A comment I heard on the radio this morning

[Burney]

if by 'culture' they meant 'masculinity'.

Men touch women's knees, in part, because they are men with uniquely masculine biological traits, often combined with their position in the male-dominated power structure of society. And men also rape women for the same reasons.

The only discussion to be had is what we should do about it.

Once again, much like the Wenger debate, there's not as big a divergence of opinion as people might like to think.

People steal because they want things they don't have. Thus, all theft is part of the same 'culture'.

It doesn't therefore follow, however, that we should treat a child stealing penny chews from Woolworths in the same way we treat someone who mugs grannies for their pension books. That logic serves simply to criminalise the trivial and trivialise the criminal.

[Monty92]

People steal because they want things they don't have. Thus, all theft is part of the same 'culture'.

It doesn't therefore follow, however, that we should treat a child stealing penny chews from Woolworths in the same way we treat someone who mugs grannies for their pension books. That logic serves simply to criminalise the trivial and trivialise the criminal.

Firstly, I obviously agree. Secondly, I don't actually think anyone is suggesting they should be treated the same in any meaningful way. That's a bit of a straw man. No-one thinks a man who touches a woman's knee should be jailed.

A lot of people are pushing back against the idea that hands on knees are trivial because that doesn't tackle the 'culture' of masculinity that we both acknowledge exists. But anyone sane and worth listening to KNOWS it's trivial. The divergence comes when people claim that we need to have a zero tolerance approach to ANY expression of masculine sexuality in ORDER to tackle the more serious stuff.

We both think this is ****ing stupid.

[Burney]

Firstly, I obviously agree. Secondly, I don't actually think anyone is suggesting they should be treated the same in any meaningful way. That's a bit of a straw man. No-one thinks a man who touches a woman's knee should be jailed.

A lot of people are pushing back against the idea that hands on knees are trivial because that doesn't tackle the 'culture' of masculinity that we both acknowledge exists. But anyone sane and worth listening to KNOWS it's trivial. The divergence comes when people claim that we need to have a zero tolerance approach to ANY expression of masculine sexuality in ORDER to tackle the more serious stuff.

We both think this is ****ing stupid.

Men put their hands on women's knees because they fancy them and wish to express the fact - however clumsily. It is not an assault and neither is it particularly traumatic. I'm not saying it's ideal, but it is ultimately pretty trivial. The point is that there has to be a hierarchy of behaviours that acknowledges the triviality of one behaviour in order that we can acknowledge the seriousness of another. To lump all transgressive acts in as suggested does serve to lessen the impact of the more serious ones while blowing the smaller ones out of all proportion.

[Monty92]

Men put their hands on women's knees because they fancy them and wish to express the fact - however clumsily. It is not an assault and neither is it particularly traumatic. I'm not saying it's ideal, but it is ultimately pretty trivial. The point is that there has to be a hierarchy of behaviours that acknowledges the triviality of one behaviour in order that we can acknowledge the seriousness of another. To lump all transgressive acts in as suggested does serve to lessen the impact of the more serious ones while blowing the smaller ones out of all proportion.

I agree entirely

[Burney]

I agree entirely

And that, of course, is why bandying catch-all terms such as 'rape culture' or 'toxic masculinity' around is profoundly unhelpful. As p says, a man who you wish to convince to stop knee-touching is instantly going to cease listening to you when you start lumping him in with rapists or demeaning his entire sex. He will simply - rightly - dismiss you as talking hysterical nonsense.

[Peter]

I agree entirely

Which would suggest that you believe that rape is fuelled by a man's desire to have sex with a particular woman- that they in some way fancy them.

Rape is not about sex, its about control. It is a man asserting his control over a woman, making her subordinate to him. This is the culture; this is the whole crux of the argument; this is why they argue that touching a knee, particularly in a power-imbalance environment, is effectively rape.

[Burney]

Rape is not about sex, its about control.

Hmmm. I think it is a bit about sex.

[Peter]

Hmmm. I think it is a bit about sex.

Its in there somewhere...

[Monty92]

Thanks for that bit of mansplaining, Peter. I am aware that rape is often about control more than anything else.

However, it is also always fuelled by a man's desire to have sex with a woman. Otherwise, if it's not about sex, why don't heterosexual men ever rape other men?

Which would suggest that you believe that rape is fuelled by a man's desire to have sex with a particular woman- that they in some way fancy them.

Rape is not about sex, its about control. It is a man asserting his control over a woman, making her subordinate to him. This is the culture; this is the whole crux of the argument; this is why they argue that touching a knee, particularly in a power-imbalance environment, is effectively rape.

[Ash]

However, it is also always fuelled by a man's desire to have sex with a woman. Otherwise, if it's not about sex, why don't heterosexual men ever rape other men?

I think they do in some places. As an assertion of dominance and power.