babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Peter Hitchens blames women if they get drunk

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Peter Hitchens blames women if they get drunk
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 19 August 2008 06:59 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
For stuff that happens to them

You have to stand in sheer bogglement at the nerve of the guy.

(PS. If being the topic starter is against the TOS of the feminism forum, I do apologize and ask that the thread be deleted and restarted by Michelle or the moderator of this subforum.)


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 19 August 2008 07:14 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
You have to stand in sheer bogglement at the nerve of the guy.
No actually, I do not. He is not any different than the men who think they can take, and think it is our fault for some reason.

And he was was trying to frame the arguement that women maybe be claiming rape for the money they get.

The whole thing was misogynist, and racist as well.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 August 2008 07:53 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not at all, DrC. Thanks for posting this.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 19 August 2008 08:18 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I had trouble reading this. Kept checking if I was asleep. So much wrong.

I'm scared that this is still disseminated to the masses.


From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 19 August 2008 08:19 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What peeves Hitchens is not a call for sympathy but an entitlement to some financial support for rape survivors. He rages that women may be entitled to any compensation for having been assaulted in situations where he feels they can be faulted for the attack, for whatever pretext. He would rather isolate and dismiss rapists as "wicked, treacherous" individuals, to be punished individually, than to acknowledge any collective responsibility for atonement -- and therefore for a rape-ist social environment. His comparison of drunk rape victims to similarly-impaired pedestrians stepping off a curb and getting hit by cars stems from a world-view where men have no more responsibility than speeding machines without any control when a mere human steps away from the (very questionable) safety of his or her assigned space. Men's rights forums are constantly whipping up this ideology in men.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 19 August 2008 09:28 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd like to see him be so smug about it if it ever happens to someone he cares about.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 20 August 2008 07:39 AM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The guy lacks empathy. I suspect he would be upset at smokers requiring expensive lung cancer treatment.
From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 20 August 2008 08:45 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scooter:
The guy lacks empathy. I suspect he would be upset at smokers requiring expensive lung cancer treatment.

Maybe only if said smokers are women.

I don't why I read the article, and getting myself all riled up in the process, but, here comes a rant.

quote:
So I suppose we must resign ourselves to the fact that a growing slice of our taxes will be handed over to victims of unsolved rapes, while rape itself increases – the inevitable result of the collapse of sexual morality.

Um, sexual morality has nothing to do with anything. Rape is a crime, whether we live in a sexually open time/place or not. And you know what, I bet all of us would love more prosecution of rapists, leading to fewer monetary settlements. Hey, I'm such a wacky feminist dreamer I hope for (and work for) a world with less rape and sexual assault.

He's such an asshole.

And this?

quote:
The collapse of the Tory party into the arms of Leftism
. What planet is he on, like seriously?

From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 20 August 2008 11:22 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Good point BCG, Indeed, Hitchens can't even follow a logical train of thought. One sentence, he calls rape "the inevitable result of the collapse of sexual morality". The next he appeals to the alleged "wisdom of the ages" according to which women "make themselves more likely to be victims by drinking too much". What? Rape existed throughout the ages despite "sexual morality"? Duh...
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 20 August 2008 12:35 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh - from the Daily Fail, that explains a lot.

quote:
suspect it is the result of the almost total failure of the criminal justice system to prevent crime, catch culprits or punish them when caught. Instead of offering justice, the state provides a cheque.

Okay, I'll give him something here - but that's a much more general issue.

quote:
rape itself increases – the inevitable result of the collapse of sexual morality.

Nope - not buying it. Historically, there was as much or more rape at times of strong "conventional" sexual morality than there is today.

quote:
This is flatly untrue and she must know it is. Of course she is culpable, just as she would be culpable if she crashed a car and injured someone while drunk, or stepped out into the traffic while drunk and was run over.

False analogy. Those have to do with the effects of actions you take while in a state of intoxication you caused. This is why you shouldn't be entitled to compensation because you got drunk and walked into a wall. Rape is someone else's decision.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 22 August 2008 03:47 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug:
...Rape is someone else's decision.

