Is Feminism Still Relevant? - Page 24 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-03-2013, 09:32 PM   #346
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeevey View Post
The interesting thing about the slurs you mention, Jive, is that they are not specifically related to sex as part of your identity, and they don't imply someone else's access to your body the way slut and whore do. There's quite a lot loaded into those little words that male or gender neutral slurs do not. They make you feel vulnerable in ways the fuckface and dickhead do not.
Well you can go ahead and add "cock sucker" and the phrase "I just fucked your ass" to my list. Not sexual enough for you?

Quote:

It's true that gaming is a very sexist subculture, but internet trolling can be and is done by anyone. The anonymity of the internet allows for what's called dissociative anonymity- a security that your real identity is not known and you literally take on another one. It's the same phenomenon that allows for a huge range of surprising people to be collectors child porn. Once people start getting outed it's pretty devastating, because they really rely on that safety. Even the famous reddit troll Violentacrez was devastated when he was outed, and insisted that really he's a good guy.
People were collecting child porn before the internet, so I'm not sure what that has to do with it.
Are you implying that the anonymity of the internet brings out people's true selves? There's no proof in that. Especially when it comes to trolling. People will say anything to get a rise out of you. It has nothing to do with bringing out the troll's true feelings. It has everything to do with upsetting the person they're interacting with. They find your buttons (usually fairly easy to find) and they press them. Just have a look in 4chan to see them all rolling in their own shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeevey View Post
Going back now to the other parts of my sweeping assertions, part 2- women are targeted for violence based on sex.

There is lots and lots of male violence in the world. Guys hurt and kill each other for all sorts of reasons. But when women are victims it is very often on the basis of her sex- rape and domestic violence.

85% of domestic violence victims are women. Almost one third of female homicide victims are killed by an intimate parter, as compared to 3% of men. http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticV...ational%29.pdf In 70-80% of intimate partner homicides, no matter which partner was killed, the man physically abused the woman before the murder. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics state that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and 99% of arrestees for rape are male. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOO.PDF

As for the protection women receive, that's actually the easiest part of the whole thing. In the US 23 states have hate crime laws protecting race, relgion and ethncity from hate crimes, but only 13 list gender. http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/combat...crime_laws.pdf

Gender was added to the federal list of protected groups in 2009, in the same bill that added sexual orientation and gender identity. Civil Rights Division Home Page. However, rape and sexual assault are not classified as hate crimes, even then they include group-specific slurs which would trigger a hate crime investigation if the word was kike instead of whore. Sigh.
While these statistics are not in any way comforting, your whole argument that women are not protected in the ways minorities are hinges on an illogical premise; that without the phrase 'hate' attached to the crime, there is no protection. That's like saying the law doesn't protect white people. Why the need to have the word 'hate' attached here anyway? It seems from this post and from many previous, you're more interested in defining things than spending your energy more usefully
"whore" doesn't signify a hate crime any more than "dickhead" or "cocksucker" do. The whole premise of hate crimes is flawed to begin with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeevey View Post
Interesting question. Not all domestic assaults are "hate crimes" because gays do experience domestic violence at similar rates to straights. You are right in that all rapes relate to dominance and control, which is why male rape seems to be concentrated in high authority cultures with intense competition for social status- prison and are the military are easy examples.
Or maybe male rape occurs in prison and the military because they have no other outlet for their sexual aggression.

Quote:

But are all male on female rapes hate crimes?

For what other reason do men rape women, other than that they feel entitled to because she is a woman? She has a hole, and it can and should be fucked. Sometimes the rapee is a proxy for the person a rapist is really mad at, sometimes she's a representative of how he feels about all women. Sometimes he's demonstrating his masculinity for other men, sometimes he's expressing his own frustration at the complexities of gender relations (what one pair of researchers has charmingly called an "alternative mating strategy" Why men want to rape | General | Times Higher Education) But the thing they all have in common is that they take sexual access to a woman's body without her consent because it is a woman's body.

