What causes rape? How can we change our culture so that it happens less often, or not at all? I’d like to give my opinions on this – at, perhaps, some risk of pissing some folks off.
Alas readers who know me know that I’m a font of statistical evidence about rape; there was a year or so in which I didn’t read about much other than quantitative research about rape. But of the hundreds of stats about rape I’ve read, the most essential one is the most obvious: the overwhelming majority of rapists are male. If we want to discover how to reduce rape, we have to be willing to figure out what the hell is wrong with men, and how to change it.
(Okay, ass-covering time: when I say “what the hell is wrong with men,” I do mean all men in our culture – even men as “enlightened” as the more feminist men on this board. But I don’t mean that all men rape, or even that all men are potential rapists. Rather, I’d say the things in our culture which screw up men so much that rape becomes a widespread problem affect all men to some degree – even those who never rape.)
Unfortunately, I think feminism – and especially radical feminism – has been limited in increasing our understanding of rape, because feminism is (generally) focused on women, whereas rape is mostly about men. You will never find the cause or cure for rape by examining women, because rapists are overwhelmingly male.
So what does cause rape? Or, put another way, if we can agree that we live in a “rape culture” (defined as “a culture in which rape is prevalent and is maintained through fundamental attitudes and beliefs about gender, sexuality, and violence”), then what are those fundamental attitudes about gender, sexuality, and violence?
I’d identify three interrelated candidates: the myth of masculinity, cultural disdain for women, and our society’s conception of sexuality as something possessed exclusively by women. If we want “24 hours in which there is no rape,” then we have to destroy these three warped cultural ideas.
1) The Myth of Fragile Masculinity.
From early boyhood, men are taught that their masculinity must be protected above all else, or else it will be lost. Men who have lost their masculinity are objects of contempt, derision and violent abuse, and have lost the right to be loved or respected by their fellow men and by their fathers.
Boys are also taught that masculinity is fragile and high-maintenance; you work to get it and to retain it, and the slightest slip can cause it to be altogether lost. You can slip instantly, with no transition, from the most popular boy in the room to the butt of everyone’s jokes: all it takes is a moment’s lapse in which you say or do anything that can be interpreted as feminine.
This is essential: Masculinity is fragile. The man who has lost his masculinity is, in the eyes of male culture, less than nothing, worse than dead. Therefore, force in defense of masculinity – like beating up a boy who accuses you of being a faggot – can feel to boys and men like a form of self-defense.
Masculinity is defined by what it is not. Being masculine means avoiding the feminine. Being feminine, even for an instant, means risking loss of masculinity. Empathy, in our culture’s warped conception, is feminine; thinking about other people’s emotions is feminine. Boys are taught to avoid empathy.
Masculinity is also defined by power-over. The man who is overpowered by others is less then a man; the man who has power over others is a man among men. Remember, masculinity is fragile: if you don’t have power-over, you’re in danger of losing your manhood.
Once boys become teens, masculinity is additionally defined by the absolutely crucial task of getting laid. Once again, masculinity is fragile: he who isn’t getting any ain’t a man.
So there are a myriad of ways in which boys and men can lose the status of “being a man.” But at the same time, boys and men feel absolutely entitled to becoming men.
Masculinity comes wrapped around a sense of entitlement. Men don’t feel grateful when the women in their life (mothers, wives, maids) prepare meals, make beds, or whatever: in our society’s warped view, the women are just doing what they’re supposed to, and men are just getting what they’re entitled to. (Statistically, it’s interesting that virtually everyone in our culture who decides to blow up a building or machine-gun a crowd is white and male. The main reason for this, I believe, is that white men feel so entitled to high status in society, some of them take revenge if they don’t their rightful entitlement.)
There is one bit of good news – for most men, issues about masculinity are more extreme in the first thirty years of men’s lives then thereafter. For someone still in school – be it the 6th grade or a college frat house – the social enforcement mechanisms for not maintaining masculinity can be extreme. Those who can’t “be men” are social pariahs, are taught to be ashamed, and are not-uncommonly the subjects of beatings. But that’s not as true in most adult environments (although it’s true in some adult environments, like prison). Perhaps once we’ve been away from those sorts of environments for five or ten years, most of us begin to feel that our masculinity isn’t so threatened, after all.
Statistically, environments which tend to have the most rape – middle and high school, frat houses, prisons – are also the environments which most emphasize masculinity, and where boys and men have the most reason to fear losing masculinity. If we could change the culture of such environments, we’d go a long way towards reducing rape.
2) Low regard for women.
The fact is, women aren’t respected as equals, by and large. To some degree this is a self-perpetuating cycle: why aren’t women in more of public life’s highest-respected positions (Presidents, CEOs, Senators, movie stars, cartoonists :) , etc)? Because women aren’t seen as capable of holding society’s highest positions. Why aren’t women seen as being as capable? Well, just look around: there are almost no women are doing those things.
Women’s lower pay – and lower status generally in most of the overtly powerful and materially rewarding aspects of our culture – is both a cause of and a result of the low regard in which our culture holds women. That the huge amount of unpaid caretaking work our society requires to get by is overwhelmingly done by women, and accorded almost no respect (“stay at home moms just sit around watching TV all day, right?”), is both a cause of and a result of the low regard in which our culture holds women.
Women get paid less. Women get promoted less. Women get out of the house less. The work women do is worth less. In our society, women are less. This must change if rape is to be eliminated.
Remember how masculinity encourages lack of empathy? Well, low regard for women also encourages lack of empathy. Social scientists have shown that people (regardless of sex) are less empathic towards those who are below them in the social hierarchy. Bosses are less empathic towards secretaries than vice-versa; owners less empathic towards slaves than vice-versa; men less empathic towards women than vice-versa.
Why do men rape women? It’s not because they hate women, by and large. Do hunters hunt because they hate animals? No, they hunt because hunting is fun, because they like the meat, and maybe because hunting is a way of male-bonding, They don’t hate the animal; they just consider empathy for the animal’s feelings irrelevant, less important than their desire for meat or fun. (I’m ignoring the ecological arguments for hunting for the sake of the analogy).
Men who rape women don’t do it because they hate women, but because they don’t give a fuck about women (at least, not the women they rape). They want something, they take it, and they’re by-and-large indifferent to how the person they “take” it from feels.
