rape culture/victim culture

You link to an article "From Property to Almost Human", which rightly criticizes regarding human beings as property.Of course, when I turned eighteen I was required by federal law to register myself as property of the US government, as are all men in the US. Happily, my "property status" only lasted seven years.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".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.

Is this clear? Is there reliable data to back this up?(By the way; I'm not trying to be argumentative with you in this thread - it's simply an area of personal interest and I'd like to make sure the facts are straight, especially since they are usually biased or misconstrued by one group or another.)

Franky, from what I've read and experienced, most do not.I feel what you call "laziness of critique" here is far from laziness. It is an all too common tactic amongst some feminist groups to use generalization, extrapolation, demonization, hyperbole, and outdated material. I know there are. Unfortunately they often don't make it into the hands of the average Women's Studies major.

You've went from "clearly" to "definitely", but still haven't supplied any data.Your argument is - domestic assaults are given less attention and treatment by law enforcement than non-domestic assault.So, in what percent of each category are arrests made? In what percent are there prosecutions? What is the average jail term given for each type of assault?This is the sort of thing I'm interested in, and I think you need to supply for your argument. It's also only been recently that male victims of domestic assault have been recognized as even a possibility by law enforcement - though fortunately that seems to be changing.

From contra's source and quote: You refer to this inequity as "the labour [men] recieve from women for free", but is this really the case?:From the same source, but not quoted: Let's assume a 5-day 40-hour workweek for women, and a 5-day 45-hour workweek for men (which may be conservative since many in the US work more than five days a week or more than one job). Thus, for mothers and fathers, total work contributed to the "unit" is 54 hours and 53.5 hours, respectively.

​

For men and women without children, total work contributed to the "unit" is 53 hours for both.

​

Looks like equitable time expenditure to me.Men are "paying" for their wive's home labor by working more time outside of the home.So..... Was there a reason you chose to cite housework, and not total work? I mean, I could cite only outside-of-the-home work hours to show that men are being victimized by women - but that would be dishonest, wouldn't it?It's easy to make your point when you rely on stereotypes, selectively tell only part of the story, and then label anyone who disagrees with you as a stereotyper.

...or maybe women are spending more time at home because it is easier than working at their job, or they enjoy actually spending time with their children, or a myriad of other reasons....or maybe men are spending more time at work because they need to feed their family....because maybe the average male sanitation worker or assembly line worker would find it easier or more enjoyable to take care of their kids than sling toxic waste and car doors.I guess I don't understand the intended point of your aside - it seems to simply take a jab at men.My point was that solely looking at housework as a measure of work effort contributing to the family unit was obviously flawed.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...)

Where did my formula imply that?My calculations showed that total time spent working for the family was roughly the same for men and women. Yes - I know the feeling; for every person who hates housework there seems to be another who enjoy or feel compelled to do it much more than necessary. Hours spent fulfilling these personal desires shouldn't count in "the tally" any more than those spent working all weekend at a job because people enjoy it...

It's not surprising that many people would follow that trend; especially salaried professionals. I feel like many such studies ignore the enormous number of hourly wage workers in the country who need to work overtime or two jobs to support their families.However, I know plenty of people who wish they could spend more time at home/with their kids but are limited by work hours. Perhaps I'll look around to see if anyone has surveyed that point. From my personal anecdotal experience, most people I know want to spend more time at home than at work. Okay. I guess in part I am keeping in mind some studies that were done a while back that showed that in cases of assault where women were victims, consistently prosecutions were more likely and sentences longer than if men were victims. This intuitively argues (in my mind) that the criminal courts go out of their way to protect women (or they don't value men as much). I realize that even if I could produce this study it wouldn't address the domestic vs non-domestic assault issue, however that is in part where my question was coming from...I'll check out the linked paper when I get a chance.

I'm not sure how to take your rant.It seems you hate both men and women, so I guess I can't call you sexist.Care to contribute anything worthwhile?

I would prefer society went in another direction, rather than taking away certain parental leave rights from women, give the same parental leave rights to both women and men.Perhaps if fathers were given the chance to nurture early in their child's life they wouldn't be so reticent or hapless regarding "taking care of the kids" in general. Such rights would also go a long way to opposing the idea that men need to work outside of the home to support stay-at-home wives. Many men would like to be stay-at-home dads while their wives provide the source of income - as you say, if they want to they should quite whining and do so - yet such a scenario remains unaccepted by society's standards.You want to reverse stereotypes about women? Don't take away their benefits, give the same benefits to men, and maybe in the process stereotypes about both men and women will be reversed.

Who said that, and where?Before you call a line of discussion "sick" perhaps you should check to make sure you aren't just twisting it into something sick...

In the first sequel, Aliens, the maternal aspect of both the 'mother' alien and Ripley is enhanced quite a bit. Ripley adopts a young girl to protect, and the mama alien is protective of her eggs and visibly upset at their destruction.I think these maternal roles made for a strong conflict, with the "most dangerous animal in the world is a mother protecting its young" theme going strong.I do believe that the sequels to Alien maternalized Ripley - first sequel, she adopts a young girl; second sequel, despite being masculinized with a shaved head and celibate environment, she is impregnated; in the third sequel I believe she takes on a mother/mentor role to a teenager.I'll agree that feminist (and other -ists) critiques of pop culture often go awry with hyperbole. One theme they seem to misconstrue is a fairly common one, the theme of "protect/avenge a woman violated at any cost" - where often violence against a single women sets up a conflict resulting in a plot of violence against many, many men.I remember a scathing feminist critique of "Unforgiven" because of the way the conflict of the film is established: A young prostitute has her face carved up, and rather than jailing the perpetrators, the sheriff forces them to pay the prostitute's manager for income lost by her disfigurement. The feminist critique stated that this was a glorification of violent use of women-as-property, and a mirror of contemporary society.Of course, in order to make that statement they had to ignore the bulk of the film, in which countless men are shot to death in order to make good the crime of a scarred face.a women scarred = a dozen men deadDoesn't seem like a movie where women are devalued.

Thought I'd do a quick check; seems like you are on the money, if the Oscars are any indication:Oscars; Best Picture 1970-79:
Patton
The French Connection
The Godfather
The Sting
The Godfather II
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Rocky
Annie Hall
The Deer Hunter
Kramer vs. KramerThey are all very male-centric except for 1979's Kramer vs. Kramer, which specifically examined the changing nature of gender roles in society.This message has been edited by pink sasquatch, 03-28-2005 11:20 PM

Wow. Holmes, despite your apparent status as resident sex-expert, I have to say you are quite off on this one. Anal sex is NOT about learning to endure pain, it is about learning to relax and enjoy pleasurable sensations. Feeling pleasure, not enduring pain.You may be able to argue that you have to learn to relax, but the exact same argument could be made about vaginal intercourse as well - which would throw it into your "not a naturally enjoyable experience" category.

Don't be such an ass. Good thing I didn't make that argument, then. The bulk of your reply is arguments against statements I didn't make...My problem was with your statement that engaging in anal sex is about enduring pain, which it is not - it is about enjoying pleasure. Becoming accustomed to anal sex doesn't even have to involve any significant amount of pain (any more than becoming accustomed to vaginal intercourse), as long as one starts small and gradually works their way up to bigger and better things.