And how is that different from feeling entitled to beat up a gay man because he is gay, or lynch a black man because he is black?
Rape is not analogous with lynching a black man or beating up a gay man. They are fundamentally different

Quote:

One thing we could use is a masculinity thread, because the common link in most rapes and other violent crimes is that they are very disproportionately committed by men. That doesn't mean that men are inherently violent, because not all men are violent, and in some cultures they are far less than in others. I think what we really have is a problem with the way we socialize men. Masculinity is tightly linked to dominance, control- the ability to force one's will on others and not be influenced by them. That's not to say all men do all those things all the time, but they face a very strong narrative about it. That's one reason why rape is so devastating for male victims- because it strikes right at their sense of being a man. Just like in Jive's Chappelle link- it's a hundred times better to let your wife think you have been intentionally fucking other women, than to let her know that you've been physically dominated and invaded by a man.
I didn't link to a Chappelle joke (I don't think I did at least)
I like that you think you've got men all figured out. I suppose if you're to justify laying the blame at our feet for all your woes, it helps thinking that way



Quote:
Originally Posted by jeevey View Post
It's interesting that people feel the things we've been discussing- gender portrayal in the media, mutual pleasure and rape culture, have no bearing on whether feminism is still relevant. To me that the fact these issues exist and that we still have to discuss whether they are important, is evidence that it is.
We can at least agree here. The discussion more or less lead here organically, so let it be
__________________

__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2013, 09:36 PM   #347
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 02:27 PM
I'm also defending pretty much everything BVS has said thus far (*gasp*)
__________________

__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2013, 09:37 PM   #348
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 02:27 PM
Here's a funny joke with rape as the punchline

__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2013, 09:52 PM   #349
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
jeevey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Rue St. Divine
Posts: 4,095
Local Time: 03:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post


Rape is not analogous with lynching a black man or beating up a gay man. They are fundamentally different

How?
__________________
jeevey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2013, 10:09 PM   #350
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeevey View Post
How?
Fair question. I was hoping to get by on laziness.
Because by definition (if we ignore man on man rape, which we can both agree is in the vast minority of cases and usually occurs when a female isn't an option) you need a penis and a vagina (ok, maybe not exactly, but a male part and one of a few lady parts) for a rape to occur. A women isn't necessarily being raped because the man hates women, she's being raped because she possesses the parts necessary. She's a means to an end, not a scapegoat. It's on a fundamentally different level (and if we want to get uncomfortable about it, a level that was, at some point in our species' history, a viable option for propagating our genetics). Beating the shit out of a gay person serves no other purpose
I'm sure I've done a horrible job articulating that, but maybe I'll take another stab at it later. Or maybe you can see through my horrible job to the gist of what I mean
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2013, 10:57 PM   #351
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeevey View Post
They all have to do with the belief that men control the behavior, and in particular the bodies and sexuality of women. Those are in contrast to any of the things a man might ordinarily kill a man for- because she stiffed him on a drug deal, slept with his mother, got into a bar fight with him or cut him off in traffic, for example. Those ones really have nothing to do with gender.
No, not one single one has to do with the belief that men control anything.

Quote:
nagging him
People get annoyed or angered when anyone nags them, be it a mother, boss, or a friend. How you deal with it is the issue, but it has absolutely nothing to do with a belief that you control someone.
Quote:
sleeping with someone else
Any breach of a contract, commitment, agreement or understanding is going to hurt, anger, or cause loss. Unless you have an open relationship, this will cause any human being a number of emotions.
Quote:
leaving him
See above ^
Quote:
taking the kids
This one I would think is obvious.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2013, 11:05 PM   #352
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 02:27 PM
That kind of reasoning is like saying that anyone who kills another motorist for cutting him off, driving too slow, stealing his parking spot, etc must be doing it out of hate for drivers. All you're doing is cherry picking problems that could only really occur between couples and slapping the ol' misogyny label on it. It's a weak argument.
All of the things listed could've been (and no doubt have been) reasons for a women to kill her husband. I certainly wouldn't expect a reflex misandry label to be slapped on that (dare I say it, I might expect to see some defense for her actions)
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2013, 11:22 PM   #353
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
jeevey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Rue St. Divine
Posts: 4,095
Local Time: 03:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
No, not one single one has to do with the belief that men control anything.