Yes, and men like Hitchens perpetuate the false myth that it is women's, and most men buy into it.

From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 22 August 2008 10:25 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think it's "men" not "most men" but I could be wrong.
From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 22 August 2008 10:29 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Defensive mechanism acknowledged.
From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 22 August 2008 10:49 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think his point is that women should be faulted for letting down their guard around men, given that we men are animals unable to control ourselves. This is the argument of conservative moralists like George Gilder and Steven Goldberg - who wrote "...female wisdom comes from resignation to the reality of male aggression". Taking a cue from Virginia Woolf, Dworkin took apart the trap inherent to that ideology in her brilliant essay "Biological Superiority: The Most Dangerous Idea in the World"

[ 22 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 22 August 2008 10:56 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
martin, how dare you expose me to language like that. (be back in a bit)
From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 23 August 2008 09:43 AM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Nothing offers more proof--sad, irrefutable proof--that we are more like men than either they or we care to believe.

hear hear


From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 23 August 2008 01:31 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And what's most aggravating is that, over and against such clear-as-daylight analysis and positions, the sexual liberals have managed to taint Dworkin's name by associating her with essentialism - when she is the one who has most directly attacked this idealist, static view of gender dynamics.

[ 23 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 23 August 2008 02:59 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This thread makes me very uncomfortable, and I can't quite figure out if it is; all the men who are posting in it, minkepants oblique slam against women, by using Dworkin's words to support some personal position of his, or Martin's words of "sexual liberals", or all of the above.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 23 August 2008 03:37 PM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
how's it a slam? by slamming myself? my gender? I liked the Dworkin article. That's it. If I wanted to say something nasty I dont have to hide my light under a bushel, I'd say it straight up. If you dont want men posting in this forum than you should suggest that it become segregated.
From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 23 August 2008 03:57 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by minkepants:
how's it a slam? by slamming myself? my gender? I liked the Dworkin article. That's it. If I wanted to say something nasty I dont have to hide my light under a bushel, I'd say it straight up. If you dont want men posting in this forum than you should suggest that it become segregated.

How did you slam yourself?

Then how about you say what you meant by your "here here", straight up? I would love to hear you explain what exactly you meant.

As for your your last segregated comment, get a grip, there are more men posting in this thread than women, and it is telling that you choose to:

1. Frame your words in a "Christian" sub text


2. Take exception to my taking exception to all the men making comments in this thread, as opposed to women


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 23 August 2008 04:08 PM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Christian. Huh? Nice guess. Nice non-sequitur. Your endless need to be self-righteous is the reason no one posts here. Way to derail yet another thread. Your ego isnt interesting.
From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 August 2008 04:15 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The troll is back:

quote:
Originally posted by minkepants on Sooey's:
What fucking fun is it to argue with some dishrag on babble?

From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 23 August 2008 04:23 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Re: "sexual liberals" - To clarify, I was referring to a notion crafted by radical feminists for this conference and book:
quote:
The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism (1990) edited by Dorchen Leidholdt and Janice G. Raymond; The Athene series, Pergamon Press. Among contributors are Catharine MacKinnon, Twiss Butler, Phyllis Chesler, Evelina Giobbe, Mary Daly, Andrea Dworkin, Susan Cole, and Sheila Jeffreys. Available at Barnes and Noble or Adall. From
Stop Porn Culture - resources list

[ 23 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 23 August 2008 05:12 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, martin. but you've beaten this drum before. you've actually equated consenting adults engaging in sex with more than one partner over time to the abusive relationships found Bountiful, etc. You've called it the desire for a "harem".

so i'm not too concerned about who or what you label a "sexual liberal"; i'll probably wear the title with pride.

And what an effin' con-job! You've managed to take the rantings of a paleoconservative ex-trotskyist dork (like his neoconservative ex-trotskyist dork Christopher)and turn it into an attack on "sexual liberals"!

This is about someone who would suggest women get what they deserve when they get raped. That's pretty vile, in my estimation. Are you attempting to suggest that unless one agrees with you about porn that one must therefore be supportive of Hitchens' perspective?