This is why the “rape isn’t about sex, rape is about violence” analysis falls short. It’s not true – not from the point of view of many rapists – and it denies the true horror of the situation. Many rapists don’t rape because they hate and want to hurt women; it’s not that personal. Rapists rape because they want sex; they don’t consider the woman’s feelings at all, because a woman’s feelings aren’t worth considering. They’re just women, after all.
Which brings me to my third point….
3) Sexuality is something possessed by women, which is given to (or taken by) men.
That’s our society’s view of it. Look at the magazines on the racks – it’s pretty obvious why men’s magazines, wanting to sell copies with a sexy cover, usually use photos of mostly-undressed women. But why do women’s magazines do the exact same thing? Because to do a sexy magazine cover, you generally have to show a photo of a woman. Sexuality equals women in our culture; it is something possessed by women, not by men.
That’s also why women are taught to wait to be asked for a dance (or for a date), while men are taught to do the asking. Women have it; men ask for it. That’s why porn-like images of women are so common they’re impossible to avoid, while porn-like images of men are (outside gay male culture) relatively infrequent. Women have sex; to show a picture of sex, show a porn-like image of a woman.
Why do men rape, while women virtually never rape? Because sexuality is something possessed by women, in our society’s warped view. In our society, women don’t rape for the same reason rich people don’t mug.
This connects to the first point, too – the fragility of masculinity. Men who have lost their masculinity are, in our culture’s view, less than men, less even than women. They are the lowest of the low. One way to lose your masculinity is to be unable to “get” sex from a woman. This also breeds resentment of women (in much the same way that poverty can sometimes breed resentment of rich people): “how dare women not give something to me that I need so desperately? How dare women withhold from me the masculinity that I’m entitled to?”
If there’s nothing worse to a man than losing that fragile masculinity, and if one way of retaining masculinity is to use masculinity’s power-over to take sex from the owners, and if the owners are only women, anyway, rather than being anything important – then rape is frequently the result.
Hell, looking at how twisted and sick our culture is, sometimes I’m surprised rape doesn’t happen even more often.
* * *
Obviously, I’m not saying that this is right. It’s sick, warped, and twisted. But that is the truth about our sick, warped, and twisted society, in my opinion. People talk about a “rape culture.” I’d argue that these three things – Masculinity, Low Regard for Women, and Sex is Owned by Women – are the three main ingredients of that rape culture. And if we want to create a world without rape, finding ways to change those three things is where we should start..
This argument went awry.
It’s my fault.
Blame it on me.
It’s interesing given this discussion to consider lesbians, whom no one has really even mentioned, and who would seem to be the perfect population to study for information on women’s sexual desire in a context in which men are irrelevant. I don’t say that male sexuality is irrelevant, because I think lesbian sexuality is often very much influenced by what is considered “sexy” in the wider culture…but unquestionably, with lesbians, the folks having, wanting, or not wanting all the sex are ALL WOMEN. And I can tell you that rape/forced sex exists between lesbians, though it is rare, and I can tell you also that differences in level of sexual desire are an issue in almost every lesbian relationship I know of. So if desire varies AMONG women, why shouldn’t it also vary BETWEEN women and men? I’ve had men turn down offers of sex and known women who’ve complained about lack of interest on the part of their male partners. I don’t think willingness to go to a strange place and have sex with someone you don’t know is a positive attribute for women OR men, or is any indicator of gender-based desire for sexual activity.
But to get back to the original post (gasp! why would we want to do that?) I think it is very well thought out and insightful; however, I disagree with Amp about rape being about sex. I think rape, and other sex crimes like incest (which one commentor mentioned) are about power and control. I don’t think men who abuse children are sick; I think they’ve carried the messages of this culture about power, entitlement, and sexuality to their logical conclusion. Suggesting that those who rape children are sick while those who rape women are not seems to suggest that rape of adult women is on some level “normal.” I personally can’t imagine wanting to be sexual with someone who didn’t want to be sexual with me, or who wasn’t of an age or mental capacity to make that decision with full knowledge and understanding of the implications. If we want a society in which this doesn’t happen, we need to make equality and mutuality sexy, not power-over and force. Think about how often in this culture sex and violence are THE SAME–slasher movies spring rapidly to mind. Think how often a little force is a turn-on. How it’s cool and kind of edgy to like it rough, to tie each other up, to spank or hold wrists. Every time we do this, we strengthen our physiological response to the pairing of sex and violence. We need to create men who aren’t threatened by strong, competent women, who don’t see women and children as property, and who are willing to give up the privilege of being male in the current society. That’s one word I haven’t heard anybody mention: Privilege. Eradicating inequality, rape and other violence against women would require giving up male privilege. Are you men willing to do that?
male privilege
I am what you might describe as a classic liberal. I firmly and passionately believe in the equality between the races and the sexes. I am for affirmative action (even when it uses quotas), and I constantly watch my speech and writing to make sure that it won’t offend or oppress anyone.
So when I say what I’m about to say, I hope you don’t think I’m being sarcastic. While I believe that “male privlege” exsists, I have a problem: I don’t know how to give it up. (The same goes with white privlege.)
What specific actions do I have to undertake to give up these privleges? I’ve never knowingly taken a job from a minority or a women — more often than not, I’ve never met the other applicants, and though some comedians would have it otherwise, I’ve never been told by the person who hired me, “Boy, I’m glad we hired you instead of that woman!”
The only jobs I’ve had are menial labor. I don’t have a college education. I’ve never been in a position to influence hiring choices. So the only way I could guarentee that I’m not stealing jobs away from women/minorities would be to never work again. Should I do that?
Men often get better deals when shopping for used cars, insurance, etc, etc… should I demand to pay a higher price?
But seriously, I don’t think male privilege is something that individual men can choose to give up, because it’s bound up so intimately with our lives. It’s not about individually chosen actions, it’s about who we are.
My very existance causes women to be oppressed regardless of how hard I try to temper my actions. The fact that I’m alive here and now is responsible for injustice all by itself.
The only way for true equality to happen would be for every white male to slit his throat en masse. But I assure you that my commitment to social justice is so great that I’d be happy to march into the mine-field along with all my kind, the end of the oppressors in one great “whoomph”! However, the majority of my male counterparts would never include themselves in this effort. So . . . maybe someone else should do it?
