Unhelpful 'gendering' of social issues

Carlos Orange

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Actually no that is not right. It really goes to show how we think about Gender in very gender segregated terms.

Thinking of people as people isn't as fashionable as I once thought it was.

Femme_Fatale

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Actually no that is not right. It really goes to show how we think about Gender in very gender segregated terms.

Can you elaborate as to what is not right? If you read an article by a man saying misandric things (and it has happened) would you not find it extra irking that he's a member of the group he's talking about and seemingly unaware of the irony, or perhaps is too arrogant to consider himself the same as other men...

GalwayGuy2

Can you elaborate as to what is not right? If you read an article by a man saying misandric things (and it has happened) would you not find it extra irking that he's a member of the group he's talking about and seemingly unaware of the irony, or perhaps is too arrogant to consider himself the same as other men...

You honestly shouldn't see it as two separate groups of people. And you honestly shouldn't, and I do this as well, see misogynists as males and misandrists as female.

I remember watching that male feminist video a while ago. Tbh, I wasn't annoyed because he was a man or betraying the brotherhood or anything like that. I was just annoyed at his views.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, is that you shouldn't be surprised about sexism because of their gender.

Femme_Fatale

If it weren't for her agreement with misogynistic views, she'd be seen as "the enemy" too though.
Same in relation to a man agreeing with misandric views.

Some of the stuff that woman writes is directed at not just feminists, but simply "women". So she's talking about herself is it? I doubt it.

I know what you're saying but I can't think of it that way myself - the irony and arrogance and sense of being an exception is too overwhelming. It's not even a "betrayal" thing.

Can't accept Paul Elam is harmless btw - no fecking way.

Agent Green

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

If it weren't for her agreement with misogynistic views, she'd be seen as "the enemy" too though.
Same in relation to a man agreeing with misandric views.

Some of the stuff that woman writes is directed at not just feminists, but simply "women". So she's talking about herself is it? I doubt it.

I know what you're saying but I can't think of it that way myself - the irony and arrogance and sense of being an exception is too overwhelming. It's not even a "betrayal" thing.

Can't accept Paul Elam is harmless btw - no fecking way.

You haven't actually shown how her views are misogynistic. You might want to do that, conclusively, before you state it as fact. I should also point out that I only posted the article in the first place to bring attention to the fact that Una is not operating in some sort of bubble where her words have no consequences, or that people aren't reading them. She may think that outside of Ireland that no one cares - but she's wrong. Yes - even as far away as the United States, Canada, India etc. people are taking an interest.

clairefontaine

Agent Green wrote: »

You haven't actually shown how her views are misogynistic. You might want to do that, conclusively, before you state it as fact. I should also point out that I only posted the article in the first place to bring attention to the fact that Una is not operating in some sort of bubble where her words have no consequences, or that people aren't reading them. She may think that outside of Ireland that no one cares - but she's wrong. Yes - even as far away as the United States, Canada, India etc. people are taking an interest.

I think the subtextual assumptions are the same as the Mullally article, in that the assumptions about male sexuality are that its dark and dangerous, its just each women proposes a different strategy to tackle it. Arguably both are misandrist, or maybe both are being shadowed by an uncomfortable perception of male sexuality.

But no one really wants to talk about that do they?

The labelling of misandrist and misogyny are getting in the way of getting anywhere with this stuff.

The idea that taking precautions are letting men off the ok is so ridiculous it barely is worth any attention. Reality is world is dangerous on many level and for many people. Loving in a cotton candy IT middle lass white world of stop telling your daughters to be careful is crazy. Stop telling our kids to look both ways before crossing the street why don't you? How about stop telling them to not talk to strangers who approach you off the school bus. It's letting the strangers off the hook.

Sure right ok ladies, get as sloppy drunk as you like, don't bring taxi fare, and wear your skirt so high the world can see what you had for breakfast. In other words, don't look both ways before crossing the street. It's your oyster.

Femme_Fatale

Agent Green wrote: »

You haven't actually shown how her views are misogynistic. You might want to do that, conclusively, before you state it as fact.

Ok:

A man’s worth in our world is not assessed on how much wealth he possesses, it is based on the level of happiness of his woman.

Not misogynistic but quite a questionable statement. What about single men?

Why do men commit crimes? I’ll posit this: because they need more stuff to make a woman happy or because they have been rejected by a woman shaming them for not being good enough and feel they have nothing left to lose. Committing a crime has a penalty. They need a reason to risk that penalty. It’s going to be primal. Think… think… are you with me?

She's suggesting men commit crimes due to women...?

