|
Author
|
Topic: rape culture/victim culture
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
|
Message 9 of 209 (193425)
03-22-2005 1:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by nator
03-22-2005 1:19 PM
|
|
Re: yo holmes
Excellent (steeples hands together Burnsily)...
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by nator, posted 03-22-2005 1:19 PM | | nator has not replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
|
|
Message 18 of 209 (193624)
03-23-2005 5:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 17 by crashfrog
03-23-2005 3:37 AM
|
|
I think there's a kind of implied consent any time two adults are in an ongoing sexual relationship... For instance if some guy grabbed my wife's rear in a bar without asking, that would be sexual assault. If I do it at home without asking, it's not, unless she literally has told me not to. (Up to that point it's just a misunderstanding.) I think this is a good point. Not to try and say that law enforcement was not, and still is not, negligent in pursuing rightful claims of abuse (sexual or other) within spousal or other relationship environments... but I guess it does have to be admitted that it is tougher to understand what is going on and so how to treat something like that. Partners can do all sorts of things in the heat of the moment which generally do not occur in regular life with people one does not know. That includes good things and bad things. I also find it a bit odd that some people think a guy cannot expect free access to his wife's body for whatever he wants, but that a gal can expect free access to that guy's personal bank account for whatever she wants. That is carried through during the marriage, and into divorce as well. Is a couple just two individuals with no other expectations about their relationship other than they shouldn't have sex with other people? I think there is some built-in expectations of giving up some personal integrity/boundaries, and sexual autonomy may be part of that... though the result of not fulfilling it should be divorce, not rape.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2005 3:37 AM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
Thats an insufficient basis for failing to prosecuate the bad things. Right, my point being it is harder to tell what they are which results in a real life tendency for law not to get involved. I am not excusing it, I am explaining it. There's a huge difference.
Ah, so from women as self-important victim to woman as gold-digger. Any more misogynistic sterotypes you care to entertain us with? Huh? I was not downgrading the women who were victimized. I was showing that there are also other forms of victimization including economic which is generally accepted based on gender bias. Unless you are actually arguing that it is fair that a woman has access to her partner's money, including to their partner's financial ruin, including during divorce proceedings that are no fault of the partner? To be fair this can happen in either direction (just like physical abuse) but it is more often the case of women taking men to the cleaners, including with the sanction of the courts.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
I most certainly do. Considering that for most men, being married is like having a live-in servant, I think it is entirely fair. Furthermore, as most women work discriminatory on lower pay, and as a consequence also have lower pensions, the issue of her future support is more pressing - especially if she retains custody of the kids. Irony= arguing men should be able to have their money taken by women, because men get to use women, while at the same time saying men can't use women. There is either equality or there is not, There is either struggle for equality or there is not. I was noting another inequality which exists, you appear to be defending it.
And I regard describing an equitable settlement etsablished by law as "taking someone to the cleaners" to be unnecessarily emotive and vindictive. Once again, it is a common misogynist trope, an appeal to the victim status of the male. Ahhhh, so today laws are a measure of what is correct and equitable, rather than a measure of society's self-delusional yoke. In any case I did not say all women were like this. If you are about to argue that no women is like this (that is no woman has used her "rights" to fleece a man) then we might as well stop discussing this, we live on different planets.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
|
|
Message 25 of 209 (193710)
03-23-2005 3:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 24 by Taqless
03-23-2005 1:57 PM
|
|
However, rape that occurs in marriage or an on-going relationship is not typically an "out of the blue" behavior. Yes, but cops arriving on the scene cannot usually know this. Again I am not saying there cannot or should not be prosecution of rape within relationships including marriage. I was simply backing up crash's point that there is some extra leeway within relationships (his grabbing his wife's ass was pretty good) and that can create difficulties for law enforcement handling... it's never as clean cut.
Come on holmes you don't have to give her acces to your damn bank account. Actually, yes you do. And if you don't then a partner can divorce and take half (and sometimes more) of total assets. But this is getting beside the point. The fact is that partners can and have taken advantage of another's money supply and even put their partners into financial ruin. This is generally okayed by law when it is woman on man. It is expected that the man will provide, including after the marriage. Contra was right that this was developed within a sexist framework where men worked and women stayed home and took care of everything else. Oh yeah, and that included the sex, which is why men were expected to be able to get sex when they wanted it. Once one wall starts tumbling the rest needs to go with it.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by Taqless, posted 03-23-2005 1:57 PM | | Taqless has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 26 by Taqless, posted 03-23-2005 3:54 PM | | Silent H has not replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
The first argument is thast it is NOT "his" money, because they existed as a unit, and his obligations to that unit persist regardless. 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. Besides which, partners have access to money made before they were a "unit" (though I realize this may differ according to local laws).
