rape culture/victim culture

Some historical background for attitudes in the US regarding violence towards women and rape: linkThe following is a list of myths and facts put out by the DoJ.Now, if these "myths" weren't commonly held, why would there need to be "facts" to counter them? myths and facts

Of course, you are right, Dan.However, in this case, these are excuses that have been commonly heard for a long, long time.

quote:

---

I just wish more feminist organizations would contribute to demonstrating that both men and women are confined, controlled, and victimized by society in different ways. I think it would go a long way to solving issues of "sexism".

---

I agree, and actually many feminist organizations do address this problem.Susan Faludi's book "Stiffed" was exactly about that very issue.

quote:

---

As an example, many of the "myths and facts" apply more so to male victims of sexual assault than female victims. In fact, they left out entirely one of the greatest rape myths of all time; that is, "men are not victims of rape." I see the language of the "myths and facts" list as inherently sexist, or at least callous.

---

Well, what do you expect, it was compiled by a government agency? Seriously, I have come across many sites regarding rape and many of them include statistics of rapes of men.The reason I used a government source instead of a "rape crisis" type source is that it would be less likely to be biased to overblow or misstate figures than a women's advocacy site.

I have been thinking about separating out "date" rape as a differnt kind of rape, and I may be coming around to your point a view a bit.I was thinking about how I find it really annoying that when a stranger walks up to me and punches me, it's called "assault", but if my husband were to do the same thing, it's called "domestic assault".Why should it get a different name just because the attacker was my husband?Clearly, "domestic" assaults are given different, less serious attention and treatment by law enforcement, so wouldn't defining it all as "aggravated assault" instead of "spousal battery" or whatever be better?So, I think I agree with you after all that while it is useful to indicate that certain actions which were previously widely considered not to be rape actually are rape and to educate people about that, I am not sure that calling it something else is ultimately very helpful.I think that this issus, along with marital rape and prostitute rape, have gotten "soundbit" and therefore any nuance or complexity of meaning has been lost after beign consumed and digested by the popular culture.

quote:

---

Is this clear? Is there reliable data to back this up?

---

Well, historically it has been definitely the case that domestic violence was not treated the same as regular assaults; it was a "private, family matter", and that even if an officer saw the bruises, scratches, and blood, and the woman told him that her husband or boyfriend did it, it was up to her to decide if he went to jail or not.It's only been recently that, in some jurisdictions, an officer must arrest and charge the husband or boyfriend in such cases, even if the victim says they don't want to press charges. That's a new thing, AFAIK.Now, this law is not perfect, and I am not sure that I think mandatory arrests are a great idea, but it is a far cry from what used to be, which was little to no protection for women from their batterers.

quote:

---

Anyhow, what we had was a case of nonconsensual sex within a marriage.

---

Yes.Nonconsensual sex of any kind is called rape.

quote:

---

1) I don't see how one would "prove" the case one way or the other. It would seem to be very much as she said / he said type thing.

---

Most rape prosecutions are "he said/she said" things when they involve intimate partners, it dosen't mean that we shouldn't prosecute the rapists.Child abuse is similarly difficult to prosecute, yet we can and do prosecute the abusers for their crimes.

quote:

---

2) I would think that such a situation would very much be a cause for divorce, but making a criminal court case out of it seem to be going a bit too far.

---

So, are you suggesting that a spouse can claim some kind of rights or ownership over the body of whomever they are married to, such that they have a right to do things to that person against their will?

quote:

---

You hitting Zhimbo up side the head with a frying pan is not the same as the neighbor doing it.

---

I cannot fathom how my hitting a person should be treated any differently simply because I am married to them.Nobody has a right to assault me, and I have no right to assault anyone else.

quote:

---

Considering that for most men, being married is like having a live-in servant

---

Uh, "most" men?Not among many of my generation.

LOL!

quote:

---

Uh, the argument is that they DO NOT exist as a unit. If they existed as a unit then why should one partner not have a right to touch any part of the singular unit he is a part of.