The man is the head of the house but the woman is the neck and she can turn the head any way she wants.

That writer really should speak for herself.

Feminists claim that men objectify women but it’s women who think that men are just walking, magical penises and that the penis has the mystical quality of getting them stuff. We’re less concerned with how they get us our stuff than in making sure we get the **** we’re after. One of those things is security so the problem for women is not in how to get men to stop being aggressive, it’s in how to get them to be aggressive but stay out of jail so they can keep providing the stuff that makes us happy.

"Women" she says. Again, she should really speak for herself. In fairness, she does use the royal "us".

The problem is not men. Men just want to be loved and respected. What women make them do for that respect is what drives some of them crazy.

The problem is not men (it can sometimes be a man though) but she's speaking for all men in the second sentence (all men just want to be loved and respected? Most do yes, but what about those who aren't such good people? Y'know - badness: a thing that can afflict some men AND women) - and in the third sentence, again with the "women". She's coming up with some pretty staggering stuff on which to blame women, rather than considering problems are caused by individuals of both genders.

Men face a much greater risk of physical assault every day than women do but they still keep walking out that door.

In the western world, that is one hundred per cent true indeed, however...

Being that women are equal, I think we should meet that threat on an equal basis.

Sure she does. Personally, I think there should be less risk to men, not more risk to women.

What Una claims makes men more culpable is that they all know someone who is “dubious” and goes to strip clubs or pays for sex. Strip clubs are not illegal and I know quite a few women who married for money, so buying sex is apparently quite legal, too, as long as you get the proper paperwork.

Again, I agree, but...

you and I both know someone who had a baby to avoid having to get a job. You and I both know someone who married a man they didn’t love.

Um... I don't. It does happen but she really shouldn't assume people know the same type of people she knows.

We have become indoctrinated to believe that rape is the worst crime that can be committed. How the hell did that happen? I can think of a bunch of things that are worse: Murder, having my fingers cut off one at a time while I watch, having my limbs disconnected, waking up in an abandoned house with a tape recorder saying “Hello, Diana, I want you to make a choice…” The list can go on. I’ve seen a lot of films. I’ve been raped so that’s not fiction, but my mind (perhaps more creative than that of feminists) can imagine worse scenarios.

Objectively she has a point, and I see she herself has been raped, but subjectively, she has no right to tell people (male or female) who have been raped that it could be worse.

for me, sex is my favorite way to wake up. Men have every right to believe that a woman sleeping in the bed next to them is going to be happily awoken. If you don’t want sex, don’t sleep in their f'ucking bed.

This is the most disturbing part: So because sex is HER favourite way to wake up, that means everyone else should feel the same way? No, men, nor women, do not have every right to believe that a person sleeping in the same bed next to them is going to be happily awoken. Jesus Christ. It might (but not always - women and men don't always feel like sex) be more applicable to a couple in a relationship, but two strangers - no.

Women don’t own sex, it’s something people do together. It requires communication.

Exactly. Although it completely contradicts the last bit I quoted.

If a woman lies with her body language and her actions she is raping the man.

you need to give them an emphatic ‘no’. If you think you didn’t have the option to say ‘stop’, you are wrong.

So every person who has been raped had the option to stop it apparently.

Women and men both face this risk but, for some reason, only women seem intent on blaming men for all their problems.

Yes, "only women". A person objects to polarising of the genders by... polarising the genders.

It's a long article and there are points I genuinely agree with, but what I have quoted above... bewilders, depresses and scares me.

Agent Green

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Ok:

Not misogynistic but quite a questionable statement. What about single men?

She's suggesting men commit crimes due to women...?

That writer really should speak for herself.

"Women" she says. Again, she should really speak for herself. In fairness, she does use the royal "us".

The problem is not men (it can sometimes be a man though) but she's speaking for all men in the second sentence (all men just want to be loved and respected? Most do yes, but what about those who aren't such good people? Y'know - badness: a thing that can afflict some men AND women) - and in the third sentence, again with the "women". She's coming up with some pretty staggering stuff on which to blame women, rather than considering problems are caused by individuals of both genders.

In the western world, that is one hundred per cent true indeed, however...

Sure she does. Personally, I think there should be less risk to men, not more risk to women.

Again, I agree, but...

Um... I don't. It does happen but she really shouldn't assume people know the same type of people she knows.

Objectively she has a point, and I see she herself has been raped, but subjectively, she has no right to tell people (male or female) who have been raped that it could be worse.

