I don't exactly know what to make of the 'alienating' possible allies/sympathetic peeps point as I don't see it expanded upon beyond, the implicit goodness of having the sympathy of others.
But I always come back to Pankuhurst in this regard...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_of_tactics#SuffragettesHistorian Trevor Lloyd wrote that "by [1913] the suffragettes were no longer looking for opportunities for martyrdom. They wanted to fight against society."[55] These activities drove away some of their sympathizers, but Pankhurst was unwavering, stating that:
…if you really want to get anything done, it is not so much a matter of whether you alienate sympathy; sympathy is a very unsatisfactory thing if it is not practical sympathy. It does not matter to the practical suffragist whether she alienates sympathy that was never of any use to her. What she wants is to get something practical done, and whether it is done out of sympathy or whether it is done out of fear…doesn't particularly matter so long as you get it. We had enough of sympathy for fifty years; it never brought us anything, and we would rather have an angry man going to the government and saying, my business is interfered with and I won't submit to its being interfered with any longer because you won't give women the vote, than to have a gentleman come onto our platforms year in and year out and talk about his ardent sympathy with woman’s suffrage.[56]
I don't think the term rape culture demonizes all men unless one takes an problematic view of culture as to be perhaps strictly social detereminist and to lose the nuance of the concept.
It would be misandric if one generalized that all men were rapists, but it isn't apparent to me many people actually believe that, the belief is instead different.
Rethinking Rape By Ann J. CahillThe threat of rape, then, is a constitutive and sustained moment in the production of the distinctly feminine body. It is the pervasive danger that renders so much public space off-limits, a danger so omnipresent, in fact, that the "safety zone" women attempt to create rarely exceeds the limits of their own limbs and quite often falls far short of that radius. Women consider their flesh not only weak and breakable, but also violable. The truth inscribed on the woman's body is not that, biologically, all men are potential rapists. It is rather that, biologically, all women are potential rape victims. Note, too, that this bodily inscription may take place without the explicit articulation of the concept of "rape" or the actual experience of sexual assault. Girls especially may know that their bodies are inherently dangerous without being clear as to the precise nature of the danger they present. They may only sense that something very bad and very hurtful will befall them should their surveillance falter, and, correspondingly, that all sorts of social opportunities will be open to them should their project of femininity be successful.9"
The more damning thing is the silence and lack of resistance, silence being inclusive of silencing those that speak out. Which includes both men and women in the sense that both can be silent to crimes.
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/jackson/sex.and.gender/Readings/DownSoLong--Aggression.pdfMale Violence and Male Silence.
None of this implies, or depends on, universal male violence toward women. In modern societies, and probably all others, most men never engage in serious violent acts toward women. But almost all men participate in the pattern of harassment and intimidation with some regularity, and they gain the benefits of women's fear of more violence because men generally tolerate other men's violence toward women. This does not mean that men anywhere practice or condone uncontrolled violence toward women. But it does mean that men have consistently overlooked most minor forms of intimidation practiced by other men, unless their own women were the object of it. Moreover, they have been inconsistent and sluggish about protecting unattached women from unpredictable violence by anonymous men or protecting dependent women from their husbands.
I think it's agreeable the point about due process, in regards to both criminal/civil court cases and in regards to not being fired unlawfully.
No one should be losing their job frivolously, even when such laws to protect people do exist, they do not safeguard many for substantive reasons.
But regardless of due process, public opinion seems to hang people or not regardless because it's in the social space. Even being found innocent in a court of law doesn't mitigate the social perception of many seeing a guilty person (ie OJ Simpson). So there will be some social repercussions regardless of the state of an allegation.
And it is the case that many of these folks with some money could sue on the assertion of false allegations.
Brett Ratner Sues Woman for Libel Over Facebook Post Alleging Rape[url=Gaslamp Killer Sues Rape Accusers for Defamation]https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/gaslamp-killer-sues-rape-accusers-for-defamation-w511699[/url]
And seems one can even sue for being told that one's allegation is false
Rapper Nelly sued for claiming rape allegation was falseI'm guessing that when one sues though, asserting someone made false allegations, it isn't with standards of evidence as in a criminal case because it's suing, so civil courts, which means they just have to prove the falsity to a lower standard, which seems to be an advantage if one attempted to clear their name some that way.
I think there are legitimate points and fears in reaction to particular cases, but I think they all fall flat as long as the issue of sexual violence itself isn't resolved. They simply repeat themselves because the same problem remains, and so when it bubbles up into public space, one repeats history.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/For%20Ethical%20Politics.pdf#page90
-For Ethical Politics
- By Unthinking Majority
- By FiveofSwords
- By Tainari88
- By Pants-of-dog