quote:

---

I'm surprised by the stat that

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Half of Canadian women (51%) have been victims of at least one act of physical or sexual violence since the age of 16.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Depending on what you use as a definition of physical or sexual violence, it's more likely that ALL women have been victims.

---

A few years back if I had been asked whether or not I'd experienced physical or sexual violence I probably would have said "no." As my understanding of feminism and violence against women has matured I have refined my definition of violence and my answer today would be a difinitive "yes."

I have been accosted on a dark street by a man wearing an underwear mask. (sounds kinda funny now, but it wasn't at the time.) He stole not only my dignity but my feeling of safety even on the street I live on. (It doesn't go away.) I have been felt up anonymously on a crowded city bus while trying to push my way to the door. In highscool a couple of boys went through a phase of whispering disgusting and violent images into the girls ears. I have had a man expose himself to me (again on public transit.) I have had johns mistake me for a prostitute while waiting for a bus, and they get pretty mad when you tell them to f-off. This is the tip of the iceberg.

I may not have come away from these situations with brusies or broken bones, but I did come away with the sense that it is not safe to be a woman. That I don't have access to many parts of the city I live in without fear. That my sex makes me a fair target for men.

I sense that when discussing violence against women some people think they are talking about a marginilized group of abused wives, when in fact every story of violence I hear is an attack on ALL women.

[ August 10, 2002: Message edited by: clersal ]

Corollary to that is the question: what are the conditions under which, in the future, we can say that one particular act of sexual violence is not an attack on all women? That is to say, at what point can we call it an isolated incident, or at least in the same category as all other acts of violence?

quote:

---

what characteristic of male sexual violence against women makes it an attack on all women?

---

One act of male sexual (or non-sexual) violence against one women communicates the sad truth that it isn't safe to be a woman alone. The telling of these stories affects women from the time we are old enough to understand what rape means. (And what does it mean, anyway?) Do men have the same fear? Even though men are raped, does one act of violence against a man make all men slaves to seeking out safety? (the company of others, the carrying of certain weapons or tools, the avoiding of "dangerous" situations.)

Men are brought up to trust in their physical strength to help them avoid violence. When a man is confronted by another man the playing field is somewhat more even than when a woman is confronted by a man.

It is the culture of violence, the fact that women live with violence and/or the threat of violence every day, wherever they go. The fact that we come to accept it and even ignore or excuse it.

quote:

---

If one act of sexual violence is committed against all women, then can you say that it has been commited by/on behalf of all men?

---

My views are a bit extreme in this perspective. I believe that all men benefit from violence against women. I believe that all men share responsibility for the culture of violence and that men will be central to:

quote:

---

the conditions under which, in the future, we can say that one particular act of sexual violence is not an attack on all women

---

quote:

---

I think that there is an unspoken understanding that as a woman you are primarily a sexual object.

---

I don't think it could be called unspoken.

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: skadie ]

I have a problem with referring the victimization of all women to the fact that women are not raised to be confident in their physical strength. Firstly, it leads to the notion (that was debated in an unbearably caustic manner on other threads) that it becomes simply a matter of exhorting women to be more confident. Secondly, it implies that the perpetrator is responsible not only for his own act, but for the prior cultural contingencies that you mentioned--this is necessary if his act is to apply to all women, and it strikes me as unfair. How could he be responsible for the fact that all women are affected by their cultural training? So the question becomes, beyond ways in which his act creates an unsafe feeling, how does his act feed back into these cultural contingencies that make women feel the way that they do (or the way you say they do)?

What does "benefit all men" mean in this context? Now, I understand that this doesn't mean that all men are responsible for a particular single act (I hope). But I can see how benefit (whatever that is) can be accrued without it? But what does it mean to benefit? You know already my views on that: anything that confines women and makes them sexually, etc, dependent benefits all men in terms of reproductive success. That is to say, it helps enforce a kind of contract that ensures certainty of paternity, under conditions of mistrustfulness that other men will not respect a given man's reproductive turf (thereby leaving him at risk of cuckolding). But I know that you do not accept that explanation. Then how do you construe benefit?

Saying that "all men share responsibility for the culture of violence" is a nice catch-phrase, but to me it doesn't mean much. I certainly didn't do anything--I hope--so how am I responsible? Do you mean to say that all men share responsibility in dealing with it (rather than being a cause of it)? If so, how?

And it doesn't really answer my last question: what conditions exactly will lead to a state wherein violence against women is no different from other violence? It's not enough to say that men will be central to it, unless you can define what how it is that men are central to it.

Yet another question (I'm really piling it on here, so please bear with me): do you think that it is possible to eradicate sexual violence? My position is that the potential will always be there, just as we have potential for violence in any other domain; and therefore, it is possible to reach a point at which sexual violence exists and yet women are equal? If no, then I think we are forced to conclude that women will never be equal

A last point: I find that the "culture of violence" is too broad a term. There is always a lack of safety. If you want to claim that even non-sexual violence is an act against all women, even in non-sexual contexts, then I'm not really sure how to distinguish between conditions wherein women are equal and those wherein they are not. And though I look forward to skadie's reply to all of this, are there any other takers?

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: Mandos ]

quote:

---

Do men have the same fear? Even though men are raped, does one act of violence against a man make all men slaves to seeking out safety?

---

Men are brought up to call fear "prudence" or "waryness" or other words like that. There are places I go where I become "wary" and want to be very much aware of who is behind me, what the layout of the street is, etc. I don't feel "afraid", but it could very well be because I'm brought up to call that feeling of fear something else.

And, there are places I don't go, because I'm not looking for trouble. And I guess I'm not looking for trouble because I'm afraid of getting my nose broke or my haid stomped?

No, we're not slaves to safety, except when it comes to looking after the women in our lives, be they wives, daughters, nieces, etc. We worry too, we fear for their safety, and I think I am perhaps more fearful for them than many of them are for themselves.

quote:

---

I believe that all men benefit from violence against women.

---

I'm not going to take issue with a statement like that. I do think it needs to be explained in more depth, because for the life of me, I can only see violence against women as nothing but disadvantageous to me, personally and men in general.

quote:

---

I have a problem with referring the victimization of all women to the fact that women are not raised to be confident in their physical strength.