This is the most disturbing part: So because sex is HER favourite way to wake up, that means everyone else should feel the same way? No, men, nor women, do not have every right to believe that a person sleeping in the same bed next to them is going to be happily awoken. Jesus Christ. It might (but not always - women and men don't always feel like sex) be more applicable to a couple in a relationship, but two strangers - no.

Exactly. Although it completely contradicts the last bit I quoted.



So every person who has been raped had the option to stop it apparently.

Yes, "only women". A person objects to polarising of the genders by... polarising the genders.

It's a long article and there are points I genuinely agree with, but what I have quoted above... bewilders, depresses and scares me.

I like your breakdown and one or two of your objections but you still haven't shown actual misogyny from what I can see; additionally, some of your objections are tenuous at best, but I'll focus on what is probably your strongest one, the idea that not everybody wants to wake up to sex.

I find the notion that you find that a person in a sexual relationship with another person should want to wake that person up in the morning with sex 'scary,' a bit weird. Personally, I don't like sex in the morning. I'm tired in the morning. And I have had partners wake me up in such a fashion. In most cases, I just said 'sorry - too bloody tired, but thank you for the enthusiasm.' It's not rape; it's not sexual assault - or anything close to it. The partner is acting upon an already understood and established relationship between the two; i.e. 'we have had sex in the past, we like having sex with each other, we will likely have sex in the future.'

Sometimes, one may not want to; in that case you say so - and that's it. If I wake up in the morning to my partner handling me like a filet mignon - I say 'no thanks.' If she keeps going I say no again. I've never been in a situation where I've said no and it wasn't respected. When it's not respected - then it becomes a form of sexual assault - or even rape - that's when it actually becomes 'scary.' That's different, though - just as it's different to have sex with someone who can't wake up due to passing out from too much alcohol, or drug use. That's rape - partner or not. Acting upon an-already understood non-verbal agreement, isn't.

If I grab my partner's ass when she walks past, that doesn't qualify as sexual assault; she is my partner and we have an understanding; indeed - it's an understanding that we've never once spoken aloud in the years that we've been together because to do so is completely and utterly unnecessary. When we make love - I don't have to ask for consent nor does she. We know with our body language what the other is thinking - because the body language of sex is overt in the extreme.

In any case, I only posted the article to show that Una's original article has been noticed abroad - and that while she may think so, she's not operating inside some sort of bubble. Her article made not just Irish people, but a number of people around the world pretty angry. And justifiably so.

Femme_Fatale

Agent Green wrote: »

I like your breakdown and one or two of your objections but you still haven't shown actual misogyny from what I can see

Ok well I guess it's best to leave it as a difference of opinion, because in my opinion I showed plenty of examples of misogyny, the strongest of which were blanket blaming of certain difficulties faced by men, or crime, on women. That, as per the title of this thread, is "Unhelpful gendering of social issues". I'm not sure what's tenuous either - thought I had been very clear.

I'll focus on what is probably your strongest one, the idea that not everybody wants to wake up to sex.

But not everybody does. For example, you don't.

I find the notion that you find that a person in a sexual relationship with another person should want to wake that person up in the morning with sex 'scary,' a bit weird.

You... surely can't have read what I said as that?
I said I find her assertion that a man has the right to expect a person sharing his bed to enjoy being woken by sex, is disturbing/scary.
No, a man doesn't have the "right" to expect it to be welcomed - with a man or woman; nor does a woman - with a man or woman.

Personally, I don't like sex in the morning. I'm tired in the morning. And I have had partners wake me up in such a fashion. In most cases, I just said 'sorry - too bloody tired, but thank you for the enthusiasm.' It's not rape; it's not sexual assault - or anything close to it.

I agree. It isn't. But your partners didn't/don't have a right to expect you to want it either, which is what she's saying. I on the other hand often like wake-up sex, other times I haven't been in the mood.

The partner is acting upon an already understood and established relationship between the two; i.e. 'we have had sex in the past, we like having sex with each other, we will likely have sex in the future.'
Sometimes, one may not want to; in that case you say so - and that's it. If I wake up in the morning to my partner handling me like a filet mignon - I say 'no thanks.' If she keeps going I say no again. I've never been in a situation where I've said no and it wasn't respected. When it's not respected - then it becomes a form of sexual assault - or even rape

Exactly. Yet she's saying a man (and I only specify "man" because that is whom she's referring to) has the right to expect it to be enjoyed.

Also, I said I wasn't just referring to couples. Her rather angry comment was "Men have every right to believe that a woman sleeping in the bed next to them is going to be happily awoken. If you don’t want sex, don’t sleep in their f'ucking bed" - no specific mention of a couple.

