rape culture/victim culture

quote:

---

Franky, from what I've read and experienced, most do not.

---

What have you read?

quote:

---

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all too common tactic amongst some feminist groups to use generalization, extrapolation, demonization, hyperbole, and outdated material.

---

IME thats directly the opposite of the reality: the anti-feminist brigade conatanlty do so, as in this thread, where the false generalisation that feminists are not concerned about the impact of stereotyping on men was raised.Extrapolation and hyperbole are also common in this campe, as in the argument that feminism are anti-sex, anti-beauty, or anti-men.Having offered the demonisation of "some feminist groups", can you please identify them?This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-23-2005 07:00 AM

quote:

---

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.

---

Thats an insufficient basis for failing to prosecuate the bad things.

quote:

---

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.

---

Ah, so from women as self-important victim to woman as gold-digger. Any more misogynistic sterotypes you care to entertain us with?

quote:

---

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?

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Again, nonsense. The first argument is thast it is NOT "his" money, because they existed as a unit, and his obligations to that unit persist regardless. 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. An third, notne of this says anything about anyone using anyone - you are merely seeking a mailcious spin.

quote:

---

There is either equality or there is not, There is either struggle for equality or there is not.

---

Fine, and like any good ol' boy racist, your next argument is going to be that affirmative action is itself racist. You GET equality by making it happen - you are arguing we should NOT make it happen, and that inequality should be maintained.

quote:

---

Ahhhh, so today laws are a measure of what is correct and equitable, rather than a measure of society's self-delusional yoke.

---

Yes. The only delusional people are those stereotyping women as emotional victim-cultists and gold-diggers.

quote:

---

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.

---

Irrelevant - special cases do not necessarily imnpact the general case. Even if an individual con-artist does such a thing, this would NOT be a remotely good reason for reverting to an inequitable society. Thats entirely within the remit of conventional criminal law.

quote:

---

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

---

Such complacency; according to whom?

quote:

---

Generally, women do two-thirds of household tasks, such as cooking, cleaning, and lawn care but not child care. Working mothers do about 14 hours weekly of housework, while working fathers do 8.5 hours, according to the first government study of how Americans use their time, which was released in September.

​

Married women and men without children do 13 hours and 8 hours weekly, respectively. That's a big contrast from 1965, when women spent 30 hours a week doing housework, compared with five hours by men.

---

http://bostonworks.boston.com/...lance/archives/110704.shtmlYes the situation has changed somewhat; but it's still the case that if men were billed the minimum wage rate (at least) for the labour they recieve from women for free, I reckon they would be much less "outraged".This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-24-2005 05:51 AM

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.

---

Its a nonsense anaology - working for the same corporation links me in a unit with all my colleagues. 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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Not ASSUMES, but OBSERVES. That is what is comrehgensively demonstrated by the time use study; FYI, the remaining tima available to men was committed to TV-watching.Furthermore, this is a long established role in socities that treat women as chattel property; for example, in England a wife would accompany her husband into debtors prison, there to wash his shirts and cook his meals as she had before.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.

quote:

---

Yessiree, you sure are running out of that misogynist closet waving your flag proudly.

---

Your ignroance is showing, holmes. You inposed the word "assume"; you appear to have ASSUMED that position was not evidence-based.

quote:

---

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?

---

For the same reason my female work-colleagues are not expected to be prostitutes: its not in the contract. The marriage contract is not about buying sex... or at least, it might be to you, I concede.

quote:

---

What does sexism have to do with racism... I suppose my fascist capitalist warmongering is just around the corner?

---

They are structurally identical, often exhibit the same logical fallacies, and often both held by those self-pitying saddo's who complain about "political correctbess" and how the poor white male is persecuted.

quote:

---

Well there are plenty more delusional people than just those. Just glad I ain't one of any of those mentioned.

---

No?

quote:

---

I'm sorry which was the inequitable society again?

---

The one in which the thankless ex-husband takes his money and runs.This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-24-2005 09:09 AM

quote:

---

To argue that intramarital theft is unacceptable does not undermine the existence of that family unit.

---

Oh, I'm definitely against intramarital theft. Thats why I think the guy should pay. Otherwise it is theft.

quote:

---

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 happy to leave that to the legal process. That is what lawyers are there to argue, and judges to decide.

quote:

---

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?