---

Mandos, I think you missed my point.

I used to go camping alone a lot. Up until a few years ago I was very comfortable doing this. My friends however, have told me it's a stupid thing to do and that I am putting myself at risk. Eventually they wore me down and I don't camp alone anymore.

One act of violence done to one person is definitely a pain only the victim can understand. But the communication of that act of violence, the fact that it is not uncommon, the fact that 51% of women have been victims of violence (again, a number I think is probably underestimated) the fact that I myself have been a victim of violence affects me, my family, my friends and women around the world.

Why shouldn't I feel safe camping on my own? Why shouldn't I feel safe walking down a city street to my own home? Fuck FEELING safe, why can't I BE safe? (Or at least as safe as a man is.)

I have three sisters. I realized at about thirteen that statistics supported the probability that at least one of us would be raped in our lifetimes. Nice way to start womanhood, huh?

quote:

---

what characteristic of male sexual violence against women makes it an attack on all women? Ubiquity? Frequency? Something about the violence itself? Cultural significance? And if it's more than one, how much of each?

---

The fact of its being sexual makes it violence against women. The fact that it's anonymous makes it violence against any woman at random, and thus all women. The ubiquity and frequency strongly suggest - if doesn't prove - that a great many men are doing it, and getting away with it. Which means that the society doesn't take it seriously enough to make it taboo. That would be the cultural significance - or part of the cultural significance.

quote:

---

at what point can we call it an isolated incident, or at least in the same category as all other acts of violence?

---

My personal opinion: when a woman can turn around and accuse her molester without fear of being ridiculed, ignored or blamed. Say, for example my grandmother had been waiting for a trolley and the man in line behind her rubbed his body against hers. She would have been shocked and outraged - likely out loud. Everyone else in that queue would have been shocked and outraged. In that time, in that society, it would have been more unusual, more despicable than it would be today, here, for a man to walk up to a total stranger and punch him in the nose, just for fun. Today, here, the second kind of attack is still an isolated incident; the first kind is so common, it's hardly noteworthy.

quote:

---

If one act of sexual violence is committed against all women, then can you say that it has been commited by/on behalf of all men? ... If the perpetrator's subconscious/implicit) intention is to attack all women, then on whose behalf is he doing it? Only on his own?

---

quote:

---

I believe that all men benefit from violence against women.

---

Too complex for me to write a proper defense, so I borrowed this:

quote:

---

"I want to bring in a notion that I think can raise consciousness, and perhaps even induce activism about the relation of men as a group to violence: namely that all men benefit from rape.
This comment usually rouses angry rejoinders from men who have never thought of themselves as rapists, would never rape, etc. But in fact such men also receive the stepping aside, the unearned politeness, the deferential and preferential treatment, that goes with belonging to a class that is known to sexually attack and terrorize. So what about these nice men? What it the ethical stance for them to take? If they are not part of the solution--actively working to help women achieve the parity that blocks violence (and that link is clear, according to research), then they are part of the problem, no less than whites who stand by while blacks are terrorized."

I have to agree with this comment, though it's a really tough thing to come
to
terms with as a "pro-feminist man."

---

Really worth reading. I could never put it as well.

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: skadie ]

quote:

---

what characteristic of male sexual violence against women makes it an attack on all women? Ubiquity? Frequency? Something about the violence itself? Cultural significance? And if it's more than one, how much of each?

---

All of them, Mandos. As for the significance of each, it must depend on the individual and the situation.

quote:

---

what are the conditions under which, in the future, we can say that one particular act of sexual violence is not an attack on all women?

---

I like what nonesuch said about that.

quote:

---

If the perpetrator's (subconscious/implicit) intention is to attack all women, then on whose behalf is he doing it?

---

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

This situation isn't improving. Look at how single women are treated under welfare, the U.S. is pushing marriage, even bad marriage, as protection for women and children. Iowa is demanding the names and addresses of women who had positive pregnancy tests from a planned parenthoot clinic, Florida is publishing the sexual history of single mothers opting for adoption. I'm going to put the links to these stories on the Feminist thread. Father's rights groups are demanding protection for the family be abolished and their control over their families given back to them.

Women who fight their abusers physically are jailed, protection orders are mostly useless, women's shelters are being reduced, more women are being murdered by ex-lovers and there's more.

"Unearned Politness" ?! Everyone has my politness, until they earn it otherwise, and I'm sure I'm pretty ordinary this way. I'm sure the majority of women are the same way and I'm rather unconvinced this has anything to do with violence against women.

It's how civilized people of all genders behave.

The other examples cited are undoubtedly present, but inarguably could be due to environmental factors other than rape. It's a non-sequitor to say that the "stepping aside" and defferential/preferential treatment is due to rape.

quote:

---

This comment usually rouses angry rejoinders from men who have never thought of themselves as rapists, would never rape, etc.

---

quote:

---

I believe that all men benefit from violence against women.

---

skadie quoted this, but I didn't find who she quoted.

I cannot express strongly enough how offensive I find this utterance. I can't believe that anyone could think such a thing.

"All men benefit from violence against women."

I recall watching a program on tv a few days ago, and they said that in any society, we have every right that we assert. We have every right that we assert up until the point where we are countered or suppressed.

When a man assaults a woman, it is an assertion of power, and control- thus through this, all men have a position of power and control (those two may not be the best words). This goes well beyond sexual orientation or anything of that nature, because violence against women cannot only be perpetrated by straight men. If I were to strike a woman (which I would never do, because it's just plain wrong) I would be making just as much an assertion of patriachy (if that's the correct term) as a straight man doing the same thing.

quote:

---

Yes Rebecca, prevention is the only way to go. I hope but wonder when it will happen

---

At least there are shelters now. When I was pregnant and getting the crap kicked out of me, there was nowhere to go in the city I lived in. All our friends and neighbours knew what was going on, but no one helped or intervened in any way. Now, there's at least more public awareness around issues of domestic violence. And remember when children who were being molested and sexually assaulted by a family member were almost never protected or listened to? It was always a private family matter, don't talk don't tell.

All of these women are someone's daughter, mother, sister, lover, wife, aunt, niece or friend. Who else does it need to affect?