Tell me you're not trying to go there.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 23 August 2008 06:23 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scooter:
The guy lacks empathy. I suspect he would be upset at smokers requiring expensive lung cancer treatment.

I lack empathy. I see too many idiot smokers who have no empathy for the damage they do to themselves, never mind their families, in their selfish preoccupation with substance abuse.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 23 August 2008 06:31 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, I am not trying to go there. Try as I may, I can't even understand how you got there. My reasoning was Hitchens = sexual conservative (like Gilder), the kind attacked along with female essentialists by Dworkin. Sexual liberals - as defined by radical feminists - falsely attacked Dworkin as essentialist. But there is no way I am labeling anyone as sex liberal, nor that I am suggesting one has to agree with Dworkin to hate Hitchens.
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 23 August 2008 07:03 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Alright. I was looking for where the dots connected. If that's all you're saying, fair enough.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 23 August 2008 07:11 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jester:
I lack empathy. I see too many idiot smokers who have no empathy for the damage they do to themselves, never mind their families, in their selfish preoccupation with substance abuse.

I see too many idiot consumers who have no empathy for the damage they do to everyone, never mind their families, in their selfish preoccupation with hedonistic pleasures, and self gatifying hobbies, because they can "afford" them. Say nothing of their addictions to said hedonisitc pleasures and hobbies.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 23 August 2008 07:23 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:

I see too many idiot consumers who have no empathy for the damage they do to everyone, never mind their families, in their selfish preoccupation with hedonistic pleasures, and self gatifying hobbies, because they can "afford" them. Say nothing of their addictions to said hedonisitc pleasures and hobbies.


Smoker are you?


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 23 August 2008 07:38 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No actually, was just pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in your words. Everybody thinks their addiction is better than others, and thus bash others to try and make themselves believe theirs isn't as destructive.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 23 August 2008 08:11 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
No actually, was just pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in your words. Everybody thinks their addiction is better than others, and thus bash others to try and make themselves believe theirs isn't as destructive.

Well, you've convinced me. I will improve my empathy to scrabble addicts but smokers still suck.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 23 August 2008 08:20 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hitchens is a tool. REBEL!

Can't keep keeping on like this.

You've noted your concern about the men in the thread, however, I'm glad I could learn something here today.

I wish I knew how to talk about this because some men I know wouldn't get it.


From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 23 August 2008 08:33 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
...I wish I knew how to talk about this because some men I know wouldn't get it.

Above you addressed the notion you thought it was "men" not "most men".

That has not been my findings, over the years. There has definitely been men, I have know(n)/understand who understand raping a woman is their choice, not the woman's/girls, under any circumstance.


What exactly do you think these men you know wouldn't get?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 24 August 2008 07:26 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
minkepants. Generally, I try to be blind to what people do on other forums, but you've clearly blurred those bounderies yourself.

If you post one more word on the feminist forum you're gone. In fact likewise, if you endorse that sentiment elsewhere on babble.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 24 August 2008 07:38 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually minkepants, I've had my morning coffee and I'm thinking clearer now.

I have a distinct recollection of suspending you about a year ago when a lot of people said I should have banned you outright, and I recall kicking myself ever since. I'm not making the same mistake twice.

"some dishrag on babble"? I don't fucking think so. You're outta here.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 24 August 2008 02:22 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:

Above you addressed the notion you thought it was "men" not "most men".

That has not been my findings, over the years. There has definitely been men, I have know(n)/understand who understand raping a woman is their choice, not the woman's/girls, under any circumstance.


What exactly do you think these men you know wouldn't get?


I said "some" and not "most" but pedantry aside, I think it's just very upsetting for me that some men I know couldn't see what's wrong with the drunk woman excuse.

I know I should do better iin choosing my social circle, but life's not easy.

That's why I just mentioned I hope I can learn better tips to get through their thick skulls.


From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 24 August 2008 02:37 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
...I think it's just very upsetting for me that some men I know couldn't see what's wrong with the drunk woman excuse.
Well perhaps you could say to them something along the lines of:

ok guy(s), if you got rolled, while out drunk and someone stole all your money, it then would be your fault that someone stole your money/possessions, by the same token?

quote:
I know I should do better iin choosing my social circle, but life's not easy.
Hell, I live in a whole community where many men say and do stuff like that, right down to threatening to shoot their partner if they ever left them or fooled around.