The adult club in my town allows single men on Friday nights (no limit) for the same price as couples. It also has a monthly event on Saturday nights which is advertised as a “gang bang” which is, I think, as close to the baths as anything I’ve read about. Then there’s a monthly “young bi’s” event for bisexual men and women.
Recently there was an article in the New York Times about the “new” phenomenon of upscale sex parties for young singles. They rent huge venues, provide music, food and drinks; you have to submit a photo and an essay to get approved in order to have the privilege of paying for entrance.
The trouble with observing behavior of women to judge their libido is the strong cultural pressure to hide it. “Bad girls” aren’t marriage material and deserve everything that happens to them; “bad girls,” that is, girls who want sex and have it, must suffer the consequences of their choice (i.e., not be allowed birth control or abortion, because that lets them hide their shameful behavior from society). Add to this the intentional impression given to teens that if she admits she wants sex, every man present is entitled to have sex with her, and there’s even stronger pressure for hiding it.
It seems to me that the problem isn’t that our society views women as possessing sex, but that our society holds the view that makes sex into a commodity. Even throughout all the comments in this posting, with talk of eggs and sperm, this assumption was never questioned.
We use sex to sell toothpaste, hamburgers, sodas, houses, and stocks. It’s not treated even remotely like an activity, it’s treated like something you possess. Something that people want. Something in short supply. But it isn’t a doughnut. You can’t pass one to your neighbor. I think we all need to start trying to subvert this commodification.
You can’t really buy sex, all you can buy is participation in sexual activity. Prostitutes don’t sell “sex”, they can’t. They sell participation in sexual activities. The same way that day care providers don’t sell “care”, they sell their participation in supervising a child.
One step towards that is changing sex from a noun to a verb. From a thing to an activity that requires participation. Think of the difference beween “I want (sex with) her” (which even goes so far to blur the line between possessing “sex” and personifying “sex”) and “I want to have sex with her” (which emphasizes the need for consentual participation in an activity). I would even go so far as to eliminate the general term, and progress towards specific descriptions of the desired activity: “I want us to rub our naked bodies together until we reach orgasms.”
Central to this is destroying the prudishness in our society that obscures what really goes on in sexual relationships to children at the phase when they are developing their impressions of what happens.
If more boys (and girls) understood that their mothers were sexual creatures, that it was about a varied set of activities, not about male aquisition, perhaps we could begin to change the culture that allows someone to think it is possible to “steal sex”.
Rape revolves around the illusion that sex is a noun, an object, something that women are/possess. Destroying this conception of sex is key to destroying the ability to rape.
PS – Anybody who wants more information on evolutionary biology and its effects on gender relations should read “The Red Queen” I think it helps to clarify the “who wants sex more” and “eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap” arguements, mostly by pointing out that they are much more complicated than represented in the preceeding comments.
Coming into this a little late –
I agree with all the rest of you that Ilkka’s premise (that women don’t like sex anywhere near as much as men do) is wrong, but except for a few allusions to cultural pressure, which surely can’t be the whole story, NOT ONE of the responses has attempted to address the reasons for the very real presumptions and generalizations which Ilkka has referred to, that women APPEAR TO be less interested in sex. This has driven Ilkka to more and more desperate attempts to point out these presumptions and generalizations, which in turn led Raznor to postulate a Shorter Ilkka: “Every comment that has attempted to prove me wrong fails to take into account the fact that I am right.”
Which isn’t fair, because Ilkka is right that there is this appearance, and if it’s incorrect its persistence needs to be explained, not just denied.
I think I can attempt to do so. I presume that it is true that single men are a surplus in swinger’s clubs; that the fact that johns pay hookers and not the other way arouned is an indiciation that (purely sexually, not economically) johns desire hookers more than hookers desire johns; and so on.
Does this indicate that women desire sex less than men? Ilkka says yes. But that need not be so. What it suggests to me is another well-known difference between male and female sexuality in general: that women desire sex WITH STRANGERS less than men do. If Ilkka will kindly consult his database of stereotypes, he will find the married middle-aged woman who wants more sex than she’s getting from her (tired or straying or both) husband, and who remains unsatisfied because she’s not inclined to stray.
A woman may be hot to hump like a bunny, but if she only wants to do this with a steady lover, you won’t find her in a bathhouse or a swinger’s club or a male brothel. OK, Ilkka, does that help to explain it?
Simon, I still disagree. I think the cultural mores that implicate the “badness” of a woman’s character are what keep her from pursuing anonymous sex. In addition, the ramifications of pursuing anonymous sex are much greater (from a cultural perspective) for a woman due to the risk of an unplanned pregnancy.
Women are taught from day one to protect their bodies from unplanned pregnancies while men’s sexual impulses are pandered to for the sell of this product or another. Related to this little issue is the knowledge that many women are imparted with, the very real issue that they, too, will be reduced to sexual objects in an intimate relationship, probably the reason that women desire intimacy more than anonymity when it comes to sexual relationships. A speculation and observation on my part.
And contrary to what you’ve said, this has been brought up several times. Just sayin’.
I’m a student doing research on what constitutes a rape culture. I was hoping visitors to this ‘blog could suggest articles,books, and websites to aid me in my research?
I would like to congratulate the creator(s) of this blog in their effort to place the issue of violence against women, in all its forms, on the public agenda. The internet is a great vehicle to reach people, create dialogue and hopefully strategies for change.
Lauren, I wish you’d read my post before attempting to correct me. I SAID there’d been “a few allusions to cultural pressure,” and there had been.
I also said it “surely can’t be the whole story,” and if you’re saying that cultural mores about “badness” and the ramifications of pregnancy are the only things that keep women from pursuing anonymous sex, you are entirely incorrect.
Certainly there are some individual women of whom this is true. There are also plenty of individual women who do pursue it and who don’t let mores stop them. Perhaps you yourself (I’m guessing from your name that you’re female) are one or have been one of those two types of women. But if so, to generalize from your psyche and claim it applies to all women is a huge mistake. I know plenty of women who find the whole idea repulsive, and to claim that they’re all just bamboozled by cultural mores is a deliberate insult.