It happens everywhere.

I see violence towards women on the idiot box everytime I turn it on. It's not just directed towards women, but, they are always portrayed as sexy vixens or helpless victims. Even the shows ABOUT rape titilate and glorify.

We're insane if we as a society try to say that we aren't influenced by it. The average American watches FOUR HOURS of it a day. If I spent four hours with a platypus every day I think I'd grow a bill.

Is that the answer? How do we get past the "artists" who insist that their objectification is their only way to express themselves and that censorship in all it's forms is evil?

Is the answer to start a serious movement to switch it off rather than try to regulate it further?

Is the violence more rampant now than fifty years ago? Or do we just think it is because we see it on the news? Do we have other countries and approaches that we can look to? What's the violence rate in Norway?

I'd like to see change, but I don't know if it's possible.

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: Trinitty ]

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: Trinitty ]

quote:

---

"Unearned Politness" ?! Everyone has my politness, until they earn it otherwise, and I'm sure I'm pretty ordinary this way. I'm sure the majority of women are the same way and I'm rather unconvinced this has anything to do with violence against women.

It's how civilized people of all genders behave.

---

I think it goes further than that for women, Tommy. I'm not sure, but perhaps what skadie was talking about when she said "unearned politeness" is the politeness that women show towards men even when they're acting inappropriately towards women. Laughing politely at a sexist joke. Staying politely quiet when a man does something rude instead of calling him on it. Etc.

I just recently had a very disturbing experience with a man, and I'm not the soft-spoken type. And what did I do? Did I call him on his inappropriate behaviour? No, I was polite and tried to help him save face almost instinctively because I was so bewildered about how to respond.

quote:

---

All of these women are someone's daughter, mother, sister, lover, wife, aunt, niece or friend. Who else does it need to affect?

---

quote:

---

"I believe that all men benefit from violence against women."

skadie quoted this, but I didn't find who she quoted.

---

Arch, I did make the comment earlier in the thread and then quoted someones quote of it! But the credit for the sentiment goes to Andrea Dworkin who said "All men benefit from rape." I think the most valuable thing about such a "perverse" comment is the discussion it incites. As Christopher Hitchens says, it's not what you think, but how you think.

Her web page.

quote:

---

Am I on the right track, skadie?

---

yup!

quote:

---

Is the answer to start a serious movement to switch [the television] off rather than try to regulate it further?

---

quote:

---

My views are a bit extreme in this perspective. I believe that all men benefit from violence against women. I believe that all men share responsibility for the culture of violence.

---

quote:

---

But even he is responsible!

---

Right, as usual Jeff! I don't know who Jack Layton is, but I'd guess a feeling of responsibility is what keeps him campaigning.

Ha Ha, just discovered Jack here on babble. See what not having tv does to you?

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: skadie ]

quote:

---

I just recently had a very disturbing experience with a man, and I'm not the soft-spoken type. And what did I do? Did I call him on his inappropriate behaviour? No, I was polite and tried to help him save face almost instinctively because I was so bewildered about how to respond.

---

Well, I think we have to take the word of the author of the e-mail Skadie quoted from, and not read too much beyond it. If he meant to say what you think he might have meant, it was incumbant upon him to say so.

Be that as it may, I see your point. What you may not realize though is that men face the same things too. People say the darndest things, and one can't respond with justified vitriole everytime. It's a judgement call how we handle these things, and believe it or not all men go through this too. It's part of life.

The question is, do women deffer more often just from the ubiquitous threat of violence, or as the author of the e-mail suggested, because of rape, and do ALL men benifit from this.

I can't answer the first part, I think only women can-- after they have done thier best to step outside their gender for a moment, and try to gain a perspective. I am thinking that some things women think happen because of their gender has other causation. As the author pointed out, the violence inherant in this system where the wealthy get to beat up on the poor and working class might be the real cause that women just happen to be caught up in.

The powers don't really take advantage of women, or natives or workers because they are women, natives or workers, but because they can. It's the nature of this system of economic libertinism. We are ruled, every man, woman, child, transgendered or any other catagory you care to name, by Sadists, in the true sense of that word.

quote:

---

I can't answer the first part, I think only women can-- after they have done thier best to step outside their gender for a moment, and try to gain a perspective.

---

Tommy, this is really bogus. We HAVE perspective. It's a perspective gained by BEING WOMEN in an oppressive culture.

Back to the subject of this thread, "Sharing stories of violence":

Here is a subtle, but at the time very scary, example.

This happened when I was in my mid-twenties. I was on the subway, returning around 10 p.m. from a friend's barbeque. I was reading Harpers magazine - it had a cover about genetic engineering or something like that.

I was sitting in a seat right by a door. My head was bent down while I read. Suddenly, as the train slowed for its next stop, I felt a hand on my right breast, groping it. I looked up to see a guy around my age smile, then rush out the open door.

It all happened so fast.

Now, my first impulse was to raise bloody hell. But I stopped myself. That's because I realized I was the only woman in the car. I was going to be getting off after the next stop, and I didn't want to draw any more attention to myself than I already had.

And yes, most guys are fine. But some aren't. And I didn't want to set myself up as a vulnerable target for the next asshole who wanted to take an emotional ("weak") reaction as an invitation to follow me home.

I kept my face blank. I looked back down at the magazine, pretending to read. My hands trembled slighly, but I tried to keep it to a minimum.

A little while later, I told a guy I was dating about what happened. He laughed and said to me, "You mean you didn't recognize me?" (We didn't date for very much longer.)

Yeah, I'd thought he was a nice guy. I still think he's a nice guy. But I didn't think he was funny.

The good news is, I reminded him of this exchange a few years ago. He was horrified he'd said what he did.

Every man *does* benefit from the threat of rape. Women don't take jobs because of it; they cripple their independence because of it; they aren't assertive, challenging, confrontational because of it; they depend on "good" men to escort them, protect them, be valiant. "Good" men become princes in comparison to the bad.

Jack Layton is doing his bit to turn violence around. He's doing the least men can do to counter the putrid environment women have to navigate every day.

The dynamic Dworkin is pointing to will turn around when the genders are treated as equals socially, sexually, politically, culturally, economically. It's not a question of "blaming" all men for the actions of a significant segment of their gender. It's just naming the fallout for what it is.