Second, it acknowledges the effort and contribution women make to the routine labour of the hoisehold, from whcih he benefits - this might be seen as "using" but need not, escpecially when it is recognised through compensation. Ahhhh, so the law assumes that a woman's contribution in marriage is to the routine labour of the household, and that men compensate them for this, and this is correct to you. Yessiree, you sure are running out of that misogynist closet waving your flag proudly. But if we are running with this, on top of expecting them to be a maid, why can't they be expected to be a prostitute?
Fine, and like any good ol' boy racist, your next argument is going to be that affirmative action is itself racist. What does sexism have to do with racism... I suppose my fascist capitalist warmongering is just around the corner? My statement regarding how equality should be fought for, that it needs to reduce all prejudice to rubble, would have no inherent impact on affirmative action programs.
The only delusional people are those stereotyping women as emotional victim-cultists and gold-diggers. Well there are plenty more delusional people than just those. Just glad I ain't one of any of those mentioned.
Even if an individual con-artist does such a thing, this would NOT be a remotely good reason for reverting to an inequitable society. I'm sorry which was the inequitable society again? 1) Men use wives as maids and give up part of their earnings as payment. 2) Men and women hold their finances separate, and no one is assumed to have worked menial chores for the benefit of the other and so needed compensation.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
|
|
Message 35 of 209 (194013)
03-24-2005 10:00 AM
|
Reply to: Message 34 by nator
03-24-2005 9:44 AM
|
|
"Spouse" does not equal "slave" or "person with no individual rights to control her own body and what is done to it". Right, that's what I was arguing against, treating any person as a slave. 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?
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by nator, posted 03-24-2005 9:44 AM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 42 by nator, posted 03-24-2005 3:32 PM | | Silent H has not replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
I have defined rights and responsibilities commensurate to that role. to argue that intramarital rape is unacceptable does not undermine the existence of that family unit. To argue that intramarital theft is unacceptable does not undermine the existence of that family unit.
And men do NOT compensate them for this - this is unpaid labour. And it can be left at that, until such tiome as the relationship breaks down - at that time thew women is perfectly entitled to claim recompense for her investment in her husbands career. What if she hasn't done a thing? What if she has her own career? What if the man is a stay at home dad? What if there is considerable money in savings which were from the man before the relationship? I'm not getting how law observing past instances of wrong treatment of women (especially as far back as "debtors prison", which does not include US law) allows it to say what any temporary situation is. Are you advocating that courts and law should be run so that all present cases ignore specifics and instead look at stereotypes from the past?
you appear to have ASSUMED that position was not evidence-based. Uhhhhh, whether it was observed or assumed by the law, your desiring that it be maintained within the law as an assumption of how families be viewed is misogynistic.
The marriage contract is not about buying sex... Right, neither is it about buying a slave to clean house, nor to go out to earn money.
They are structurally identical, often exhibit the same logical fallacies I'm sorry for not making my point clearer. What does it have to do with this thread? You were saying that I was about to bring up AA. Why would I do that in this thread?
No? No.
The one in which the thankless ex-husband takes his money and runs. Yes, if you don't actually want to answer the question, because it will point out your misogynistic tendencies, I understand. That would be embarassing for you.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
Thats why I think the guy should pay. Otherwise it is theft. Implicit proposition: Because women will naturally be the ones tending the house and doing all that "women's work, while men go out and earn the real money doing "men's work". Whatta misogynist you are.
I'm happy to leave that to the legal process. That is what lawyers are there to argue, and judges to decide. Oh wait a second, but that's what's there for intramarital rape as well. You trust the legal process for that? It was just shown to be biased, and here you are saying we are supposed to trust it? Whatta misogynist.
Straw man. Exactly. You make'em for me I make'em for you.
There is nothing misogynistic in RECOGNISING the facts. That is why it is evidence based, and I have referred you to that evidence. To assert it is misogynistic to reocngise the material reality of female labour is frankly childish. Absolutely right, there is nothing misogynistic in recognizing the FACTS, and approach things in an EVIDENCE BASED method. Thus historical FACTS and EVIDENCE, have nothing to do with the FACTS and EVIDENCE regarding a relationship today. To assert that female labour is a material reality such that we should have laws based on that model is not only childish, it is misogynistic.