---

No, merely that there is no progress if we merely replicate the past. And that progress has been brought about by endowing women to a legal claim to the earnings to which they contributed. And the purpose of these historicla examples is to show tyhat as) the prejudice does indeed run deep and b) give the lie to the myth of the male as the only worker. Straw man.

quote:

---

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.

---

Right..... and its also "racist" to acknowledge that black people have been persecuted and seek compensation from whites, for example. Just as I predicted - when caught out, the bigot resorts to simplistically reversing the accusation, demonstrating only that they refuse to grasp the point.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.

quote:

---

Right, neither is it about buying a slave to clean house, nor to go out to earn money.

---

Exactyl. Therefore, the women has the right to claim recompense for her labour.

quote:

---

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?

---

Read above; you did exactly what I predicted.

quote:

---

No.

---

In fact, the answer is "yes".

quote:

---

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.

---

It was answered. You are wriggling again, attempting to construct a spurious equivalence between recognising injustice and endorsing injustice. IOW, the classic apologetic of the bigot.

quote:

---

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".

---

Baloney. EXPLICIT proposition, ours is a misogynist culture that treats women largely as an adjunct to their husbands. This is quite obvious; its still routine for women to change their name on marriage, reflecting their transition from the ownership of one man to another.I'm claiming that there is precisely nothing natural about this. But of course, actually acknowledging the other sides arghument is not exactly your style, is it?

quote:

---

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.

---

Holmes, this wears thin rapidly - you are like a kid with a new word, and you clearly do not understand what it means. Or at least, pretend not to.Have I ever proposed that intramarital rape be taken OUT of the courts? Not at all. And indeed, in both cases it is likely that our sexist society will tend to judge in favour of men; but that is not sufficient basis for objecting to it being raised as a legal issue at all.

quote:

---

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

---

Except thats FACTUALLY facile. Once again, it is the same argument offered for racism; oh yes it used to be bad, but now its perfect, and there is no intermediate position. What nonsense. The FACTS remain that women are discriminated against in the workplace; the FACTS remains that women suffer sexual harrasment much more frequently than men; the FACTS remain that women do unpaind labour and suffer interruptions to their career which men do not. You cannot wish history away - that is impossible.

quote:

---

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.

---

Why? You've just agreed we should look at the FACTS. We should have lwas that relfacte the reality today, including the reality that women do vast amounts of unpaid labour. (and indeed, three quarters of all manual labour globally, according to the UN)

quote:

---

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.

---

Because you know you are whipped.This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-24-2005 11:16 AM

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. That said, I’m for shared finances.

---

That in fact is the classic form: passive aggression.As in, I affect not to feel the house needs cleaning, therefore I stand by and "allow" you to do it for your "own" reasons. The result is perpetuation, not least because male children learn from their fathers that this technique works. Thus many men are nearly permanent infants - cared for first by a mother, and then by a lover, and then by a daughter.

quote:

---

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?

---

Neither. Watching you make a fool of yourself does not affect me at all.

quote:

---

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?

---

No, not every man must pay - thats your extension to an illogical extreme again. Those who benefit must pay.Once again you sidplay a shocking degree of ignorance in regards this topic. Regardless of what YOU THINK of the matter, non-paid labour and shared contribution is indeed the basis in law for a claim on a partners assets in divorce. This applies both ways, should the women be the higher earner.

quote:

---

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

---

See? Making a fool of yourself undermines your argument, not mine. [quote] Your problem is not identifying my correct position, just about every time. [quote] 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.

quote:

---

i suppose giving both parental leave is a reasonable idea but certainly not just the woman. but i disagree that most children are born after careful consideration of both parties. most children are born due to the total lack of consideration of either or both parties.

---

Well given you posts, surely tou would agree thats mostly becuase of evil women trapping men into marriage so they can live of his earnings?

quote:

---

but my main point is not that men work and force their women to stay home, rather that women stay home and force their men to work.