It *is* similar to all whites having the advantage in a racist society. Better housing, better jobs, privilege in education ... etc.

Individual whites might protest against such racism, but I would think they do this in part because they recognize that the advantages they enjoy aren't fair, aren't earned and in fact lead to a larger kind of emotional / spiritual / human crippling of the potential we all carry within us.

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

Later, I kept silent after another experience at university. About a year afterwards, having heard about many, many incidents of date rape and sexual violence on our campus, I wrote an anonymous editorial for our student newspaper. Why did I keep it anonymous? I just didn't feel safe talking about what happened to me - it was hard enough having people speculate about whether or not the author of the anonymous editorial brought what happened to her upon herself. Hell, it's hard enough just writing this.

The negative reaction to my editorial - and there was plenty at my small, catholic-dominated university - reinforced my instinct to keep silence. So did a lot of other things that happenend on that campus, for which perpetrators were identified but never punished. I had hoped that my editorial would let women know they weren't alone and to encourage them to speak to each other about it, at least. Sadly, all it did was highlight a perverse, dysfunctional and patriarchal climate at an institution of higher learning. This was a couple of years, by the way, before the famous "No means No" incident at Queen's.

I guess my point is that our culture doesn't encourage women to come forward - indeed, we've been told that we must somehow be responsible for the violence we experience, even if that is a random act by a pervert in a stereo store. This is pretty deeply ingrained, and not easy to overcome. When men make light of sexual violence towards women, or remain silent themselves, they do contribute to the systemic tolerance of violence and ensure its continuation.

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: vickyinottawa ]

quote:

---

Tommy, this is really bogus. We HAVE perspective. It's a perspective gained by BEING WOMEN in an oppressive culture.

---

With all due respect and in the spirit of civil discourse, I don't think it's bogus at all. We do live in an oppressive culture, but to think it's designed specifically so that all men can go around either raping, or benifiting from rape indicates a certain myopia. As feminists who have been through sexual assault I can certainly understand this.

But we're also, most of us here, concerned with justice, and it's my view that even in the most challenging circumstances we all have to stand back, outside ourselves, so that we don't end up being like the blind men with the elephant.

quote:

---

Jesus, has EVERY regular female poster been sexually assaulted?

---

I have difficulty articulating my reaction to events like these when women have told me about them. Silence is not a sign of insocience in my case. I feel rather impotent, and I don't even want to bluster about "what I'd do to someone who'd do such a thing." As the Bard said, "Words, words, words."

I'm intruding here and this will be my last post on the subject. I always read the feminist threads here, and in spite of what it looks like, I don't often contribute.

A person of Asian descent may well experience racism in a way that differs from a person of African descent. It's good for us to hear from both experiences, rather than demand that one must speak of all oppressions and not point to specifics.

My crotch and my tits are gendered. They've been assaulted by men. I make no apologies or rationalizations for this correlation.

As far as the assertion my statements about male privilege are unsubstantiated: do you go home alone at night? A lot of women can't. The figures have been provided in several threads. Now, you might not benefit directly from this one example, but I think I've referred to a number of other areas where you might have. If you've worked night shift, for example. Think of the implications of such a job for a woman afraid of rape. She doesn't take the job. You do.

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

I found it hurtful, since, the two people most close and trusted to me in my life are men.

quote:

---

I found the generalization about all men benifiting from rape, besides hurtful, and so far to me unsubstantiated, unhelpful if we are ever to address rape the way it should be addressed. And, to be honest, I think this goes a small way into ensuring my daughters face the same risks their mother and aunts faced twenty years before.

---

I find the generalization very helpful, TP. It gets people talking, as you can see from this thread.

Your daughters DO face the same risks as adult women. I'm guessing the rates of violence against women aren't falling. How does it feel to know that your daughters will probably be or have already been assaulted? (Youth will definitely not protect them.) What do you want to do about it? What can we do about it?

quote:

---

I can't answer the first part, I think only women can-- after they have done thier best to step outside their gender for a moment, and try to gain a perspective.

---

quote:

---

I'm intruding here and this will be my last post on the subject

---

I knew I'd regret that. I do try very hard to be a person of my word, but I think I've found a better, and more susinct way of explaining myself.

All whites do not benifit from racism. Racism divides people, most usually poor/working class people against each other so that the abuse can go on from above unabated.

How do poor Appalachian whites in the U.S. benifit from racism? It's the constant focus on hatred of blacks that keeps them from seeing who the heck it is that's keeping them in the trailer park.

This weekend one of my daughters is going to a friends cottage in Ipperwash. Most of us are familiar with the mess there. It's classic. All the tory and liberal post war governments are to blame for the mess there, but it boils down to Natives and local non-natives at each other's throats for Ottawa's cynicism. And, I have to warn my daughter about not straying on the former military base lest her white skin earns her a beating or worse. All because of the Sadism of Jean Chretien, Brian Mulroney, Pierre Trudeau, Lester Pearson, John Diefenbaker and Louis St. Laurent.

It's the same with rape. Why do rapes go unreported? Is it because rape "trains" women to be compliant to all men?

I submit it has more to do with a judicial system that, frankly, could give a flying fuck about crimes against individuals, be they men, women or children that aren't part of the ruling class. Rape doesn't divide all men and women, it is the fact that victims of rape don't get justice, or protection from a system that doesn't give it to anyone other than their own ilk.

That's the shell the pea is under, boys and girls.

Stories of violence.

I don't have any. When I was a preschooler or maybe a bit older, I stood by a display case of matchbox toys while my parents shoped for a new bed. An old guy came up and wanted to take me to a place where there were all kinds of these toys, for free. My dad had inculcated me, not on pedophiles, but on the fact that you don't get nothin' for free, and I told the old guy I wasn't interested, (born sceptic, I guess) and left at once. It would have been a story of violence, I'll tell you, if my dad would have got his hands on him.

I'd have a story of violence if it was my daughter a London judge would not let testify against her molester, on the basis that "she had no concept of divine retribution, rendering her oath invalid."

Or how about the B.C. judge that aquited a man because the little 5 year old girl he raped "acted in a sexually provocative way."