People get annoyed or angered when anyone nags them, be it a mother, boss, or a friend. How you deal with it is the issue, but it has absolutely nothing to do with a belief that you control someone.

Any breach of a contract, commitment, agreement or understanding is going to hurt, anger, or cause loss. Unless you have an open relationship, this will cause any human being a number of emotions.

See above ^

This one I would think is obvious.

The common factor in all these things is that batters believe that women deserve violence for these things.

Batters often express the feeling that they are the ones being victimized- by the woman's failure to keep a clean house, act right to his friends, prevent him from losing his temper, have sex when he wants it, reassure his jealousy and prove her love over and over. She is responsible for managing his emotions, not him. It's her fault- she makes him do it. If he didn't beat her, she'd never clean up the house, she'd embarrass him in front of his friends. She shames him by leaving him, and he deserves to have her back by virtue of the fact that he wants her back. It's her duty. It's a sense that he owns her and he is responsible for making her do things- he keeps her in line in the way a retrograde dog owner does a puppy. He also owns the children.

Among mature people, the things I mention are a cause for anger, contention, fights- for sure. But they are only cause for violence when one person assumes a superiority and a right to control, to punish. You cannot punish a peer. Violent (straight) relationships predicate a non-peer relationship that is very explicitly based on gender.

Have you ever been close with a woman who has been in an abusive relationship? Because these things you find incomprehensible are absolutely undeniable to anyone who has seen them.
__________________
jeevey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2013, 11:32 PM   #354
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeevey View Post
The common factor in all these things is that batters believe that women deserve violence for these things.

Batters often express the feeling that they are the ones being victimized- by the woman's failure to keep a clean house, act right to his friends, prevent him from losing his temper, have sex when he wants it, reassure his jealousy and prove her love over and over. She is responsible for managing his emotions, not him. It's her fault- she makes him do it. If he didn't beat her, she'd never clean up the house, she'd embarrass him in front of his friends. She shames him by leaving him, and he deserves to have her back by virtue of the fact that he wants her back. It's her duty. It's a sense that he owns her and he is responsible for making her do things- he keeps her in line in the way a retrograde dog owner does a puppy. He also owns the children.

Among mature people, the things I mention are a cause for anger, contention, fights- for sure. But they are only cause for violence when one person assumes a superiority and a right to control, to punish. You cannot punish a peer. Violent (straight) relationships predicate a non-peer relationship that is very explicitly based on gender.

Have you ever been close with a woman who has been in an abusive relationship? Because these things you find incomprehensible are absolutely undeniable to anyone who has seen them.
It seems in your quest to prove that all violence against women is misogynistic, you've unwittingly tapered your qualifications into the narrow definition of a wife beater. You can have it
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2013, 11:57 PM   #355
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeevey View Post
The common factor in all these things is that batters believe that women deserve violence for these things.

Batters often express the feeling that they are the ones being victimized- by the woman's failure to keep a clean house, act right to his friends, prevent him from losing his temper, have sex when he wants it, reassure his jealousy and prove her love over and over. She is responsible for managing his emotions, not him. It's her fault- she makes him do it. If he didn't beat her, she'd never clean up the house, she'd embarrass him in front of his friends. She shames him by leaving him, and he deserves to have her back by virtue of the fact that he wants her back. It's her duty. It's a sense that he owns her and he is responsible for making her do things- he keeps her in line in the way a retrograde dog owner does a puppy. He also owns the children.
A LOT of assumptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeevey View Post
Among mature people, the things I mention are a cause for anger, contention, fights- for sure. But they are only cause for violence when one person assumes a superiority and a right to control, to punish. You cannot punish a peer. Violent (straight) relationships predicate a non-peer relationship that is very explicitly based on gender.
BUT, we're not talking about mature balanced people. The example was of someone who shot another person. But stop assuming this is about superiority and feeling the right to control, there is absolutely no evidence of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeevey View Post
Have you ever been close with a woman who has been in an abusive relationship? Because these things you find incomprehensible are absolutely undeniable to anyone who has seen them.
Why yes I have. And it took time and/ or therapy in order for them to stop assuming or lumping.