Therefore, the women has the right to claim recompense for her labour. Right, or not when there was none, and not over money made when she was nowhere involved with the current spouse.
Read above; you did exactly what I predicted. Heheheh... no, you continue to do exactly what I predict. You have become one of my favorite balls of yarn. And when you become a ball of yawn I stop playing.
In fact, the answer is "yes". The answer was no. You are wriggling again, attempting to construct a spurious equivalence between recognising injustice and endorsing injustice. IOW, the classic apologetic of the bigot. Heheheh.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by contracycle, posted 03-24-2005 10:22 AM | | contracycle has replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
actually acknowledging the other sides arghument is not exactly your style, is it? I'll be your mirror,
reflect what you are,
in case you don't know.-Velvet Underground and Niko
you are like a kid with a new word, and you clearly do not understand what it means. Or at least, pretend not to. Oh, I thought it was a great new word and technique and decided to get in some practice after watching you throw it at all those strawmen. Looked like fun. Does it seem fun to you? Or very annoying?
And indeed, in both cases it is likely that our sexist society will tend to judge in favour of men This shows a distinct lack of knowledge about the "other" case.
but that is not sufficient basis for objecting to it being raised as a legal issue at all. That's just it, I wasn't objecting to anything being raised as a legal issue, you were. Once you understand that, you will see what your problem is, and why I cannot take your comments to me seriously.
including the reality that women do vast amounts of unpaid labour. (and indeed, three quarters of all manual labour globally, according to the UN) Facts and evidence... Now every man must "pay" a wife to compensate for the fact that some other women are not being paid for work, or underpaid for work, somewhere not in their own home? I suppose at that rate it should be made illegal for men not to have wives so no man can be said to be skimping out on paying some woman something?
Because you know you are whipped. No, by the time I am tired playing with you, I have gotten done watching you thoroughly whip strawmen and dead horses, not me. Your problem is not identifying my correct position, just about every time. There is only so long I can watch you launch invectives at other positions, before it loses its appeal.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 39 by contracycle, posted 03-24-2005 11:15 AM | | contracycle has replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
Except your manifest inability to defend yourself, resorting as you have done to affected incredulity and overextension, shows I had you correctly spiked, mounted and displayed. If that's what you want to believe, that's just fine. I feel the same way about you. Looks like that leaves it up to everyone else to make up their own minds.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 77 by contracycle, posted 03-28-2005 6:35 AM | | contracycle has not replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
|
|
Message 86 of 209 (194975)
03-28-2005 12:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 82 by nator
03-28-2005 10:13 AM
|
|
Re: benefits
Of course, then we head into the 70's backlash of the portrayal of women in film; almost no women at all, except a few prostitutes and abused women. I don't know about tv, but this seems a rather strange suggestion about film. You honestly can't think of powerful women characters from the 70's? Or are you just talking a certain section of the 70's?
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 82 by nator, posted 03-28-2005 10:13 AM | | nator has replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
|
|
Message 88 of 209 (194985)
03-28-2005 1:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 87 by crashfrog
03-28-2005 1:10 PM
|
|
Yep... How about Ripley and Norma Rae? (edited in: and lest I mention the rise of Jamie Lee Curtis?) This message has been edited by holmes, 03-28-2005 01:29 PM
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 03-28-2005 1:10 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 03-28-2005 2:11 PM | | Silent H has replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
|
|
Message 90 of 209 (195001)
03-28-2005 3:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 89 by crashfrog
03-28-2005 2:11 PM
|
|
Never seen Alien? All the rest suck (with the exception of Aliens as a pure action vehicle). Actually her strong lead was sort of groundbreaking. She was in command from nearly the beginning, and the problems of power within the relationships were based on anything but male/female roles. And technically when you have an Alien that rapes both men and women... well.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 03-28-2005 2:11 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
Re: alien
a strong woman against a monster with a giant phallic head. Regardless of whether Dallas or Ripley were to be the final hero, Ripley was a strong character throughout, even from the beginning. Other than some sexual joking, power struggles within the crew were based on rank and businesss issues, not sex. That IMO continued the Star Trek view of simply treating women as expected equals, and not go into time explaining why they should be thought of as equals (or more). Any interpretation of the alien as overtly male, is sort of strange. As far as victims go, there are more men than women and two are (in the uncut version) "impregnated" by the alien. At the very least one is used to harbor eggs in the released version. In that women's study book, did they have anything to say about the entire crew going to "mother" to get their orders, and that's essentially who ran the ship? Fer gosh sake it even had a female voice.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
™ Version 4.2