These are the cynics, the Sadists that allow animals to get away with their crimes, and keep people like us fearful.

You are right Skadie, it's a provocative statement that makes for discussion.

I'm only one guy. One working class guy. Unlike the wealthy in this society, I can't afford to purchase a politician so that my concerns for my daughters and loved ones get to the fore. I don't have connections that would get a Crown Attourney to give proper attention to crimes against individuals, instead of property which is the priority now, as it always has been.

I can only do what I can do. And to stand accused in all this of being part of the problem has me.....experiencing many emotions.....

quote:

---

Your daughters DO face the same risks as adult women. I'm guessing the rates of violence against women aren't falling. How does it feel to know that your daughters will probably be or have already been assaulted? (Youth will definitely not protect them.) What do you want to do about it? What can we do about it?

---

I've told my daughters that if it ever happens, we'd do what we had to do to help them recover, and that whatever they wanted to do about it, in regard to pressing charges or not, I'd assist them, one way or another.

That's a lie, of course. I don't know how much justice I'd expect from "the system". As you can see, I have little faith in it. I might give it the benifit of the doubt, and see what it could do.

More likely, I would fullfil my number one responsibility as a father, which is to ensure the safety of my daughter (s) against a recurrance. Hopefully, the justice system would do that. If not, then I would.

I do not tell my daughters this because I do not want them to protect me from myself by keeping silent.

Let me add that I'm not an advocate of vigilante justice. It's dangerous, it's uncivilized, it's criminal.

But so's our courts often enough.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't answer the first part, I think only women can-- after they have done thier best to step outside their gender for a moment, and try to gain a perspective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's try that the other way round.

[/QUOTE]

I can't possible imagine what it must be like to be groped or raped, or live with the fear of it. I can, like any other human on the planet, imagine what it is to suffer injustice. We all have that in common. Except, perhaps, idealogues.

Poor white folks get a token of the privilege of whiteness: they get to be overtly racist against people of colour. I've heard working folks in Nova Scotia who'd never met an African Canadian talk more dirt than anyone I'd ever met before.

Poor men get to go into pharmacies and talk openly about how they'd like to fuck the pharmacist, depending on how old she is: "Anything over 30, it's like fucking a toilet bowl." Yeah, I heard it myself. I was waiting for my birth control pills at the time. Almost made me want to say that, on second thought, I wouldn't be needing them.

Poor men get to shout at me when I'm riding my bicycle: "Hey, honey, could I sniff your seat?" And say loudly to each other (while I pass a park): "She's going too fast." (Implying that, otherwise, they could grab me off my bike and drag me into the darkness of the park.)

In telling you about these incidents, I'm not saying poor people behave worse than rich ones. I am saying that a poor man sometimes seems to want to put me in my place: below him.

I would like to see the day when everyone is able to see everyone else as equally human.

Yes, class, race, gender, sexual orientation: all of these things are used to divide us. Some of us actively challenge the various structures of oppresion. Many more of us are complicit.

I choose to challenge the specific dynamics that are bred by the status quo. Because I name one specific one that is related to this particular thread does not mean I'm reduced to defining the whole world by that one dynamic.

It's a complicated world. We all learn more about it by listening to each other's experiences in it.

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

The male response to all this seems very strange to me. I am a white married bisexual male. My political background is in antiracist/fascist, anti poverty, sexual liberation, peace, and labour solidarity direct action and propaganda work.

Why are guys so defensive? My family background is full of racist imperialist creeps, but that doesn't prevent me from joining cause with people of colour (including prisoners), the women's movement, and the victims of the capitalist death war machine. It seems bogus to me to try to seperate economic issues from other issues of oppression. Capitalism is founded on the gendered and racialized division of labour. To try to separate these issues is to fall in to the hand of liberal bourgeois ideology.

We need to avoid class reductionism. The two unions I've been involved in (CAW, and CUPE 79) have large numbers of immigrant and female workers.

Domestic workers are overwhelmingly women of colour. What matters more? Wages? Citizenship? Sexuality?

It's a false problem. I would point people towards the work of E.P. Thompson, Sheila Rowbotham, bell hooks, C.L.R. James, Himani Bannerji, and Pierre Bourdieu as theoreticians who grapple with the concrete practices of exploitation and oppression.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

quote:

---

Men do benefit from the rape of women. We can say it is a horrible empty benefit

---

Why not?

Because people on the left who haven't invested alot of emotion in eating their young and squabbling over scraps thrown to them by the controlling elite recognize that a committment to fairness and equity and support for diversity begins within one's own movement. If you can't even play nice with those closest to you, ideologically, then how the fuck are you going to convince anyone else that a fair society benefits everyone? Ya aren't.

If this weren't the case, we wouldn't still be living under capitalism, would we?

People are pushed into thinking that success means being on top. Fearing that they lose everything if the order breaks down. Recognizing this structure isn't "giving up."

quote:

---

People are pushed into thinking that success means being on top. Fearing that they lose everything if the order breaks down. Recognizing this structure isn't "giving up."

---

quote:

---

Every man *does* benefit from the threat of rape

---

quote:

---

It *is* similar to all whites having the advantage in a racist society

---

quote:

---

I believe that all men benefit from violence against women. I believe that all men share responsibility for the culture of violence

---

quote:

---

[benefits that]... lead to a larger kind of emotional / spiritual / human crippling of the potential we all carry within us.

---

which seems to me to be more or less your point, but framed a little differently. And I listed specific benefits: jobs, etc., that are part of our social-economic structure.

I even wrote:

quote:

---

The dynamic Dworkin is pointing to will turn around when the genders are treated as equals socially, sexually, politically, culturally, economically. It's not a question of "blaming" all men for the actions of a significant segment of their gender.

---

That pretty well spells out where the benefits are found in the current structure. But I guess that doesn't count.

I don't think everyone is aware of the [crippling] benefits they enjoy from others' oppression. Just as many men don't seem to really be aware of the level of abuse women endure as a result of sexism, and how that abuse affects women's freedom.

Finally, anyone who gets off on having advantages on the backs of others really doesn't need my help. And spelling out what they DO get as a result of inequities is NOT the same as creating those inequities. You're blaming a messanger, here.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

Some parts of it I liked. But the love interest story line had me seething. Lots of little quibbles, but two big ones.