In any case, I only posted the article to show that Una's original article has been noticed abroad - and that while she may think so, she's not operating inside some sort of bubble. Her article made not just Irish people, but a number of people around the world pretty angry. And justifiably so.

You've said that already - you don't need to explain why you posted it.

Agent Green

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Ok well I guess it's best to leave it as a difference of opinion, because in my opinion I showed plenty of examples of misogyny, the strongest of which were blanket blaming of certain difficulties faced by men, or crime, on women. That, as per the title of this thread, is "Unhelpful gendering of social issues". I'm not sure what's tenuous either - thought I had been very clear.

But not everybody does. For example, you don't.

You... surely can't have read what I said as that?
I said I find her assertion that a man has the right to expect a person sharing his bed to enjoy being woken by sex, is disturbing/scary.
No, a man doesn't have the "right" to expect it to be welcomed - with a man or woman; nor does a woman - with a man or woman.

I agree. It isn't. But your partners didn't/don't have a right to expect you to want it either, which is what she's saying. I on the other hand often like wake-up sex, other times I haven't been in the mood.

Exactly. Yet she's saying a man (and I only specify "man" because that is whom she's referring to) has the right to expect it to be enjoyed.

Also, I said I wasn't just referring to couples. Her rather angry comment was "Men have every right to believe that a woman sleeping in the bed next to them is going to be happily awoken. If you don’t want sex, don’t sleep in their f'ucking bed" - no specific mention of a couple.

You've said that already - you don't need to explain why you posted it.

Okay - let's be clear here. What she said is this: 'Perhaps this is too much information but, for me, sex is my favorite way to wake up. Men have every right to believe that a woman sleeping in the bed next to them is going to be happily awoken. If you don’t want sex, don’t sleep in their ****ing bed. We are not children here.'

I honestly do not see what is scary here. If a woman voluntarily gets into my bed - yeah - I do think sex is going to happen. And Diana is absolutely right when she says 'don't sleep in their ****ing bed.' She's right because when you consider the context of Una's original article (which she's writing back against) it makes perfect sense - you have to take responsibility for your own actions. That doesn't equate to the idea that rape is justified - just this:

If you get into bed with a man - you have to face the very real possibility that he expects something to happen. If you don't want sex to happen then don't get into bed with a man unless you are certain that he doesn't want or expect sex. Again, to reiterate, this doesn't mean what may or may not happen is justified - just that there are risks associated with what you're doing.

That's what she's saying. It's about personal responsibility. It's about being an adult.

That's my interpretation. Oh, and I had a look at your crime objection and I've come to the conclusion after a little thought that it's fair. I concede that point to you with no hesitation. I think that she's incorrect in that regard. But, yet again - I'm not endorsing the article (but I still hold that it's not misogynistic) - just posting it to make a point regarding Una's article.

Femme_Fatale

Yes if you get into bed with someone it's not unreasonable of them to assume sex is on the cards. But in relation to sleep/wake-up sex specifically: it's not unreasonable of them to attempt it, and of course it's especially not unreasonable in a long-term relationship, but it is unreasonable of them to expect you to welcome it.
And that is what Diana said men have a "right" to expect. And why? Because she always enjoys it, and you're already in bed with them so you should enjoy it.

Galwayguy35

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Hmmm, we have plenty of theories about what causes rape but we don't actually know what causes it. It is about power, but what does that have to do with it? Is it entitlement, or a feeling of inferiority?

Anyway, taking that above, which would help save women in the short term, or even the long term.

Telling women to be careful as there is a predator about.

Or saying men should be thought not to rape?

I'm not sure about this whole thing that men should be taught not to rape, how would this work like?

Is it not kinda saying that every young man is a rapist in the making?

Personally I never needed to be told that rape is wrong and feel that most of my gender would be of the same mind.

(BTW not saying you are saying this GG2, just saw that it was mentioned in this post).

YumCha

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'm not sure about this whole thing that men should be taught not to rape, how would this work like?

Prevention programs vary but they mostly focus on general concepts such as definitions of rape and sexual assault, what is consent and negotiation, challenging rape myths (there's a comprehensive list in the Berkowitz chapter).

A quick scan of the available research shows favour for single gender programs, and impact (while light on research atm) is pretty promising as I think I posted elsewhere.

That's a very quick and probably bad summary of the research covered or cited in: http://snow.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/AR_RapePrevention.pdf and http://www.alanberkowitz.com/articles/responsibility.pdf

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Is it not kinda saying that every young man is a rapist in the making?