Can't make changes unless we are willing to put ourselves out there, with differing types, to do so.

quote:
That's why I just mentioned I hope I can learn better tips to get through their thick skulls.

A usefull tool is an analogy that the other people will get, as it is applied to themselves. Take the oranges out of the apples compare, such as I did with with the drunk driver scenario above.

And do please come here and ask for tips if coming across things you do not know how to respond to.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 24 August 2008 03:09 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well perhaps you could say to them something along the lines of:

ok guy(s), if you got rolled, while out drunk and someone stole all your money, it then would be your fault that someone stole your money/possessions, by the same token?


Actually, I would venture that some men would say yes to that question, or would at least acknowledge part of the responsibility. (Please note that I am NOT saying that sexual assault victims ought to; I am just suggesting that this is the wrong analogy to raise awareness with.)
I feel that robbery - even with some violence - is, to a great extent, a mere crime of opportunity. Rape, OTOH, calls for more of a mindset, one where some one else's sexual integrity is discounted and sexual access is forcibly taken, indeed whether the person attacked is incapacitated or not. There is more, in rape, of a power over, misogynist, this-is-how-I-like-sex attitude than there is in the mere taking of money.
ETA: Another reason why what-if-it-happened-to-you analogies rarely work when discussing rape with men is that sex isn't a realm of danger for most men. Asked how they would feel if they woke up in the bed of a women who had taken advantage of their drunkenness, I venture that most men would say "Great!". They don't feel threatened by women. A more adequate analogy - although it brings in and may reinforce homophobia - would be to tell a man "How would you be feel about being sent to to jail and raped because you didn't bother paying a string of car tickets? Would you feel "Hey, it's tough but I just should have paid those tickets..."

[ 24 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 24 August 2008 04:08 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I do not know martin, I think rape, while a woman is drunk, is also a crime of opportunity, on the part of the rapist.

Though I do take your point, about men not feeling that sex is a danger for them.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 24 August 2008 05:39 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here is a possible distinction. In "Men who Rape" (1984), Tim Beneke interviewed convicted rapists. One of his respondents told him: "I hid at a street corner, determined to rape the fist women who would walk by" and he did. There was clearly premeditation on his part, it was only the identity of the victim that was determined by opportunity. In a more common scenario, a man who suddenly feels it is a good time to "make a move" on an acquaintance and doesn't take No for an answer can use as an excuse the notion of taking advantage of an opportunity, because he is less conscious of his premeditation, although his conscious decision is totally there, if clouded by conveninent self-talk (e.g. "she wants it"). In a third case, that of serial rapists - including many soldiers - opportunity as cause is not part of the picture: they rape systematically.

My point is not that opportunity isn't relevant, but that there is much more animus involved than in robbery.

I hope this doesn't sound glib: I am trying to make sense of rapists' dynamics, but I realize this can be painful or triggering to survivors of sexual assault, and I apologize if it is so.


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 24 August 2008 06:27 PM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
martin: My point is not that opportunity isn't relevant, but that there is much more animus involved than in robbery.

Yes, although I think that was a good attempt by remind at an analogy. The equivalent, not to hammer home the point too much, would be "Since you were walking along with money in your wallet you deserved to be robbed." Or the flip: "The robber felt 'entitled' to your wallet because there was money in it."

I guess I'm trying to express the ontological point that women live with, and there are few examples that can be related to men on an individual/ego basis. Well, one example is for Black and FN men being beat up by any random white guy, or the police, just for being men of colour, but my feeling is that too is an inadequate analogy.

I agree with the flaws in the "men can be raped" argument and generally don't go down that road for the same reasons martin said above.


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 26 August 2008 01:31 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
That has not been my findings, over the years. There has definitely been men, I have know(n)/understand who understand raping a woman is their choice, not the woman's/girls, under any circumstance.

This point strikes me as so blindingly obvious that I fail to see how any male would think otherwise.