One involved a rape scene, in which the girl next door is chased into an alley by several thugs on a rainy night. They push against her, pull out a knife, get her coat off so her clingy dress gets even more clingy.

Then the hero swings into action while she stands there. Once he's beaten down the thugs, she asks to kiss him, and she does, very sexily.

I cannot remember one review that even mentioned there'd be a rape scene in the movie. But then, it's so commonplace in entertainment, why mention it?

quote:

---

Why are guys so defensive?

---

This, actually, is the question that interests me.

It puzzles me that some people respond so quickly to some analytical generalizations in personal terms -- ie, as though the analysis were aimed at them in person, as individuals, and as moral judgements on individuals.

In literary studies, responding to fiction in personal terms, in terms only of the ego, "identifying" with characters, is called a "sentimental" reading.

And to me, when some men's first response to a discussion of patriarchal structures is "Hey, you're picking on me!" -- well, I'd call that a sentimental response. Clearly, when we're trying to sort out the way complex systems fit together, we are not thinking first of all of you personally, Buddy (generic ref there) -- and is that what disappoints these guys, maybe?

I don't take analytical discussions of racism personally, although I'm a white woman and am in no doubt at all of the advantages that gives me over all sorts of people in this time and place, the even greater ones it used to give me. What kind of a wimp would I have to be to resist, for no other reason than to protect my amour propre, the conclusions about race that, to begin with, any Stats Can survey should elicit from any rational reader?

Valid point, perhaps, but please don't ask for realism from a summer blockbuster film about a superhero!!!

And for a "different" kind of superhero movie, it's gender play is old old old old old and as shitty as what you'll find in films from the 1950s.

I had the same problem with the first Batman movie. When did that come out? And here we are in a new era, with the same old garbage about women.

quote:

---

So why do some guys insist that we're focusing on them first of all when, actually, we're not?

---

quote:

---

This is not entertainment for a significant number of the world's population.

---

Depends on your idea of what constitutes significant (it is approx half and half!), but it makes buckets of cash for Hollywood and until they can be convinced more cash can be made by changing the fodder, they ain't gonna change it!

quote:

---

And for a "different" kind of superhero movie, it's gender play is old old old old old and as shitty as what you'll find in films from the 1950s.

---

Were you expecting Hollywood, that bastion of feminism, to be leading the charge? Your point is valid, I am just unsure why you sound surprised?

quote:

---

And here we are in a new era, with the same old garbage about women.

---

quote:

---

Were you expecting Hollywood, that bastion of feminism, to be leading the charge? Your point is valid, I am just unsure why you sound surprised?

---

I took writer's point to be that it was reviewers who proclaimed this a "different" kind of superhero movie, while overlooking things like the rape scene, which is not different at all from old-time Hollywood fare, except perhaps in being more explicit.

One hopes for some independent thought from reviewers, although considering just to what extent they're beholden to the Hollywood publicity machine, that's maybe a naive hope.

You're right, Hollywood is not a bastion of feminism, or of anything except maybe a few self-righteous and self-serving pronunciamentos about one (poorly-understood) issue or another -- race, for example.

But to have them grind out the SOS (same old shite) regardless of their pretensions, and then to have this product hailed as "different" by the same critics who ought to be telling us that the ridiculous old Emperor is still starkers... well, I haven't seen Spider-man (though, having been a childhood fan, it grieves me to hear from writer and others I trust that it's not worth bothering with), but I agree with writer -- it's infuriating.

Edited to add:

quote:

---

What new era? Said who?

---

Surely, Apemantus, you've heard of feminism. Surely you've heard that things were meant to be different now to the way they were back in the bad old days. Apparently we haven't come so far as all that.

quote:

---

I had the same problem with the first Batman movie. When did that come out?

---

If memory serves, that was the year of (dis)grace 1989, when the more things stayed the same, the more they didn't change -- Berlin Wall on one side of the world, but Tiananmen on the other.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

I don't take analytical discussions of racism personally, although I'm a white woman and am in no doubt at all of the advantages that gives me

---

skdadl, I believe you completely. However, I have also seen a lot of people react extremely negatively to statements about racism and (for lack of a better word) first-world-ism. "But it's not my fault" is the constant refrain.

"All Canadians benefit from the exploitation of the South."

"All white Canadians benefit from the theft of native land."

These are statements I believe, but I don't usually find them useful in casual conversation with the unconverted. (Not that babble is such a forum.)

My answer is that it is not about blame, it is about recognising where you fit in an unequal society. If you do not understand the power you have, for example, you are likely to use it inappropriately, by accident. This is something that we (male eurocanadians, say, in my case) have to learn, and why I think it is worthwhile meditating about what the statement "all men benefit from rape" means, along with the other ones above. (Hint: they do not mean that all men are rapists, that all eurocanadians are thieves, or that everyone who lives in Canada works for the IMF.)

Furthermore, the correct response is not necessarily to "reject the benefit". Sometimes there is the obligation to use the power / advantage / benefit that you have in order to rectify the balance. Sometimes, there is the obligation to recognise the unfair advantage and explictly counteract it.

It is not just up to the oppressed to reject their oppression. Nor is it just up to the oppressors to stop. "Innocent" third parties also have the responsibility to understand.

In all cases, one can only find the right path through a recognition of reality.

I find attractive the argument that we would all benefit from living in an egalitarian world. However, there are certainly some people who currently enjoy far too much privilege, and probably would have fewer benefits in such a world -- and there are more who fear that that would be the case. So helping those people to understand that they have nothing to fear is another responsibility that comes from understanding what the current power relationships are, and how damaging they are.

This argument is slightly easier to make in terms of socio-economic privilege than gender/racial privilege, because your socio-economic privilege can vanish overnight, and then you might wish that you had supported a better social safety net.

Making the argument in the case of factors which are slightly less subject to change requires a vision which endorses collectivity, the concept of society, social rights and social goals (what I would call socialism for lack of a better word).

There are, of course, those who honestly believe that unshackling the invisible hand of the market is sufficient, and that collective goals are meaningless. There are others who believe that the only path to collectivism is through the swamp of violent change.