IMO not any more than the kind of "risk reduction" programs that are aimed at women or by the comment which drove the initial article. This kind of advice (again imo) does both genders a disservice as asking women to be on alert pretty much all the time (Walking alone/In parking garages/Using the internet for dating) casts a really dim view on men as a whole.

py2006

Today we have another interesting article in the Irish Times.

The aim of religion is to frighten women about how men and society will punish them if they do not conform to idealised behaviour.

The article briefly touches upon a proposed convention called The Council of Europe convention on preventing and combatting violence against women and domestic violence

The purpose of the convention is to protect women against all forms of violence and punish offenders appropriately.

This international treaty defines gender for the first time and the way male and female roles are decided by society, not biology.

“Violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between women and men which have led to domination over, and discrimination against, women by men.”

When ratified, psychological violence will be criminalised, and sexual harassment will be subject to criminal or other legal sanctions. Aiding and abetting abusers will be a criminal offence. Attempting to commit the offences will be a criminal offence.

Aggravating circumstances, deserving a more severe punishment, will include being spouses, partners and family members, and violence in the presence of children.

Yet again, only women are victims of domestic abuse and violence. I really wish every man who has experienced psychological, emotional, physical abuse and sexual harassment in the work place would come forward. I fully believe there would be more balanced statistics and not the '99% of abuse victims are women' nonsense that gets thrown in our faces.

Lets protect each other, lets protect EVERYBODY.

The Corinthian

Agent Green wrote: »

But rape is not about power, it's not. It's about sex. It's about sexual gratification.

Not sure I'd entirely agree there. While I would completely agree that the feminist narrative that rape is about power is an ideologically motivated pile of steaming, self-serving, horse excrement, I would not rule out 'power' as one possible motivation for rape either. Nor would I rule out sex. Or revenge. Or peer pressure. Or the need to relive past sexual abuse by a female relative. Or many other reasons - just as is the case with murder or many other serious crimes.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Seriously. Read again some of what she says.

I'll take your word for it - genuinely, I can happily accept that she could sometimes argues points that cross the line from fair criticism to unfair bigotry.

My main issue though is a woman saying such things about other women. Just as you'd be disgusted by a man saying awful things about other men (and you'd be right).

True; whenever I hear a male feminist it conjurers memories of those I knew in college, who would hang around the Student's Union Welfare Office, slavishly following their female 'colleagues' in some desperate hope it might get them laid.

However, it would be a mistake for me to simply dismiss them, simply because many are like this and it gets my back up. Simply categorizing them as 'self-loathing men' or 'turkeys voting for Christmas in the hope of getting a girlfriend' ignores the possibility that they may not be like this or there may be a valid message there.

Difference is that while I've seen masculinist women who address their message as women to women, effectively putting a mirror before them and saying "hold on girls, we're no saints because...", I've never seen feminist men doing this.

Instead they tend to just parrot out the same cool-aid as their female counterparts, careful not to deviate from accepted dogma. They don't address their message as men to other men, just as feminists to men.

The Corinthian

py2006 wrote: »

Yet again, only women are victims of domestic abuse and violence.

Don't worry, the vast majority of feminists will speak out against such blatantly sexist views that are being pushed by the minority fringes of their movement...

coffee_cake

py2006 wrote: »

Yet again, only women are victims of domestic abuse and violence. .

No, it seems men and children are also domestic violence victims, but the "violence" in general is for women only. Which is a bit odd

Recognising, with grave concern, that women and girls are often exposed to serious forms of violence such as domestic violence, sexual harassment, rape, forced marriage, crimes committed in the name of so-called “honour” and genital mutilation, which constitute a serious violation of the human rights of women and girls and a major obstacle to the achievement of equality between women and men;

Recognising the ongoing human rights violations during armed conflicts that affect the civilian population, especially women in the form of widespread or systematic rape and sexual violence and the potential for increased gender-based violence both during and after conflicts;

Recognising that women and girls are exposed to a higher risk of gender-based violence than men;

Recognising that domestic violence affects women disproportionately, and that men may also be victims of domestic violence;

Recognising that children are victims of domestic violence, including as witnesses of violence in the family;

The whole forced marriages thing is a point indeed and if the stats show it's disproportionate I can't really disagree. I think men should get together and start campaigning to join this group as well though and have it expanded. It's not like men don't suffer rape in armed conflict areas, and there's a big stigma there too. They acknowledge there as well it's not only women but say "especially women". Maybe a specific group or section for "especially men" would be an idea.
All these things to demand recognition start off that way and it's probably the only way it'll change

I really wish every man who has experienced psychological, emotional, physical abuse and sexual harassment in the work place would come forward.