It would be a huge mistake to claim it applies to all men, too. We’re all agreed that anonymous sex is a common male preoccupation. But it’s emphatically not true of all men, in the same way that, as Amp said in the original post, not all men are rapists. I am an example here: whatever may be said of men in general, I am a functional straight male who is only interested in sex in a loving pair-bonded relationship. (I’ve got one, thanks.) Anonymous sex or even with an acquaintance is repulsive to me: I’d have to fall in love with her first, and that’s not going to happen as long as I have someone else. I know this from long experience of observing my own heart.
Illka wrote:
If anybody seriously believes that primitive cultures (medieval Europe, modern Middle East) severely restrict women’s sexuality for any other reason than that each woman is property of some man, I have a bridge to sell you. This phenomenon is no different to a modern car owner using locks, alarms and other anti-theft devices to restrict his car’s freedom to let other people drive it. It’s not that the car has this burning desire to let other people drive it, it’s simply that there are lots of people who would do it if given a chance.
i have a serious argument with this statement. are you really saying that there are NO WOMEN ON THE MIDDLE EAST WHO HAVE SEXUAL DESIRE? because that’s sure what it sounds like to me. in your analogy to the car, you state that the car has no burning desire to let other people drive it… that seems to say that no women have any desire to have sexual partners other than the one they’re “stuck with”. is there no adultery in the middle east? only rape? what makes middle eastern women less likely to have sexual desire than american women?
you use only anecdotal “proof” so i am sure you will accept my own anecdote in the same way: i, a woman, have had sexual desire. (*gasp*!) in fact, i’ve been in several relationships with men who have had less sexual desire than i have. furthermore, i have had sexual desire for more than the one person i was in a relationship with, and i have had sexual intercourse with people outside my significant other because of my desire being that great.
i also understand that i am not alone in this. not only have numerous female friends told me that they’ve had more desire than their current partners, but as a senior in college, i did research and wrote a thesis about sexual satisfaction. specifically, i focused on womens’ desire and satisfaction, and from my sample of over 500 people, discovered that there are large numbers of women who have greater sexual desire than their male (or female) partners.
does this shock you?
i would LOVE to see some sort of proof that you have that women with significant sexual desire are the vast minority.
Ampersand misses the point.
Men are the vast majority of rapists simply because they have the strength to do so against someone weaker.
The solution is nor misandry. It’s raising and supporting masculine boys who understand that the protection of the weak is the true basis of manhood.
The solutions we currently seek in suppressing typical male behavior in young boys is a recipe for violent young male adults.
I could prove my point by smacking around any one of you who disagreed.
That is, unless another person or group of people stronger than I chose to stop me to protect you.
Which is of course, the point.
If the only factor that mattered was physical strength, then female-female rape would be as common in women’s prisons as male-male rape is in men’s prisons. Yet that’s not the case. Furthermore, environment wouldn’t make a difference – a frat house party wouldn’t be a more likely place for rape than, say, a PTA meeting. In both cases, the men present are (on average) probably physically stronger.
I think any decent theory of why rape happens needs to explain why rpae is more common in some societies than others; why it’s more common among young men than older men; why some environments (such as prison) are more “rape-prone” than others; why rape is uncommon in female prisons but common in male prisons; and why states in which women are more “equal” have less rape.
With all due respect, I don’t think your theory of rape can explain much of that.
As far as I can tell, typical male behavior in boys – the behavior you don’t want suppressed – consists to a large extent in the bullying of the weak. How encouraging this sort of behavior will turn boys into men that “protect the weak” is a mystery to me.
Bullying the weak only happens when no man is brave enough to stand up for others. Violence is a clear cut way to quickly determine status.
Research into young women, however, shows they are much more damaging to the weak than men.
Odd Girl Out: The Culture of Hidden Aggression in Girls.”
Men fight, and win or lose, they often win each other’s respect.
When women fight, often with ineffectual or no violence at all, and you have the makings of an interpersonal feud that can last their entire lives and lead to depression, anxiety, ulcers, drug-use, and massive personality changes.
The population of prisons is also a major factor. Compare white-collar minimum security prisons with similar inmate populations for types of crime and I doubt you’ll see much if any discrepancy. And the use of common? I’ve read that 10% is considered average rape statistics in overcrowded maximum security facilities with violent offenders. These are places where rape is also a means of control and punishment, which while violent, is hardly a fair description of the society outside those walls.
PTA and Frat Houses? One – you’re unfairly labeling fraternities by grouping them together in the modern day with no adult supervision, illegal drug and alcohol abuse, and a permissive culture of consequence free sex on college campuses.
Compare frat houses to restaurant personnel, dorms at colleges that don’t allow fraternities, mall employees, or any other group of young adults who binge drink and have access to private spaces for more accurate statistics.
Two – the PTA proves my point. PTA males have children and wives, and have grown past the violent behaviors. The very existence of PTA suggests civilization. It would be foolish to assume that the men in PTA had never drunkenly pressured a woman.
But those men who can not conform to the rules of society have already been locked away or beaten down. Or not yet caught.
Add this to the relatively new idea that rape is the absolute worst thing that can happen to a woman. This was hardly the case in poor families even 100-150 years ago. Rape was truly common.
Check out what the Native Americans did to rival tribes. Or the Vandals, or the Visigoths, or the Huns, or the Kossacks in WWII.
Read the Painted Bird, or Germinal. Or Roman or Greek texts like Sallust and Tacitus. Or the Bible, or the Hindu texts or Indonesian stories.
The tragedy of rape extends far past Western culture. It is endemic to man. How then can we say that only our culture is a “rape culture?” How does this compare to the gangs of Muslims that wander the enlightened countries of Europe raping non-Muslim women for violating sharia?
You’ve surely heard of the problems win Denmark, Belgium, and France? Are those rape cultures?
The best method would seem to be identifying societies that have the least rape and emulating them.
How does this compare to the gangs of Muslims that wander the enlightened countries of Europe raping non-Muslim women for violating sharia?
You are too shy, “Yeti”. Why don’t you just stick to the USA and replace “Muslims” with “Blacks” and “non-Muslim” by White”? Do you think this very old racist rhetoric is more acceptable when applied to Europe? But I should be grateful to you for now I know that the Western soldiers who made (still make) rape a part of their manly lifestyle in Vietnam, Chechnya, Japan, Greece, etc., really are “gangs of Muslims”. I feel relieved that my oh-so-enlightened culture has nothing to do with it.