Have I mentioned finding anything incomprehensible? Or are you assuming again?
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 06:01 AM   #356
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
jeevey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Rue St. Divine
Posts: 4,095
Local Time: 03:27 PM
What I'm trying to point out is that when violence is between men and women, control and sex are very tightly linked, using batterers as an example. Rape and sexual assault against women is very often justified in some way by the perpetrator by the fact that she is a woman.

John Gottman wrote a fascinating book called When Men Batter Women, that was the first lab study of battering couples. Those assumptions are borne out by research.

Do you really feel that violence between couples is not about control, and that control within the relationship is not linked to gender?
__________________
jeevey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 07:32 AM   #357
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 02:27 PM
Books Part V, featuring Benny Profane and the Whole Sick Crew
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 08:10 AM   #358
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeevey View Post
What I'm trying to point out is that when violence is between men and women, control and sex are very tightly linked, using batterers as an example.
In the case of a batterer, yes you are right, except until now we weren't talking about violence between couples. The example of the shooting wasn't originally framed as a couple, you did that, and even in that case it wouldn't necessarily be about gender or control if there was no history of violence prior to the incident that triggered the shooting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeevey View Post
Rape and sexual assault against women is very often justified in some way by the perpetrator by the fact that she is a woman.
This does not ring true with a lot of the evidence out there. I think you are trying to lump the motivations behind rape and spousal abuse together, but often they are going to be very different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeevey View Post
Do you really feel that violence between couples is not about control, and that control within the relationship is not linked to gender?
Yes, and if you wanted to keep things on topic and about sexism; violence between couples is what you should have been talking about rather than rape. You got to the point where you were trying to lump all violence perpetrated against women under the same umbrella of sexism, and that just doesn't work.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 08:56 AM   #359
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
jeevey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Rue St. Divine
Posts: 4,095
Local Time: 03:27 PM
I think the principle extends beyond couples. Very often rape occurs because a man believes he is justified in taking control of a woman's body- his claims to it override her autonomy. That's whether he knows her or not. The Stubenville case is a great example. The perpatrators didn't have any sort of vendetta against the girl. She didn't antagonize them, there was no social aggression. One boy was under the impression that she wanted him. And when she was no longer capable of saying yes or no, they just thought it would be really fun to stage a massive scene of sexual humiliation- that they had a right to decide what happened to her. That's misogyny.

Jive, your arguement there verges into rape apology territory. It assumes that men need a sexual outlet, and that rape is just something they do to meet that need. And men do rape men when women are an option. Most boy-rapists are straight men. Jerry Sandusky had access to women. Priests can always take off the collar and go to a bar, and have the same access to prostitutes as everybody else. Men rape when they want to assert control, to shame and to silence.

Are you really comfortable implying than rape is a basic male coping strategy? And what then about the responsibility to not rape?
__________________
jeevey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 09:26 AM   #360
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 03:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeevey View Post
I think the principle extends beyond couples. Very often rape occurs because a man believes he is justified in taking control of a woman's body- his claims to it override her autonomy. That's whether he knows her or not. The Stubenville case is a great example. The perpatrators didn't have any sort of vendetta against the girl. She didn't antagonize them, there was no social aggression. One boy was under the impression that she wanted him. And when she was no longer capable of saying yes or no, they just thought it would be really fun to stage a massive scene of sexual humiliation- that they had a right to decide what happened to her. That's misogyny.

Jive, your arguement there verges into rape apology territory. It assumes that men need a sexual outlet, and that rape is just something they do to meet that need.
I was agreeing with you here, Jeevey - until this:

Quote:
And men do rape men when women are an option. Most boy-rapists are straight men. Jerry Sandusky had access to women. Priests can always take off the collar and go to a bar, and have the same access to prostitutes as everybody else. Men rape when they want to assert control, to shame and to silence.
Jerry Sandusky is a pedophile, and not heterosexual. Like many child molesters, he married a woman to appear normal. He is attracted to young boys and that is all. Same with some priests and anyone who indulges in child porn online.

I agree with some of your points, Jeevey but because you don't seem to understand that "boy-rapists" are not straight men, I honestly cannot side with you on some of what you're saying.
__________________

__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com