Well, that's a good plan. Maybe you could write a letter to the times or something calling out for it, and get something going.

The Corinthian

bluewolf wrote: »

No, it seems men and children are also domestic violence victims, but the "violence" in general is for women only. Which is a bit odd

Sexist, misanthropist, chauvinist or biased maybe. Odd, would be intentionality downplaying it.

Recognising that women and girls are exposed to a higher risk of gender-based violence than men;

Only if you narrow down your definition of violence to rape.

The whole forced marriages thing is a point indeed and if the stats show it's disproportionate I can't really disagree.

Are there any studies that include the effect on men who are also forced into marriage, or is the presumption that when two families arrange such things, men are never forced, only women?

I ask, because I don't think I've ever heard anyone ask that question. Is it that all forced marriages are essentially the husband-to-be choosing his bride and paying her family a camel and three goats for the honour? If so, fair enough, but I've heard more than one man of Indian or Pakistani origin dread the this impending custom.

It's not like men don't suffer rape in armed conflict areas, and there's a big stigma there too.

If they're lucky, that's all that happens to men. Most men in armed conflict areas are simply executed. It generally doesn't get reported, or campaigned on, while the rapes do.

All these things to demand recognition start off that way and it's probably the only way it'll change

Depends on who has editorial content on these things. If they're feminists, it won't happen as it would dilute the emphasis on women.

Playboy

The Corinthian wrote: »

Are there any studies that include the effect on men who are also forced into marriage, or is the presumption that when two families arrange such things, men are never forced, only women?

I ask, because I don't think I've ever heard anyone ask that question. Is it that all forced marriages are essentially the husband-to-be choosing his bride and paying her family a camel and three goats for the honour? If so, fair enough, but I've heard more than one man of Indian or Pakistani origin dread the this impending custom.

Well in my experience husbands are under the same pressure as women but it is never seen as an issue in the same way it is for females. I work with and have worked with many Indians over the years, most of whom are in arranged marriages or will be. Introductions are made, it is allowable to refuse some suitors (but not indefinitely) and then if both agree then marriage occurs. The couple will have spent little to no unsupervised time together prior to marriage. The individuals I met (prior to marriage) have all seem resigned to this fate from a young age.

It is true that is probably easier for a man to rebel due to the extremely patriarchal nature of the culture but in my expierence very few do, even the very westernised, young and educated for fear of being ostricized for going against the wishes of the family.

Agent Green

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yes if you get into bed with someone it's not unreasonable of them to assume sex is on the cards. But in relation to sleep/wake-up sex specifically: it's not unreasonable of them to attempt it, and of course it's especially not unreasonable in a long-term relationship, but it is unreasonable of them to expect you to welcome it.
And that is what Diana said men have a "right" to expect. And why? Because she always enjoys it, and you're already in bed with them so you should enjoy it.

But Diana doesn't say that - she says 'men have every right to believe...' not expect. That actually is different. An expectation on the part of the man has an inverse obligation (even if only imagined in the mind of the man) on the part of the woman. Even if a woman denies sex and the man accepts the denial - his expectation still, ahem, stands. A belief doesn't necessarily imply an inverse obligation - imagined or otherwise.

Sleepy

On the issue of the cause of rape, I'd wonder if feminism has inadvertently contributed to the number of rapes with their stance that rape is the "worst thing you can do to a woman" and ideology that rape is a crime of power.

If feminist culture tells you that these things are true for all women, what is a man who no longer cares about the consequences (for whatever reason: mental illness, irrational hatred, finally snapping under the brunt of emotional abuse etc.) going to do to hurt a woman and take "his" power back from her?

Add a silly young women who buys into the theory of "victim blaming" that tells her she doesn't need to take reasonable precautions and a disturbed young man who feels emasculated or dis-empowered that's been fed the notion that rape is empowering and you're introducing a powder keg to a spark. Add in the dis-inhibiting properties of drugs or alcohol and the freedom with which such a young woman is given by our society to be rude in her declining of an advance from that young man in a bar or club and you've thrown a few gallons of petrol into the equation.

(To clarify for the sake of those who'll accuse me of "victim blaming", I'm not saying that the rude, young woman who's ignoring her personal safety in such an example deserves to be raped any more than I'm saying that the disturbed young man is justified in raping her because of her rebuke or his societal conditioning. What I am saying is that all of these things would seem to play a part).

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote: »

On the issue of the cause of rape, I'd wonder if feminism has inadvertently contributed to the number of rapes with their stance that rape is the "worst thing you can do to a woman" and ideology that rape is a crime of power.