---

"Spouse" does not equal "slave" or "person with no individual rights to control her own body and what is done to it".At least, not these daysThis message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-24-2005 09:46 AM

quote:

---

Please don't tell me you are buying contra's argument that their should be an understanding in law that partners have the automatic right to the other's money... because of an assumed role of servitude that needs to be compensated?

---

No, sorry, I guess I misunderstood.However, it is a great deal easier to tell who's body it is compared to who's money it is in a marriage.I mean, he does have a point that a supportive, yet non-money-earning role that a spouse may perform is not without value.Indeed, a married executive would spend many tens of thousands of dollars a year to hire people to do the things a stay at home spouse does, including hostessing at parties, making a good impression for clients, childcare, homemaking, etc.

quote:

---

Men are "paying" for their wive's home labor by working more time outside of the home.

---

...or maybe they are spending more time at work because it is easier than taking care of the kids and the house.

quote:

---

guess I don't understand the intended point of your aside - it seems to simply take a jab at men.

---

No, actually both genders do this.At least, that was the observation of the author of an article I read a while back. I spent some time searching for an online version of it, or something similar, but so far have failed to find it.Anyway, the idea of the piece was that there was a trend toward people spending more time at work not just because they needed the money. Indeed, many people who spend long hours at work get paid the same, as they paid a salary. The people were working more because they were avoiding the chaos and drudgery of being at home with kids and housework.

quote:

---

My point was that solely looking at housework as a measure of work effort contributing to the family unit was obviously flawed.

---

Oh, I agree with this.

quote:

---

Also, I am still interested in seeing your comparative data of arrests, prosecutions, and sentences for domestic versus non-domestic assault that lead you to make the assertion: "Clearly, "domestic" assaults are given different, less serious attention and treatment by law enforcement." (Especially given the recent accusation that evos don't demand evidence and follow-up on each other's assertions...)

---

I have been searching for statistics, but I can't seem to find any comparative ones, and finding statistics of violent crime prosecutions vs. domestic violent crime prosecution has been very difficult.However, I think that there is probably widespread variation in the US among communities regarding how seriously law enforcement and prosecutors' offices treat domestic violence. I found this paper which looked at several counties in Missouri which showed marked differences in how domestic assaults were investigated and prosecuted. paperSo, for now I have to withdraw my statement since I can't find the stats.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-25-2005 08:29 AM

brennakimi, perhaps you might consider putting aside your apparent hatred of women for a second and spend a moment of your time looking up that old thread on feminism.I seem to recall that you left a few things hanging there.Hey, I found it! Here you go: What is Feminism? Message #59

quote:

---

One of the problems I have with the formula presented is the implication that the work in the house has been ‘ordered’ by the male. As an example, I once lived with a woman that vacuumed the living room every day. This was not a service she was providing me, but her fulfilling a personal need.

---

The issue is not always that a specific individual man "orders" his wife to do most of the housework, although that certainlt happens, just as some wives "order" their husbands to work outside the home.It is more an issue of cultural expectations that we are immersed in since birth, possibly before. Girls are expected to be neater than boys, and are also expected to be the caretakers. Boys are expected to be messier, and to need to be taken care of.These attitudes don't evaporate when we reach adulthood.

quote:

---

in our day in age, having children is a choice. if a woman really wants a career,

---

or if a man really wants a career...

quote:

---

then she has to consider that in her family planning agenda.

---

Doesn't a man have to do the same?...if he doesn't have to consider it, why not?

quote:

---

if she wants children, then she either has to sacrifice and squeeze them out or adopt and hire a nanny.

---

Pregnancy only lasts 9 months, while the responsibility of raising a child lasts at least 18 years.Most women work up until very close to birth, so it isn't even 9 months of work absence.Fathers need to consider child care responsibilities too, right?

quote:

---

in which case she doesn't really have children now does she?

---

Says who, you?It's a myth that everyone used to have stay at home mothers.And even though men are parents, parenting and childcare issues are still thought of as "women's issues" by many people.