rape culture/victim culture

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.

yes well. of course i'm ignorant on the subject. i'm not a woman and i have never met any.and i don't live in the third richest county in the world wherein things like this happen all the time.*addendum*further, tell me one feminist you know who would condsider dating a man who doesn't work, one who would 'leech' off her. no. she'd call him a coward and suggest that his intentions are to gain glory or something from all her hard work while he's just sitting around being lazy. now maybe they'll consider making an agreement after marriage where he works less or has an at home job or something and that he stays home with the kids (my brother and his fiancee have made such an agreement for once she graduates) but she'll never date a non-working man.finally. i'm not really a misogynist. i think men are stupid, too. but then i accept that it is a societal training which makes women into cruel, conniving, useless bitches and men into, well, assholes.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 03-28-2005 10:39 AM

actually, the entirety of the feminist argument is that there is a social contruct and bias that dictates specific gender roles, ie: the men work and the women stay home. the are not working to put women in the workforce primarily, but to shatter the gender roles that say they cannot be.it is certainly not to say that all women should work. or all men, for that matter. that is one of the gender roles feminism is working on redefining, because up until recently the expectation HAS been that every man must a hold a job outside the home, with every woman must be dependent on a man. you can't have the dependent clause there without the independent. while i agree that women were pressured to stay home for a long time, mostly because men were afraid of competition, this is a bad example."Bewitched" and "I Dream of Jeanie" were NOT 50's television shows, they were mid 60's shows. both started in 65, actually, which is right around the time modern feminism startedto take off. both took a woman who was CLEARLY more powerful than the man of the house, and put her in the "subjugated" position of housewife. now, that's something called irony. these may not have been blatantly feminist shows, but they did seem to be basing their humor on the observation that something was wrong.pop-culture putting women in subservient roles does not neccessarily make it anti-feminist, as you should well know. sometimes, it's designed very obviously to expose or comment on society. see: "the stepford wives" (the book or the old movie, not the new one) she's the only female misogynist i know. This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 03-28-2005 10:04 AM

quote:

---

"Bewitched" and "I Dream of Jeanie" were NOT 50's television shows, they were mid 60's shows. both started in 65, actually, which is right around the time modern feminism startedto take off. both took a woman who was CLEARLY more powerful than the man of the house, and put her in the "subjugated" position of housewife. now, that's something called irony. these may not have been blatantly feminist shows, but they did seem to be basing their humor on the observation that something was wrong.

---

One interesting analysis I read regarding those shows is that the new powerful feminist woman was seen as dangerous because she was unpredictable and uncontrollable.So, the sit-coms gave her magic powers instead of corporate or political or societal power to illustrate this.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.

interesting, and quite possible. but either way, the shows demonstrate the increasing power of feminism in the society, whether they are influenced by it, or a response to it.this page: DiSPELLing the Myths - Bewitched @ Harpies Bizarre has some bits from bewitched that do seem to be portraying a little feminist attitude.added by edit: now, if we wanted to talk "leave it beaver" or "the honeymooners" or even "lassie" i'm sure contracycle would have a point...This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 03-28-2005 10:36 AM

my girlfriend did exactly that for eight months. Your hypothesis that no feminist exists who would consider dating a man who doesn't work, one who would leech off her, is hereby disproved.mickThis message has been edited by mick, 03-28-2005 12:30 PM

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)

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)

I might have my decades mixed up, but I'm already thinking of:Pam Grier as Foxy BrownCarrie Fischer as Princess LeiaWonder Woman? Was that the right decade?

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)

I considered Ripley, but I've never seen Alien, and Aliens came out in the 80's. Also Alien is a little more straight-survival-horror, and strong female figures in horror movies aren't particularly remarkable; it's a feature of the genre.But yeah those are some other good picks.

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)