If fairness, I'm not sure you can pin that on feminism. The whole "fate worse than death" paradigm pre-dates feminism and is really part of chivalry and related patriarchal honour codes.

Subsequently, I'm not sure feminism has ever promoted the same paradigm, or at least, if it did it would be very silly to do so, given it's origins.

Add a silly young women who buys into the theory of "victim blaming" that tells her she doesn't need to take reasonable precautions and a disturbed young man who feels emasculated or dis-empowered that's been fed the notion that rape is empowering and you're introducing a powder keg to a spark. Add in the dis-inhibiting properties of drugs or alcohol and the freedom with which such a young woman is given by our society to be rude in her declining of an advance from that young man in a bar or club and you've thrown a few gallons of petrol into the equation.

I suspect 'victim blaming' is more about censorship than anything else:

A: "I should have the right to walk anywhere I like at night in perfect safety."
B: "Anywhere? Don't you think that you should take care not to go anywhere that would be dangerous?"
A: "That's blaming the victim! Shut up!"
B: "Errr... hmmm... ok..."

Shutting up your opponent is a lot easier that defending your own nonsensical arguments.

Wibbs

iptba wrote: »

In response to talk about "rape culture" that all men are supposed to be to blame for, some men's rights activists are talking about "false rape culture" and by analogy saying all women are to blame, to make a point.

Generally I've found any argument that uses the words "rape culture", can be safely ignored with little lost to the actual debate. It's a thinly veiled attempt to blame men for everything, while suggesting that women are defenceless automata blindly wandering around subject to the patriarchy and all it's ills. Doesn't sound like the women I know.

Man but that article is a doozy. Quite incredible that she actually believes this utter guff.

The very title intrigues me. "Telling women to be careful gets men off the hook". Hang on a cotton pickin momento there Ted. Sounds like her and this brand of "feminism"* wants to offload all personal responsibility for women and their safety to men. Hmmmm, didn't we have this in the bad old days? Didn't we have a daft time when women were considered too weak to be capable of looking after themselves so men had to step up? I'll save you ladies! Women and children first!. Eh no.

Victim blaming is another one trotted out(do not get me started on the "one in four" stat). Now unlike "rape culture" this term actually does have legs. Victim blaming does occur and it's well out of bloody order. Take that rape trial where the "great and the good" formed a line to shake the hand of a full on no doubt about it rapist convicted by judge and jury. Personally I would have clapped them in irons for a night in the cells and a 1000 quid fine apiece. Disgraceful and shabby behaviour.

However too often IMH it's wheeled out as a coverall to shut down any questions or debate that may point to personal responsibility. If I suggest to a friend that he lock and alarm his or her car against theft am I victim blaming? If I suggest he not leave his brand new laptop on the back shelf of his car when he parks it is that victim blaming? If I suggest to a mate that wearing his [insert football allegiance jersey here] to a bar overwhelmingly frequented by [insert bitter rival football allegiance jersey here] might be a bad plan, am I victim blaming? If a mate of mine starts jeering a bunch of yobs and gets his head kicked in, would pointing out that he was being daft be victim blaming? The yobs should feel the full forse of the law arising from such an assault, but he holds some responsibility.

TBH this kind of ballsology gets me as much because IMHO it demeans women. It suggests they are less capable of choice, personal responsibility and positive action. Instead men have to do all the work to save them. No really GTFO.


*and it is a brand, the vast majority of women actively making a difference in society as people don't buy into this guff

clairefontaine

Can I just say that I do think there is something to "rape culture" but I don't think it is everywhere and I don't think that women are its exclusive victims.

What I refer to here is he madness of the American sports obsessed jock sports culture. I'll let the Irish opine on whether they think it exists in Ireland too, because I really don't I know.

So a lot of this rape culture talk comes out of the US and yes it is there but I feel it's there in the contexts of sports insanity, not just targeting girls and women but each other too as in hazing and bullying, maybe younger boys in the locker room, etc.

Wibbs

Oh I agree CF, yes there are cultures where this nonsense is far more likely to happen, conflicts are another, however the usual bleat of the - and I really hate to use the phrase but IMHO it is descriptive in this case - loony left of the hardline feminist movement applies the term to the wider culture and community. This is especially the case in the US, but it seems it's filtering out from there.

As for Ireland and the jock culture? It's there, but not as full on, or concentrated for the most part. There was a case recently where a bunch of "jocks" had a menage more than deux and said performance was videod and it being the times made it's way onto the interweb to some debate(not on Boards though IIRC so I'll venture no more thataway). Rugger buggers and GAA players can and do attract female attention and I'm sure that can go to some heads and lead to morally dubious behaivour alright, but the levels reported in the US of more extreme hazing and rape type stuff would be lesser, IMHO and IME anyway.

