Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   rape culture/victim culture
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 1 of 209 (193386)
03-22-2005 12:02 PM


Some historical background for attitudes in the US regarding violence towards women and rape:
link
The 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

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-22-2005 12:06 PM nator has replied
 Message 4 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-22-2005 12:18 PM nator has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 209 (193389)
03-22-2005 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
03-22-2005 12:02 PM


Now, if these "myths" weren't commonly held, why would there need to be "facts" to counter them?
In fairness, just by posting on this forum you should know that strawman arguments exist.
Just because someone is saying, "here's what I'm arguing against" doesn't automatically mean the thing they're arguing against actually exists.
Not saying whether the myths in question are false or real, just pointing out a flaw in logic. I will now take my ten-foot-pole and back away from this discussion.

"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!"
-Jane Christie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 03-22-2005 12:02 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nator, posted 03-22-2005 12:13 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 3 of 209 (193398)
03-22-2005 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Dan Carroll
03-22-2005 12:06 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Dan Carroll, posted 03-22-2005 12:06 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 4 of 209 (193403)
03-22-2005 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
03-22-2005 12:02 PM


property
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 03-22-2005 12:02 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by nator, posted 03-22-2005 1:11 PM pink sasquatch has not replied
 Message 8 by MrHambre, posted 03-22-2005 1:38 PM pink sasquatch has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 5 of 209 (193412)
03-22-2005 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by pink sasquatch
03-22-2005 12:18 PM


Re: property
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-22-2005 12:18 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 6 of 209 (193415)
03-22-2005 1:19 PM


yo holmes
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-22-2005 1:31 PM nator has replied
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 03-22-2005 1:42 PM nator has not replied
 Message 14 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-22-2005 3:21 PM nator has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 7 of 209 (193421)
03-22-2005 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by nator
03-22-2005 1:19 PM


Re: yo holmes
Clearly, "domestic" assaults are given different, less serious attention and treatment by law enforcement,...
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.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by nator, posted 03-22-2005 1:19 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by nator, posted 03-22-2005 2:38 PM pink sasquatch has replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 8 of 209 (193423)
03-22-2005 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by pink sasquatch
03-22-2005 12:18 PM


A Flawed Critique
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.
From what I've read and experienced, most do. However, you'd never know it by the tone of Adriene Sere's article (linked in OP), which oversimplifies the issue beyond recognition. Even Syamsu wouldn't be shameless enough to expect people to believe this bald assertion:
But violence against all women by men of all races continues to be treated as trivial and within men's rights.
Really? Where? In Mongolia?
The laziness of this critique is a shame, seeing as how it deals with such a crucial issue. Unfortunately, even Ward Churchill puts more thought into his fulminations than is on display here. Although she quotes the insightful words of Angela Davis asking the pertinent question, On the one hand, it is necessary to create legal remedies for women who are survivors of violence. But on the other hand, when the remedies rely on punishment within institutions that further promote violence--against women and men--how do we work with this contradiction? , Sere then shows how insecure her own case is by demonizing anyone who would dare disagree with her position on Davis's dilemma:
Activists should be wary, however, of the potential for criticisms to be used by misogynists to dissuade women from exercising their right to police and legal protection.
So if anyone agrees with Davis that the penal system is basically state-sponsored violence, or raises doubt about the government's role in eradicating the rape culture from which it benefits, then by Sere's standards, that person is a misogynist. There are a lot better analyses of this issue, believe me.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-22-2005 12:18 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-22-2005 1:54 PM MrHambre has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 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

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 10 of 209 (193428)
03-22-2005 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by MrHambre
03-22-2005 1:38 PM


Re: A Flawed Critique
From what I've read and experienced, most do.
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.
There are a lot better analyses of this issue, believe me.
I know there are. Unfortunately they often don't make it into the hands of the average Women's Studies major.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by MrHambre, posted 03-22-2005 1:38 PM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by arachnophilia, posted 03-22-2005 2:18 PM pink sasquatch has not replied
 Message 19 by contracycle, posted 03-23-2005 6:53 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 11 of 209 (193437)
03-22-2005 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by pink sasquatch
03-22-2005 1:54 PM


question.
wasn't this the board that went apeshit when i said something anti-feminist a few months ago?
http://EvC Forum: Resident Evil Apocalypse is better than women -->EvC Forum: Resident Evil Apocalypse is better than women and
EvC Forum: what is feminism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-22-2005 1:54 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 12 of 209 (193446)
03-22-2005 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by pink sasquatch
03-22-2005 1:31 PM


Re: yo holmes
Clearly, "domestic" assaults are given different, less serious attention and treatment by law enforcement,...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-22-2005 1:31 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-22-2005 3:07 PM nator has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 13 of 209 (193450)
03-22-2005 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by nator
03-22-2005 2:38 PM


still asking for data...
Well, historically it has been definitely the case that domestic violence was not treated the same as regular assaults;
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 only been recently that,...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nator, posted 03-22-2005 2:38 PM nator has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 14 of 209 (193452)
03-22-2005 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by nator
03-22-2005 1:19 PM


Rape and/or assault within a marriage
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?
A fair while back, there was a case of "rape by husband". I believe it was in Oregon, but I may well be wrong. I don't recall how the case came out.
Anyhow, what we had was a case of nonconsensual sex within a marriage.
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.
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.
Bottom line, I do think that conflicts within a family do have a (subtle?) distinction, relative to non-family conflict. You hitting Zhimbo up side the head with a frying pan is not the same as the neighbor doing it.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by nator, posted 03-22-2005 1:19 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by nator, posted 03-22-2005 8:10 PM Minnemooseus has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 15 of 209 (193528)
03-22-2005 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Minnemooseus
03-22-2005 3:21 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-22-2005 3:21 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-22-2005 8:59 PM nator has not replied
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2005 3:37 AM nator has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024