By the way, I suggest you stop gathering your information about Europe from “The Free Republic” and “Little Green Footballs”. Those are the people who keep devotedly repeating Le Pen’s speech about “those Barbarians who are invading our nation to steal our women and cause our lifestyle’s decay through misgenation” are not afraid to accuse the French of antisemitism because 15% of them voted for same Le Pen in the first round of the last presidential election.
By the way, I happen to live in France and I know pretty well what crimes you are refering to (i.e. collective rapes in immigrant suburbs). Wanna hear some facts? Many victims are Muslim women, while a good part (about the half) of the perpetrators were of the “Civilized” persuasion. “Ni Putes Ni Soumises” (Not Whores Nor Submissive), the collective that fights this phenomenon, has been created mostly by what you would call “Muslim” women.
…are not afraid to accuse the French of antisemitism because 15% of them voted for same Le Pen in the first round of the last presidential election.
Please complete as follows:
but are not afraid to accuse the French of antisemitism because 15% of them voted for same Le Pen in the first round of the last presidential election (always failing to admit that they massively voted for the adverse candidate, Jacques Chirac, in the second round).
This isn’t really a thread for discussions of French elections or antisemitism.
Or accounts of Western soldiers raping a populace. Of course, when that happens, those soldiers are court-martialed and sent to prison, not congratulated on spreading their religion.
When women fight, often with ineffectual or no violence at all, and you have the makings of an interpersonal feud that can last their entire lives and lead to depression, anxiety, ulcers, drug-use, and massive personality changes.
Where in God’s name did you get that idea? Women have enough stupid stereotypes to deal with without somebody coming along and inventing new ones. Should we just go out and beat up everybody we disagree with? Is that how we should solve rape?
Sheesh.
By the way, Yeti, I’d like you to please explain the military rape scandals. I mean, I thought the military is where men go to learn how to be, you know, “real” men with “traditional” values.
No military scandals are off topic. But racist anti-muslim bullshit is totally on topic. As is mysogynistic bullshit where stereotyping takes the place of thought.
Get with the program Hestia.
Hold on a second. Yeti, did you just say that rape is a part of the Muslim religion? I must be misinterpreting, because I can’t imagine anyone would make such a racist comment…
I was struck by this comment: “Sexuality equals women in our culture; it is something possessed by women, not by men.”
You might be interested to know that Samuel Delany, a black gay SF writer, wrote a novel in which anyone interested in or involved in a sexual encounter was a “she” who then reverted back into a “he” as soon as the sexual interest was over — in other words, “she” referred only to someone who was or who was considered to be a sexual partner. Everyone in any context outside of the sexual was “he.”
Beyond this, gang rape may well be a chimpanzee characteristic. One of the differences between chimpanzees and humans is that in chimpanzee groups a female who openly has sex with all other males in the group is less molested thereafter (together with her offspring) by males, presumably because they remember they had sex with her and therefore may think her baby is theirs.
In American ghetto gangs, a woman who is a hanger-on who gets gangraped by the gang is then allowed to hang out freely with the entire gang — asked about it, the gang members say “she’s now a member.” Very, very chimpanzee-like.
Otherwise, brilliant post. congrats on the Koufax award.
Ok, I’m very late in the thread, but I”ll toss my two cents into the mix- the Yeti makes his arguments in obnoxious ways- I think it improves traffic to his blog. What I get out of his argument, though, is that along with recognizing mens’ problems and attempting to deal with them, we can look at womens’ problems as well. I don’t care much for the argument that women can’t disagree with each other without mental illness and personality change, but it’s true that a fight between two girls is often alot nastier and more underhanded than one between two guys. But that’s completely off-thread, and I’m not sure where the heck it came from. In any event, here’s the question I get out of it- why is it that a guy who is well-known for beating his wife (OJ Simpson, maybe?) can divorce or even kill her and easily marry another woman who knows he did it? (Please dont’ tell me if you think he’s innocent- it was just an example.) Why do murderers and rapists in prison for it get groupies? What I’m getting at is if men don’t value women, women value women even less. If I were to count all the people I’ve heard denegrate stay-at-home moms, I’d say a good percentage would be women. We don’t value each other, and we don’t stick together. Society’s condemnation is a big weapon to use against offensive behavior. And it could start with women. What if society- and that would be men AND women- ostracised known (sp?)rapists? You’ve seen what that’s done for child sex offenders- they can’t get away from people who know what they did. What if women wouldn’t have anything to do with guys known for violence against women? What if we all stopped buying tickets to Colorado State’s games when we hear they have sex parties to recruit players? But we don’t. We make excuses, we say the woman must have deserved it, we say the guy was young and ruled by hormones. Then we turn around and say the problem lies with men alone, and that makes us feel better, but the effective solution calls on all of us.
Jimmy Ho: Hou are too shy, “Yeti”. Why don’t you just stick to the USA and replace “Muslims” with “Blacks” and “non-Muslim” by White”? Do you think this very old racist rhetoric is more acceptable when applied to Europe? But I should be grateful to you for now I know that the Western soldiers who made (still make) rape a part of their manly lifestyle in Vietnam, Chechnya, Japan, Greece, etc., really are “gangs of Muslims”. I feel relieved that my oh-so-enlightened culture has nothing to do with it.
Raznor: No military scandals are off topic. But racist anti-muslim bullshit is totally on topic. As is mysogynistic bullshit where stereotyping takes the place of thought.
Hestia: Hold on a second. Yeti, did you just say that rape is a part of the Muslim religion? I must be misinterpreting, because I can’t imagine anyone would make such a racist comment…
Wow, talk about over-the-top, knee jerk, reactionary, racist behind every tree and its your life’s mission to find them, PC to the extreme BS. How you got what you got from what he said would be an interesting study in blind zealotry.
I guess we could never even talk about the Japanese “rape of Nanking”, for instance, without being called a racist, anti-Asian. I believe all he was saying that the “Rape Culture”, if that is what you want to call it, extends far beyond the US, or even Western civ.
Larry, this is what everyone was reacting to:
“How does this compare to the gangs of Muslims that wander the enlightened countries of Europe raping non-Muslim women for violating sharia?”