As for this "article" it seems we've gone from the nutty 70's hardline "all men are rapists" to "all men are responsible for rapists and for women's safety". I dunno which is the more insidious.

Agent Green

clairefontaine wrote: »

Can I just say that I do think there is something to "rape culture" but I don't think it is everywhere and I don't think that women are its exclusive victims.

What I refer to here is he madness of the American sports obsessed jock sports culture. I'll let the Irish opine on whether they think it exists in Ireland too, because I really don't I know.

So a lot of this rape culture talk comes out of the US and yes it is there but I feel it's there in the contexts of sports insanity, not just targeting girls and women but each other too as in hazing and bullying, maybe younger boys in the locker room, etc.

Hmmm - the thing with rape culture though is that by definition it's all or nothing - it's societal. You're right about its origins though; it came from academe in the U.S. I think it was in the seventies - I don't remember, or care, who coined it.
Sports culture is real - but isn't from what I can tell about rape. I watched the hockey games last night - Leafs v Canadiens - there wasn't any rape. I don't think there was. Parros face-planted onto the ice and had to be carried off after his fight with Orr - but it wasn't rape.

The hazing thing, where sexual assault occurs is too rare from what I can tell to describe as a rape culture. I would imagine that there is some form of rape culture among rapists though, particularly those that socialize together and exchange rape stories. Otherwise -nah.

coffee_cake

I was reading an article recently which extensively documented cases of this kind of thing happening, and even coaches using it as a threat for underperforming team members, I can't find it now. But this is the idea:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/03/mass-teen-soccer-players-accused-raping-younger-teammates-with-broomstick/

clairefontaine

Agent Green wrote: »

Hmmm - the thing with rape culture though is that by definition it's all or nothing - it's societal. You're right about its origins though; it came from academe in the U.S. I think it was in the seventies - I don't remember, or care, who coined it.
Sports culture is real - but isn't from what I can tell about rape. I watched the hockey games last night - Leafs v Canadiens - there wasn't any rape. I don't think there was. Parros face-planted onto the ice and had to be carried off after his fight with Orr - but it wasn't rape.

The hazing thing, where sexual assault occurs is too rare from what I can tell to describe as a rape culture. I would imagine that there is some form of rape culture among rapists though, particularly those that socialize together and exchange rape stories. Otherwise -nah.

Not really. The rape culture idea emerges from the US, where there are multitudes of various "cultures". It doesn't have to be all or nothing, and it isn't all or nothing.

No you won't see a rape on the ice or the football field. And probably not in pro sports, but who knows. But I do believe it is there in college and high school sports fanatic insanity. And perhaps in ghetto cultures where there is some very shady peer pressure.

Agent Green

clairefontaine wrote: »

Not really. The rape culture idea emerges from the US, where there are multitudes of various "cultures". It doesn't have to be all or nothing, and it isn't all or nothing.

No you won't see a rape on the ice or the football field. And probably not in pro sports, but who knows. But I do believe it is there in college and high school sports fanatic insanity. And perhaps in ghetto cultures where there is some very shady peer pressure.

You misunderstand - rape culture is all or nothing insofar as it doesn't exist in pockets - it's range is broadly societal - not isolated. That doesn't undermine your idea by any stretch just pointing out that feminists might not agree with it - which probably makes it more plausible if anything.

And believing something doesn't equate to a fact so... you know... that's not really a solid argument. But - if all you're saying is that you think it exists - without any evidential considerations, well, that's fine too - but it's not a great argument.

clairefontaine

Agent Green wrote: »

You misunderstand - rape culture is all or nothing insofar as it doesn't exist in pockets - it's range is broadly societal - not isolated. That doesn't undermine your idea by any stretch just pointing out that feminists might not agree with it - which probably makes it more plausible if anything.

And believing something doesn't equate to a fact so... you know... that's not really a solid argument. But - if all you're saying is that you think it exists - without any evidential considerations, well, that's fine too - but it's not a great argument.

Ok we'll I'm not really pushed by the idea that feminists might not agree with it, in so far as that's fine by me. In other words, I really don't care whether feminists agree with it or they don't.

Your right that belief does not equate to fact, but I need suggested it did. I just think there is something to rape culture in specific contexts, and obviously that relates to my experiences and perceptions of them. I'm not trying to win anyone over here, I'm just adding in my two cents, anyone is free to take it or leave it.