Even if the "responsibility-from-benefit" aspect of this was assumed from the beginning, we are still left with another issue. Most men reading this would hopefully find the notion of benefitting from the repugnant actions of other men distasteful. But no one wants to be "their brother's keeper." Consequently, there is, I think, a feeling that one would be guilty of one *wasn't* one's brother's keeper. But most men, like most women, these days don't have all have the time to focus on this issue. We can't all be campaigners all the time, can we? So there's a certain amount of perhaps unjustified guilt there too.

But what about benefit? So far, I have seen benefit defined in terms of the ways in which women are put as a group as at a disadvantage to men as a group, economically, etc. This to me signifies that benefit is solely determined in terms of power. But what is this power supposed to accomplish? Simple material aims?

quote:

---

Surely, Apemantus, you've heard of feminism. Surely you've heard that things were meant to be different now to the way they were back in the bad old days.

---

Yeah, and who says that? Not the feminists, who knew what a long struggle it was gonna be, just the people with a vested interest in saying things had changed when they hadn't!

quote:

---

Most of the "good guys" have become so by confronting their socialization into the stereotypes

---

For instance, Writer has pointed to a rape scene in the movie Spiderman, and how offensive and unrealistic for a woman to be sexually excited moments after almost being raped at knifepoint. The response from some of our male thread contributors has been a) dismissive (it's Hollywood, what do you expect? Like that makes it ok?) and b)sarcastic (oh, warn me about the next movie where a woman kicks a guy in the balls). No, I don't think movies should have warning labels, but the lame responses that Writer's concern generated show a general level of ignorance and insensitivity.

quote:

---

Yeah, and who says that? Not the feminists, who knew what a long struggle it was gonna be, just the people with a vested interest in saying things had changed when they hadn't!

---

Still, if you lack any kind of empathy for those who expect or hope for anything better... well, I don't think much of that. We can't all be as wised-up and worldly as you, Apemantus.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]

I just think it's a ridiculous example to have used. You obviously don't.

Next week:

quote:

---

(from Mandos, who makes some excellent points)

Then finally there is the question of guilt in one's own relationships. If all women are oppressed by the behaviour of some men, in such a way that makes all men responsible, then some men may feel that there relationships with the women in their lives are...what's a good word...less authentic maybe.

---

Yep. Not something you want to think about all the time, really. I live in Perú -- the complexity of being a white northerner in Perú colours all my relationships with everyone here. It is not easy. But guilt is not useful -- it is paralytic.

quote:

---

What new era? Said who?

---

Actually, I was talking about the new millennium.

And this thread is titled "Sharing stories of violence." I did so. Simple as that.

I do find the reaction of several men to the post rather ... educational.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

Next week:

We analyse the feminist influences in Joe Esterhaz' screenplays.

---

Laugh all you like, Apemantus, but there were no better examples of explicitly anti-feminist movies than, say, Basic Instinct, or -- a non-Eszterhas product -- Fatal Attraction.

Now, Eszterhas, by some accounts, can't get his calls returned these days, and maybe these movies couldn't get made either. Maybe. But it would only be because the studios were afraid of protests.

quote:

---

"All Canadians benefit from the exploitation of the South."
"All white Canadians benefit from the theft of native land."

---

It can be stated, in fact, that most if not all members of the minority economic class that consumes most of the world's product benefits economically, in the short term, from the oppression and exploitation of most of the world's population. I say in the short term, because the rapacious rate of our consumption at the expense of others is not sustainable.

Here are a few more generalizations to add to the mix:

It's almost always okay to make generalizations about structures of power and oppression.

He admits that, as a militant smoker, he purposely inserted scenes into his movies that made the habit cool, sexy and desirable.

Now, as a deal with God to save himself, he very publicly blames Hollywood for its role in the deaths of millions.

If only he could have a similar conversion about Hollywood's use and abuse of women and how it poisons the culture we all live in.

"Blood On Their Hands"

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

I thought more on this last night, specifically about "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" kind of thing.

Besides bluster from behind a keyboard, what do I actually DO to stop the kinds of things writer and others talked about? This is the question I asked myself, very much afraid I might come up with "nothing".

But, happily I didn't. I'm not a superhero, or knight in shining armour, but I recal that I've been in places or situations where I was concerned for the safety of complete strangers. I've dallied in parking lots late at night, say, for a women to get past the wannabe toughs hanging out at the 7-11 to her car. I've lingered in stores when I've seen female clerks handling trouble customers. When I've given rides to my daughter's friends, we always sit and wait until they've actually got into thier home before driving away. I've seen couples having squabbles in public, and I never just walk away until I know the woman is not in physical danger.

I don't mention this so I get Kudos for being a SNAG, or to say "look at me! I'm a hero!" I think quite honestly that I'm not that special, that I'm probably rather typical. Lord knows, everytime I do get to thinking I'm something special, the Universe seems to serve up a heapin' helpin' of mom's humble pie.

I have made an effort to interpret the slogans, etc, in a way that understands that men aren't being told "Hey you, you're evil, you icky oppressive male thing!" However, I get the feeling that when most men read feminist writings on this subject, they come away with "Hey, she really must hate me, why should I listen to her?" When I first started reading Dworkin (a few years ago), I was taken aback by her writing. Why do you think that the "all men are rapists" thing gets unfortunately attributed to her? I stumbled across her writings by accident, and at first, that's exactly what I thought she was saying. Only after a very careful reading did I understand that she wasn't saying that men who have sex with women are committing a crime, but rather the conditions under which they do it contain...unhealthy...aspects that she wishes to highlight. But her writing style, for whatever reason (and I have ideas about this too) gets in the way. The problem is how to phrase these issues
in such a way that men will not feel so personally attacked as to be alienated from feminist ideas entirely; I know someone will object right here and say that feminists shouldn't pander to men, and I agree. But its a fine line to walk if you want to be understood and ultimately taken in a friendly way by men who are, presumably, well-meaning.

quote:

---

The problem is how to phrase these issues
in such a way that men will not feel so personally attacked as to be alienated from feminist ideas entirely; I know someone will object right here and say that feminists shouldn't pander to men, and I agree. But its a fine line to walk if you want to be understood and ultimately taken in a friendly way by men who are, presumably, well-meaning

---

quote:

---

Though, conversely, that is exactly the sort of language some men understand. Touchy-feely can be as alienating to some men as a punch in the balls

---

quote:

---

Though, conversely, that is exactly the sort of language some men understand. Touchy-feely can be as alienating to some men as a punch in the balls.