---

That I'm afraid is completely fatuous. Once again this is an argument from ignorance. Almost the entirety of the feminist argument has been aimed at ALLOWING women the opportunity to work for themselves, ratehr than be dependant on mens employment and earnings. So emrely by examining that HISTORICAL FACT we can clearly observe that the idea of womern "forcing" men to work on their behalf is total nonsense. This argument is either historically irgnorant or purposefully misogynist.Second, we have many examples of men applying social pressure, or seomthimes direct force, on women to stay home and be dependants. An excellent example is American 50's TV, things like Bewitched - here's this female character who can teleport about and turn objects into anither and what does she use it for? Being a good housewife, that pinnacle of female ambition, making sure she is in time to make hubby his dinner after work.Further, we have the stereotyping, of women being irrational, moody, flighty, not the kind of person you want want in serious, hard-headed business, right? The same sterotype to which holmes tried to appeal.In short, your arguments are demonstrably nonsense, and show a complete lack of investigation of the topic.

quote:

---

I don’t buy that we have a vested interest in facilitating the reproduction of members of society who wish to reproduce. I have a personal interest in educating members of society, but interestingly enough, society is more interested in protecting ‘parents rights’ in that area then ‘children’s rights’.

---

We do, for multiple reasons. Firstly, properly socialised children are an asset to the community, isolated and alienated children can be dangerous. Second, we will be infirm ourselves in due cours,e and nless we fancy seeing society collapse as we retire, we will need to raise a replacement generation that can fill our shoes. third, we have a quite normal and natural desire to reproduce, which we recognise in others, and facilitiating this may be reasonably said to be one of societies main functions.Indeed though the language of personal "rights" only partly relevant here, and sometimes obstructive. The raising of children - and the necessary labour that requires - are an asset to society as a whole. Much more so than the mundane business of business in most cases.In addition it is already the case that the compromise we have at present is starting to fail. That compromise besically entailed women being permitted to work (albeit in the face of persistent discrimination) but did not practically resolve any of the other durdens women carry, such as their expected roles as primary household cleaner and care provider. The result has been heavy burnout, and many young girls now are looking at their harrassed and over-worked mothers and deciding that this is not for them. We may be about to produce another cycle of women who feel that they can only choose between being a mother and being an independant person, and will choose one or the other - demonstrating that in fact we have made little to no progress in regards womens liberation in the last 100 years.

Just as a footnote on the Alien issue, the first alien is presumed to be female according to my understanding of such canon as there is. One of the spin-off products, a graphic novel, was titled "Female War" or similar, and that trope of sort of mothers of respectoive species in conflict has been identified by many observers.To some degree the vuiolence of the alien is "masculine", but only in terms of our gender constructs. No such thing as a pacifist Great White of either sex. Our constructs of men = violence and passivity = female are just that. So the movie does play on these cultural sterotypes, but seeing as it does not demonise Ripley for the use of violence, as an unnatural killer, it does not appear to be remotely sexist. Indeed Ripley is a strong female lead, a fully developed female character rather than a prop (indeed, the term female lead, or leading lady, implies romantic subject by convention).But I really do not understand anybodies position here much. Crash says:

quote:

---

It's demonstratably right. Being a sexual aggressor is definately considered "male", it's certainly not considered "ladylike." Ask your mom. Or ask two bisexual or lesbian women; ask them if they consider the sexually aggressive role "masculine" or "feminine."

---

Erm, this seems like an appeal to the popularity of that fallacy. I don't regard sexual aggression as being masculine, I regard it as sexual aggression. It is also the case that sexual aggression is mostly perpetrated by men. But you have to buy into the sterotype of a gender pshycology to assign such characteristics to a gender - and that is indeed invalid, and a replication of the sterotype. And the fact that your mom does not regard it as "ladylike" only demonstrates the depth of this culturally-imposed perception.This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-04-2005 08:38 AM

quote:

---

You don't have to "buy into it", you simply have to recognize that these stereotypes exist, and are not uncommon. You may not like it, but as I've said over and over again, I'm merely describing the stereotypes that exist, not advocating or approving those stereotypes. And quite frankly its staggeringly insulting that I have to repeat that to people.

---

Sure. Acknowledging the existance of a thing does not necessarily endorse that thing - a point I keep having to make to Holmes.Lets say there is a differeince between saying violence is a male characteristic, and saying that violence is falsely percieved to be a male characteristic. The former requires buy-in to the sexist stereotype; the latter is a criticism of that stereotype.But as I said, I don't really understand anyones position; hence the clarification.