rape culture/victim culture

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

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

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:

---

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

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)

To argue that intramarital theft is unacceptable does not undermine the existence of that family unit. 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? 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, neither is it about buying a slave to clean house, nor to go out to earn money. 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. 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)

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.

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. 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. Exactly. You make'em for me I make'em for you. 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. Right, or not when there was none, and not over money made when she was nowhere involved with the current spouse. 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. 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)

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

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.

I'll be your mirror,
reflect what you are,
in case you don't know.
-Velvet Underground and Niko 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? This shows a distinct lack of knowledge about the "other" case. 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. 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? 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)

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.

...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...)

no no. of course men go to the work force to wimp out from house work and raising feminist brats. i mean. it's certainly not because women have gotten spoiled and view any man who doesn't work as a louse and yet expect these men to provide for them while they send the kids off to daycare and sit around watching soaps all day. but god help us if we even look like we're gonna do anything to prevent them from working outside the home cause they'll throw a hissy fit about being oppressed and blah blah they gave up their career to bear you children blah blah. no. the bitches need to take responsibility to wanting to squeeze out their own shitty, useless garbage disposals and raising them fat and lazy and bratty.