---

I disagree. Often the most sexist "macho" men are the ones who expect total pussy-footing on the part of women. They want domination to be on their part only - as soon as they hear the voice of a strong women, it's like a switch that turns off their mind. Suddenly she's just a "feminazi" out to cut off his balls at the soonest opportunity.

And that's mainly because guys like this just don't WANT things to change. Whether you talk nicely to them or kick them in the balls, they don't care to listen to you, and they don't give a damn WHAT you have to say.

As for those men who are reasonable, I agree - saying they're all potential rapists is an interesting conundrum for feminist theory books, but not for starting a dialogue with men who have never read any feminist theory. Hell, it's not even something you can say to WOMEN who have never read feminist theory - you should see the way some of the girls in first year women's studies courses react to the mildest of feminist writings - you'd think thy had a personal stake in men maintaining control.

But oh, wait, the girls who say "I'm not a feminist" in first year women's studies usually DO have a stake in the status quo - because it's been my experience that the girls who don't have a problem with the status quo are those who have high status in it due to their youth or beauty.

quote:

---

I have a feeling it has a lot more to do with wanting to come home to a nice traditional woman and a home-cooked meal after a hard day of saving the world.

---

quote:

---

I find it highly unlikely that most men want to be told that they are personally evil oppressors of the women they live with. I've never seen anyone accept or believe that.

---

See, I think that might be the problem. If you take the evil part out (but it nicely illustrates manly defensiveness) it sort of makes sense.

I claim "all men are oppressors" with the same conviction that I claim "everyone is racist." We have a much better viewpoint on these issues if we examine our own values. THAT is how we can affect change.

Change is not ensuring every woman has a man to make sure she gets to the door okay, or to break up a domestic fight. Change is ensuring women don't need an escort to the door and that she can expect safety in her home. Chivalry is nice and very welcome, but it isn't change.

Men (and women) need to educate themselves about feminist issues. They need to understand how these issues play out in a womans life. Then they need to talk about it.

quote:

---

Mandos we start with the men who are against violence towards women. Men can talk about it to other men at work etc.

---

Let me tell you a couple annecdotes concerning this kind of stuff.

There was a worker who was charged and found guilty of either sexually assaulting, or sexually interfering his sisters over a long period of time. His sisters waited for years to lay charges, but finally they did.

The worker served his sentence, and the company took him back at work. (!?) A circumstance and priveledge not extended to anyone else aside from workers who were given "weekend" jail.

On the workers return to work another worker took the position that he didn't want to work with this person, talk to this person, or otherwise share the planet, let alone the workplace, with this person.

This worker was told that if he continued in this vien, he'd have a human rights charge levied against him and would likely be fired.

One cannot discriminate, you see, against a person based on their criminal record or something along those lines.

**************

On one of those bad days I went through between my ex leaving and us obtaining a legal separation, I had to take jibes from a guy convicted of not just assaulting his wife, but also the female officer that arrested him.

It's pretty tough, to sit there having your life in ashes around you, and although there may have been assignable fault to me on this score, I CERTAINLY didn't do anything criminal. Yet this guy is happy as a lark, he goes home in a nice new truck and his life seems to be fairly well intact. Materialy, he's far ahead of me and younger.

And of course, in deffence of my job, and the responsibilities to my girls, I couldn't just do what that reptilian part of my brain was demanding I do, which was to put my hand around the soft bit of his neck and squeeze for the rest of his existance.

I should have. At least after ten years in prison I'd emerge debt free.

******************

Many years ago a somewhat popular guy, a married man with a small child, came under the influence of cocaine. Leaving a party, he noticed a young woman go into her apartment. She left the door unlocked and passed out on her couch. The guy found a knife, a paper bag, and entered her apartment and raped her. During the rape, she sustained deffensive wounds from the knife.

The guy ended up doing hard time. He stopped by the Union Office one day to wrap up his affairs before his sentencing. Conversation took place, and during this one Union rep, sensing the guys genuine remorse for what he did, offered up the "well, maybe she was kinda asking for it" platitude.

I wanted to do a melt into the wall kind of thing. Maybe some people would be angry, but sometimes you just hear somethings from some people that make you just want to join another species.

The person who got angry was the rapist. He explained how it wasn't the woman's fault, or the cocaine, it was him. He explained in no uncertain terms what an evil act he had done, how he deserved to go to jail, probably for longer than he was going to, (the Judge was moved by his remorse later, and didn't give him the maximum sentence) how he ruined several lives, excluding his own.

**************

At a picnic table in the plant we were discussing the rape case of another worker, years later. This involved the date rape drug, rohipnal. It's controvertial, and the original guilty verdict has since been overturned and a new trial ordered.

However, I was trying to explain that the point was that no matter what the victim did or agreed to before she took the drug, once under it's influence she was rendered unable to give informed consent to any sexual act; therefore it was rape.

"But still," the young co-worker responded, "She was stupid, she shouldn't have been where she was, gone where she did."

That young co-worker was a woman.

It is not the same as saying that "All people are racist" or even that "All white people (or whatever) are racist." Racism implies blinkeredness but not necessarily always evil. If you said that "All whites are oppressors", you would get quite a few defensive reactions--but since it doesn't hit so close to home (and this is important), it doesn't get as much. But the point is, if you were to say "All men benefit from sexism in a way that oppresses women--here's how" then you wouldn't get as many defensive reactions.

We've mostly explored the "oppress" part, I think, but we still haven't covered the "benefit" part satisfactorily--maybe later. I too hope for a world without violence, but don't imagine that we will ever get such a utopia--and the fact is, there is more inherent potential (sheer physics and anatomy) and incentive for men to commit sexual violence against women than vice versa. So I don't think we will ever achieve the utopia you are looking for, but we can compensate--and it is important to try. (I know that this last paragraph will be especially controversial )

quote:

---

I hope that we agree that oppression is evil.

---