That’s untrue, and that’s what made it so much knee-jerk racist BS. He said that Muslim males raped non-Muslim women for violating Sharia. Of course that statement comes off as racist. I certainly don’t blame Hestia for thinking that he asserted rape was part of Islam.
Jimmy pointed out in the rest of his reply to Yeti that this assertion wasn’t true. In his reply, he had go on to state:
“By the way, I happen to live in France and I know pretty well what crimes you are refering to (i.e. collective rapes in immigrant suburbs). Wanna hear some facts? Many victims are Muslim women, while a good part (about the half) of the perpetrators were of the “Civilized” persuasion. ‘Ni Putes Ni Soumises’ (Not Whores Nor Submissive), the collective that fights this phenomenon, has been created mostly by what you would call ‘Muslim’ women.”
The stereotyping that takes the place of thought comment was in regards to the inaccurate assertions of Muslim crimes, and the ridiculous statement that “When women fight, often with ineffectual or no violence at all, and you have the makings of an interpersonal feud that can last their entire lives and lead to depression, anxiety, ulcers, drug-use, and massive personality changes.” Not only is this a stereotype (women are petty and hold grudges) but he offers no evidence to prove this claim. Where does he get his stats for these feuds and their ensuing health risks? Studies? Or is this just a theory that he pulled out of his ass?
Instead of foaming at the mouth about supposedly reactionary PC to the extreme BS, you’d do well to actually read all of the replies and understand their points. Of course, that would mean you’d have to lose your own reactionary, over-the-top, PC police behind every tree paranoia.
Wittgenstein once observed that there was more truth in your average detective story than in most philosophical treatises. The following quote, is from “Simisola” by Ruth Rendell (c)1994. The conversation is between Inspector Wexford, her detective hero, and his daughter, a social worker.
“Why do they do it?” said Wexford…
“Do what?”
“Men beat up their wives, peolpe mistreat their kids.”
“Are you really asking me? Do you really want to know?”
…”I’d like to know”
…”Have you ever heard of Benjamin Rush?”
“I don’t think so”
“He was the Dean of the Medical School at the University of Pennsylvania. Oh, nearly 200 years ago. He’s known as the father of American psychiatry. Of course there was slavery then in the United States. One of the things Rush maintained was that all crimes are diseases and he thought not believing in God was a mental disease.”
“So what’s he got to do with physical abuse?”
“Well, I bet you’ve never heard this before, Dad. Rush made up something called a Theory of Negritude. He believed being black was a disease. Black people suffered from congenital leprosy but in such a mild form that pigmentation was its only symptom. Do you see what holding a theory like that means? It justifies sexual segregation and social maltreatment. It means you’ve got a reason for ill-treating people.”
“Wait a minute… What you’re saying is that if someone is an object of pity you’re going to want to use physical violence against them? That seems cock-eyed. It’s contrary to everything social morals teaches us.”
“No lsten. You make someone into an object of- not so much of pity as of weakness, sickness, stupidity, ineffectiveness, do you see what I mean? You hit them for their stupidity and their inability to respond, and when you’ve hurt them , marked them, they’re even more sick and ugly aren’t they? And they’re afraid and cringing too. Oh, I know this isn’t very pleasant, but you did ask.”
“Go on”, he said.
“So you’ve got a frightened, stupid, even disabled person, silenced, made ugly, and what can you do with someone like that, someone who’s unworthy of being treated well? You treat them badly because that’s what they deserve. One thinks of poor little kids that no one can love because they’re dirty, covered in snot and shit, and always screaming. So you beat them because they’re hateful, they’re low, they’re sub-human. That’s all they’re good for, being hit, being reduced even further.”
He was silent. She mistook his silence for shock, not at the content of what she had said but because she had said it, and quick to make amends, said, “Dad, it’s horrible, I know, but I do have to know about these things. I have to try and understand the doer as well as the done-to.”
Well, yes, Larry, implying that “Muslim” or “Japanese” men in general are inherently rapists, that rape is, by essence, a part of their respective religion or ethnicity, is racist. Banally racist, yes, but racist.
If I ever were to say that, say, the massive presence of Western pedophile tourists and residents in East Asian countries is explained by the fact that they are White Christians, and that their crimes prove that Christianism per se justifies rape, then you could feel free to call me a racist as well.
“The Yeti” was explicitely drawing a comparison between cultures that are more less tolerant toward rape, in an attempt to “defend” Western culture (which was pointless, since nobody attacked it). The best argument he could find was a typical slur against Muslims, based on the myths that feed the European neo-fascist propaganda (remember those stories about Jews commiting human sacrifices? That’s on the same level).
And Ampersand certainly didn’t write that rape culture is only a characteristic of Western culture. Unfortunately, rape, like slavery, torture, etc., exists in every existing human society (or the huge majority). I can’t see how the fact that there are non-Western rapists out there diminishes the importance of rape in the US of A or in Finland.
Finally, you do know that what is metaphorically called “the rape of Nanking” was, in fact a mass massacre, don’t you?
I should note that I hadn’t read Neko’s response to Larry when I posted mine, but I fully agree with it, and, once again, I wish I coud be that clear and articulated.
Neko: “That’s untrue, and that’s what made it so much knee-jerk racist BS. He said that Muslim males raped non-Muslim women for violating Sharia. Of course that statement comes off as racist. I certainly don’t blame Hestia for thinking that he asserted rape was part of Islam.”
Hmm, I am curious, what race is a Muslim exactly? Ok, Ok, lets for the moment ignore the obvious fact that Muslim is a religion NOT a race. I still fail to see how Yeti’s description of the actions of groups of Muslims meant that he defined all Muslims by those actions. Maybe he does think that, maybe he doesn’t, but you certainly can’t read that into what he wrote. Hopefully he will respond directly, but I read that he gave an example that he thought would show that the problem exists outside of western culture.
“Hmm, I am curious, what race is a Muslim exactly? Ok, Ok, lets for the moment ignore the obvious fact that Muslim is a religion NOT a race.”
Larry, Jimmy explained why it’s racist to stereotype any group, religious, racial, or ethnic. But if you enjoy spending your time splitting hairs, and avoiding the crux of the argument (that he asserted that Muslim men raped non Muslim women for violating Sharia) feel free.
Everyone also explained–at length–why and how the Yeti came off the way he did. Considering that you took quotes out of context and didn’t consider what people were saying, I’d say you are just as guilty of reading into what people write.
But the example that he gave, as has been repeatedly stated, was a lie, on par with the blood libel, certainly. And is anyone going to try to put forth that the blood libel isn’t racist?
Larry, you’ve made a mistake here. Racism does not imply that its victims have to be members of a minority, only that *the racists have to see them as members of a racial group.*
Such as “Arabs.” Or don’t you know about the American government’s roundup of Arabic-looking people, even though domestic (i.e. white super-fundamentalist Christian) terrorists pose a much, much larger threat to the US that any brown person.
jimmy ho said:
Finally, you do know that what is metaphorically called “the rape of Nanking” was, in fact a mass massacre, don’t you?
but we cannot forget that there was rape, and a lot of it, involved as well (and torture). from http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/12.12.96/cover/china1-9650.html:
Women were raped, forced to perform bizarre sexual acts, then killed. Fathers were forced to rape their daughters, and sons, their mothers. Chinese men were forced to rape corpses.
Hmm, I am curious, what race is a Muslim exactly?
Ask “The Yeti”, not Neko and me. He is the one talking about “Muslim gangs” in Europe. He is the one talking about Islam as a race.
Hey, I am curious, too. What race is a Jew exactly? Obviously, it is a religion, NOT a race. Some people, though, ignore that and consider Judaism as a race with defined, usually malign characteristics. That kind of talk is called antisemitism and is a particular form of racism.
“The Yeti” expressed another form of racism called Islamophobia. It is usually mixed with anti-Arab racism, since most Islamophobists conveniently neglect the fact that the majority of Muslims in the world are the non-Arab inhabitants of Asian countries such as Indonesia.
Personally, I always point out what nonsense it is to talk about “Muslims” as an ethnic group in the particular case of France, so I won’t repeat myself here, I can only suggest you read my February 6, 2004 02:21 PM comment on this other thread.
What are “the actions of groups of Muslims” “The Yeti” vaguely refers to (how can you seriously call that a “description”?)? There is no date, no name, not the slightest hint about this threat to the “enlightened” civilisation (a cowardly way to avoid characterizing non-Western civilisations as, a contrario, “barbarian”, “primitive”, whatever you call it).
Once again, I live in Paris, France, and am particularly sensitive to both ethnic and rape issues here. And I am far from being convinced that you or “The Yeti” know better than me what is going on where I live. In fact, I am tired of reading on American blogs word for word what I can hear anytime when I tune in my local far-rightist radio station. Only the language is different.
Neko: “Larry, Jimmy explained why it’s racist to stereotype any group, religious, racial, or ethnic.”
Regardless of what Jimmy explained he is simply wrong. The word “racist” has a specific meaning:
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Bastardizing the word to label other things is wrong, and over time it will lose its edge. Its like right-wingers calling all the libs “commies”, or libs calling right-wingers “nazis” all the time. Keep flinging those labels around willy-nilly and over time they will no longer be a serious accusation. Being labeled as a racist, nazi, or commie should be a serious charge, but they are becoming less so everyday.
Jimmy: “Ask “The Yeti”, not Neko and me. He is the one talking about “Muslim gangs” in Europe. He is the one talking about Islam as a race.”
How did you come the that conclusion? I see no mention of race in that paragraph. How does one equate “Muslim gangs in Europe” to “Islam is a race”. I don’t understand how you can make that leap based on what he wrote. He is using Muslim gangs as a distinction of culture, not of race.
Jimmy: “Finally, you do know that what is metaphorically called “the rape of Nanking” was, in fact a mass massacre, don’t you?”
If you think all that happened was a massacre then you might want to read up on it a little. Thousands were also raped, and taken as sex slaves for the Japanese army.
Yeti said:
Or accounts of Western soldiers raping a populace. Of course, when that happens, those soldiers are court-martialed and sent to prison, not congratulated on spreading their religion.
I read, “We Westerners are so much better than those Muslims, who take pride and delight in raping women in the name of evangelism.” I don’t jump to accusations of racism quickly–and I did try to find a way to read this statement in a different way. I couldn’t. He’s accusing all Muslims, or at least Muslim leaders, of supporting this kind of behavior, in the same way that he’s suggesting that American administrators punish any soldier caught in the same act (which I question, but whatever). I find his statement appalling.
I don’t run around yelling, “Catholicism requires sex with little boys!” and I think it would be pretty disgusting to do so. And frankly, I didn’t think “religiousist” sounded right, so I went with racist. Perhaps you know a more appropriate word, Larry. Ignorant, maybe? Stupid? Mean and hateful? I could go with any of those, too.
I’m proud of the men and women who choose to defend our country (why do I always need to add disclaimers?), but I’m more than a little horrified by reports of sexual harrassment and rape in the military. Based on what they’re being taught, soldiers should be the opposite of criminals, shouldn’t they? So what’s going on? If they don’t buy Ampersand’s explanation, how do Yeti and Larry explain this phenomenon (without resorting to “But other people do it, too!”)? Aren’t we supposed to be the “civilized” ones?
Larry, if you don’t like the term racist, then try bigoted.
It’s rather telling that you’re sticking to the hair splitting rather than answering the points Jimmy, Hestia, and John raised.
“The word “racist” has a specific meaning:
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.”
Larry, I explained this already, but will try again:
Your definition of racism is incorrect. Before every instance of the word “race,” should be the word “perceived.” Many, many people think Muslims are all Arabic, and that all Muslims (read, Arabs) want to take over white civilization, rape white women, etc., ad nauseum. Their anti-Muslim prejudice can therefore accurately be called racism, even though there is no “Arabic race.”
Standard disclaimer: There is, in fact, no scientific validity to “race;” the amount of melanin in our skin or the shape of our facial features has nothing to do with anything real, as opposed to in the minds of racists.
Larry,
When one talks about Muslim gangs roving “civilised countries”, it’s referring to the difference in western countries and Islamic nations, of North Africa, Central Asia and the Arab Penninsula. But these countries geographically center around the Arab Penninsula which leads to the ignorant switching around of the words “Arab” and “Muslim” which really is the sort of view that the Yeti was implying.
So I repeat, it is racist. No amount of word-parsing can change that fact.