I wonder what kind of reasoning is trotted out for attempts at explanations of deviations from said obviousness.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 26 August 2008 02:34 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
This point strikes me as so blindingly obvious that I fail to see how any male would think otherwise.

I wonder what kind of reasoning is trotted out for attempts at explanations of deviations from said obviousness.


IMV, some men believe that their desires/wants supercede most everything, including others, mainly women and childrens, personal autonomy, and/or rights/rules. Others get off on violence and the power over another. And others receive a sense personal empowerment, by having power over others.

So, I would say the reasons are varied, just as the reasoning/justification are.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
WendyL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14914

posted 26 August 2008 03:26 PM      Profile for WendyL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nice points remind. Power over is taken for granted in our society by men. As well, our language and beliefs, culturally, lend false credence to this, that someone can be "made" to do something as oppose to choose to do something. "You made me fall in love with you" "the boss made me soooo angry" etc... It becomes an easy extension for aggressing males to use the language to blame women for choices they make for themselves. Just think about the kinds of blaming women get -- for how we dress, talk, move, smell, breathe, sneeze, scratch our arses. Conveniently our language/beliefs regarding personal power and responsibility fits the purposes of an oppressive social structure.

[ 26 August 2008: Message edited by: WendyL ]


From: PEI Canada | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 26 August 2008 07:47 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by WendyL:
Power over is taken for granted in our society by men. As well, our language and beliefs, culturally, lend false credence to this, that someone can be "made" to do something as oppose to choose to do something. "You made me fall in love with you" "the boss made me soooo angry" etc... It becomes an easy extension for aggressing males to use the language to blame women for choices they make for themselves. Just think about the kinds of blaming women get -- for how we dress, talk, move, smell, breathe, sneeze, scratch our arses. Conveniently our language/beliefs regarding personal power and responsibility fits the purposes of an oppressive social structure.

Good points.

Do you think it is just convenience, or do you think it is a contrived state of being?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
WendyL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14914

posted 26 August 2008 11:58 PM      Profile for WendyL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you think it is just convenience, or do you think it is a contrived state of being?

Ah, remind, I know it is designed to support an oppressive structure -- my use of 'conveniently' was just a touch of facetiousness. I would venture to guess that you know the same. I am ignorant of linguistic theory, so can't go there with this, but the oppression of peoples is always a purposeful (i.e., planned)and nuanced system. Women and children are abused as part of a systemic bias which has been carefully put into place and is bolstered by finely wrought conventions, laws (or lack thereof), desires. Within our society, we teach our daughters to be victims (talking here in the larger sense of what our social structures and values perpetrate, not what each of us individually teaches them as inoculation and just fucking good sense). So, the fight is long and tiring, even tedious at times. That is why folks the likes of babblers, with a couple of exceptions,are babbling. A damned fine thing that they are, that they have been, and that they will continue.


From: PEI Canada | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 27 August 2008 06:47 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by WendyL:
...the oppression of peoples is always a purposeful (i.e., planned)and nuanced system. Women and children are abused as part of a systemic bias which has been carefully put into place and is bolstered by finely wrought conventions, laws (or lack thereof), desires. Within our society, we teach our daughters to be victims (talking here in the larger sense of what our social structures and values perpetrate, not what each of us individually teaches them as inoculation and just fucking good sense). So, the fight is long and tiring, even tedious at times. That is why folks the likes of babblers, with a couple of exceptions,are babbling. A damned fine thing that they are, that they have been, and that they will continue.

I know you do, I just thought a response such as this, that lays it out, would be good for those for those who still do not get it.

Yes, the fight has been longgggggg and tiring, and it will definitely be even longer, and down right exhausting, for those who have continued to fight, and who will continue.

And it would be hoped that the younger women and girls, who have reaped the benefits of feminist gains for women, and who think the work is done, will eventually realize the full rammifications of the fight not yet being over, and that their help is needed for the continued plight of women...

I had seriously thought we would be a lot further by now than we are, and that at the very least my grandchildren would study the oppression of women as a historical fact that was now over. It seems maybe that will now be happening with perhaps my greatgreat grandchildren.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca