Is Feminism Still Relevant?

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by BVS

Not at all. Please take context into consideration, I was responding to the context of your statements that rape is about sexism, rape is about gender issues. I was just pointing out one example where it wasn't, so that we get away from these blanket overreaching statements.



If a man shoots a man, he's a murderer. If he then shoots a woman would it automatically be about gender issues?

So when do we determine an act of violence is about misogyny or a random act from human to another?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Pearl

It can if the guy has misogynist views. He may think a woman has no right to question a man or shouldn't speak to any man besides him.

But that's not what I asked. The two of you are solidifying my fear which is; violence against a man is a violent crime, and violence against a woman is a violent crime caused by sexism.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Pearl

So when do we determine an act of violence is about misogyny or a random act from human to another?

I don't know if I would ever label a violent act as a random act. When? When we look at the particular cases and determine the cause.

There have been thousands of studies on rape and the rapists, but the truth is is that there are not a lot of answers as to the reasons. It used to be that some researchers categorized rapists into two categories; criminal and psychotic, but now there's other research that says multiple categories need to be developed. The criminal were usually just violent aggressive men, their violence often aimed towards men and women. The psychotic usually had some inadequacies, childhood trauma, or some other deep rooted issues. Some of these types on both sides have real issues with the female sex some on the psychotic side may have "mommy issues", others it's just their form of aggression and it has very little to do with the female sex. Now these rapists usually plan their attacks and probably don't know their victims. When we talk about date rape, I would say most of those attacks are probably based on gender issues and misogyny.

[LJT]

Not all violence against women is due to misogyny, but I'd imagine a fairly high proportion of it is though throughout the world, via domestic violence and rape. Men I think I am right in saying are more likely to experience violence full stop but generally that is male on male, but in a way it all stems from the same attitudes a lot of men have in regards to how we manage relationships with women and other men, we've not really left behind earlier forms of masculinity as we'd like to think, such as gang related murders and all that jazz.

Rape culture when I first heard it used a couple of years ago I found it a very odd term, still do but all it really signifies is basically that there are lot of things that men (not all obviously) still find acceptable or are acceptable for men to do and not women, but when you examine them you realise how odd it is that they are accepted. It is a harsh term that I do find too catch-all for some relatively innocuous things but it has made me think more broadly about male privilege and how the feminism debate is often still characterised as something we should be done with.

For a lighter side of feminism I advise checking out the Hawkeye Initiative portraying male superheroes in the way the female ones often are, makes you realise how ridiculous some of the poses are.

Oh there was also a good wee chat with Patrick Stewart recently on domestic violence that I think is worth watching, essentially because it is quite nice.

Patrick Stewart Gives Passionate Response to Question At Comicpalooza 2013 - YouTube

[jeevey]

Originally Posted by BVS

What? Not one of those things have anything to do with gender.

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.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by jeevey

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?

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

Originally Posted by jeevey

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.

Originally Posted by jeevey

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.

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

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

Originally Posted by jeevey

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]

I'm also defending pretty much everything BVS has said thus far (*gasp*)

[Jive Turkey]

Here's a funny joke with rape as the punchline

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f55C6IE6Z6w

[jeevey]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

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

How?

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by jeevey

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

[BVS]

Originally Posted by jeevey

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.

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.

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.

leaving him

See above ^

taking the kids

This one I would think is obvious.

[Jive Turkey]

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)

[jeevey]

Originally Posted by BVS

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.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by jeevey

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

[BVS]

Originally Posted by jeevey

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.

Originally Posted by jeevey

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.

Originally Posted by jeevey

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?

[jeevey]

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?

[Jive Turkey]

http://www.u2interference.com/forums...ew-215204.html

[BVS]

Originally Posted by jeevey

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.

Originally Posted by jeevey

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.

Originally Posted by jeevey

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.

[jeevey]

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?

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by jeevey

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:

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.