. Then 2 hours later sent a friend request...after dragging a loved one into the mix. This coward keeps putting loved ones on the spot about my beliefs instead of leaving them out of it (since the loved ones do not like to be in these discussions) and coming straight to the source, me. Coward.
***** UPDATE 2 *****
The person in question upheld my every assessment of their character. Like a coward, when the going to tough she ran away. The shame is not only how badly she is fooling herself about who she is (thinking she is a tolerant person of differences in people, thinking she is open-minded and thinking she treats people fairly--these characteristics only exist from them when she doesn't care about the topic you disagree on OR if you unless you agree with her). The pitiful part is that for someone who thinks she puts a high value on a friendship she was abysmally disrespectful to me for so long (which I endured because my loved one highly valued their friendship) and was so quick to split when she finally found a topic that I voiced disagreement with her on.
The truth is that this person has been sending litmus tests about me to others. "He doesn't really believe that? No? Good." I recognize this and have seen it often. It always comes from self-proclaimed "open-minded" people who preach to others about their moral obligation to be tolerant and usually is accompanied by a woefully off-the-mark claim of being a moderate. If you were to bet a mortgage on those people you know eventually tucking and running you would win many a mortgage payments. This person was no exception. Disagreement was frowned on. Opposing viewpoints were openly mocked in parties, parties that would otherwise be politics-free.
The person was nice otherwise. It is only that when it came to current events there was no room for tolerance of other viewpoints, there was some of the most passive-aggressive behaviors seen and disrespect sometimes would bleed into other areas. I take that back...current events and sports were the topics that had to be avoided because there was little tolerance, if any at all, given to non-conforming views.
While this whole drama was (1) predicted by me a couple months ago, and (2) a perfect example of how fickle the person is, the best example (and the confirmation to me of the true character of this person) came a couple of days before the Giants second Super Bowl victory over the Patriots. It was a simple and direct message on Facebook saying that if the Patriots lose, anyone who even speaks of the game to her in any fashion will be unfriended and she will never speak to those people again. She reiterated shortly after that that she was not joking. That was the day I knew the true nature of her "tolerance", "open-mindedness" and sense of equality...for if they had won there would be lots of talk about the game from her.
The person is somewhat outraged that text from Facebook was quoted. It seems in their vast knowledge of the stuff they judge others on they don't know that Facebook has been deemed by courts to be public information. [facepalm].
Frankly, I am sad for the loved ones who valued their relationship with this person. I am neither surprised by the turn of events (like I said, I predicted exactly this a while ago after a get together at a friend's that was moving out of country) nor am I bothered. On the surface she was very pleasant and inviting. So long as things were good for her she was there to listen. I don't know of anytime she was physically "there" to help, but I know for quite some time I did not include her on the list of people to ask. On the surface she was friendly and caring. But I have known what it would take to maintain a deeper relationship, a close friendship, with her. It would take us lying to her about our beliefs, joining her in the mocking of people that are of like mind to us, agreeing with her on everything. And, of course, that would be the antithesis of a close friendship. That is why she & I were not able to be close. It is why I feel pity for this person. How can you find truly enlightening friendships when you are so obtuse towards tolerance? If no one is able to do anything more than stroke your ego and not challenge your mind you will never grow the mind. And this person is in that pitfall.
If someone does not know how to weather a storm then they are not able to be a good friend, a close friend or even a friend that can be counted on...ever.
***** UPDATE 3 *****
I had to take drastic steps to stop the stalking by these people. I kind of hoped that when they protested about being called a coward for, among other things, continually going to a third party to ask what my responses are that they would instead come to me directly. Nope. I kind of thought that when they said they were done with me that their trolling and attempts to cause trouble in our lives would end. Nope. I noticed their IP addresses were still hitting here and finally had to take steps that I didn't even take amidst death threats: I implemented a script to block their IDs. Turns out that they want to control other's content, thoughts and beliefs. All while calling themselves "open minded" and "tolerant" and "fair"...the only question is do they know they are full of it or have they projected the lie so well that they are convinced it is true?