I hadn’t read Corwin’s response when I posted that. But he said what I was trying to say a bit more elegantly and clearly. So feel free to refer to Corwin as opposed to me.
Neko: “It’s rather telling that you’re sticking to the hair splitting rather than answering the points Jimmy, Hestia, and John raised.”
I saw some guy give an honest opinion and get jumped on, unfairly, by a lot of people. His opinion, assumptions, or conclusions may be wrong. But “wrong” does not equate to racist, bigoted, and the like. Maybe a “Muslim gang” has never raped a non-Muslim in Europe, but I doubt it. I have no idea whether its rare or common, but those facts can be debated without unfairly labeling someone.
OK, I will try to go back on topic. I gave my opinion on this topic way, way up there ^. But to summarize I generally agreed with most of Ampersand’s points.
Hestia: “I’m proud of the men and women who choose to defend our country (why do I always need to add disclaimers?), but I’m more than a little horrified by reports of sexual harrassment and rape in the military. Based on what they’re being taught, soldiers should be the opposite of criminals, shouldn’t they? So what’s going on? If they don’t buy Ampersand’s explanation, how do Yeti and Larry explain this phenomenon (without resorting to “But other people do it, too!”)? Aren’t we supposed to be the “civilized” ones?”
Prisons: Take a bunch of violent, partially civilized men who don’t play by societies rules and throw them all together and people are surprised by the violence and rape?
Soldiers: Soldiers are not born in isolation, they are from the population at large. At 18 you are not exactly a clean slate on which to build. However, there is no doubt that the military can change people for the better. I am living proof of that. If I hadn’t joined the Marine Corps as a young man, I don’t think I would be the man I am today (for the better). I maybe wrong, but I doubt rape among US soldiers 18-24 is much greater than that of 18-24 US college students, for instance.
I wonder if the quotation marks were meant to denigrate my opinions?
Regardless. This thread was about Ampersand’s thoughts on a rape culture, and it was not my intention to push it off-topic.
I never equated Muslims with Arabs. I was speaking specifically about the Mulsim slums in France, Belgium and Denmark where Sharia law is gaining traction over western law. This is information you can find at the Daniel Pipes website – but after reading some of the responses, I can only assume that reading Daniel Pipes must make me a neo-fascist western colonialist.
Ampersand had no problem understanding what I said and disagreeing with it. Jimmy had to take my points and turn me into one of the hated right-wingers he rails about on his blog. Forgive me for ignoring him.
Do a search for: Odd Girl Out: The Culture of Hidden Aggression in Girls.
Follow up with the studies that have been big this year on female bullying.
My efforts are directed towards preventing the navel-gazing so common in Western thought by extending the discussion to humanity as a whole.
If America is a “rape culture,” then I want to know what the criteria are and if it is reasonable to apply them to other cultures. If Muslim teenagers can rape women not of their culture in Denmark to intimidate them (a common practice for thuggish men throughout history), would that qualify as a rape culture?
If brothels in France have a high incidence of rape and violence by the patrons, is that considered a rape culture?
Would Iraq, who under Saddam actually had a man payed to rape political opponents on Saddam’s staff be considered a rape culture?
If the point is to fix the problem, then we have to understand rape in a historical context to solve the problem. Focusing on data that only addresses prisoners and college boys without adult supervision is unhelpful.
But if your purpose is simply to bash men, bash western culture, and deny any culpability on the part of non-white, non-Western societies, please feel free to continue misusing my words to paint me to be a monster.
But you might want to start your own blog.
Corwin, I understand your point and it has one glaring fault: You presume to know that Yeti views Muslims as a race. On what do you base that presumption?
“Many, many people think Muslims are all Arabic, and that all Muslims (read, Arabs) want to take over white civilization, rape white women, etc., ad nauseum. Their anti-Muslim prejudice can therefore accurately be called racism, even though there is no “Arabic race.””
Ahh I see, because “Many, many” people believe that, and “Many. many” is greater than Yeti (one), then obviously Yeti is one of those. It all makes sense now.
“I saw some guy give an honest opinion and get jumped on, unfairly, by a lot of people.”
Well at least now you’ve dropped the semantic hair-splitting. How refreshing.
As far as people telling Yeti how he came off–that’s what happens in discussions and debates. People disagreeing with you or calling you on something you said is par the course, and it’s perfectly fair to say that someone is coming off as bigoted. You are free to disagree. Yeti’s free to rebut. But don’t give me this garbage that it’s a terrible thing for me or anyone else here to call something as we see it.
“His opinion, assumptions, or conclusions may be wrong. But ‘wrong’ does not equate to racist, bigoted, and the like.”
When he said (“How does this compare to the gangs of Muslims that wander the enlightened countries of Europe raping non-Muslim women for violating sharia?”) coupled with his comment about Western soldiers not getting congratulated on spreading their religion through rape, came off as racist to me and several other posters here. You might not agree with other posters’ assessments of his comments, but you’d better get used to the fact that they will interpret comments differently from you, and that they will say what they think. I’m not going sugar coat my words to spare someone’s freaking fee-fees, and if you can’t handle it, you should frequent a knitting blog.
“Maybe a ‘Muslim gang’ has never raped a non-Muslim in Europe, but I doubt it.”
Actually, Jimmy Ho–the poster who *lives* in Paris and actually *knows* about the issue–discussed the Yeti’s claim, way up there^. No one ever said that a Muslim gang *never* raped a non-Muslim woman. What Jimmy said (again, sheesh, read the posts, willya) was this:
“By the way, I happen to live in France and I know pretty well what crimes you are refering to (i.e. collective rapes in immigrant suburbs). Wanna hear some facts? Many victims are Muslim women, while a good part (about the half) of the perpetrators were of the “Civilized” persuasion. ‘Ni Putes Ni Soumises’ (Not Whores Nor Submissive), the collective that fights this phenomenon, has been created mostly by what you would call ‘Muslim’ women.”
“I have no idea whether its rare or common, but those facts can be debated without unfairly labeling someone.”
That’s pretty rich, since *you* were quite happy to label people as knee-jerk, PC (I assume in the detrimental sense) and a whole host of other things; it would behoove you to stop the finger-wagging and take your own advice.
“That’s pretty rich, since *you* were quite happy to label people as knee-jerk, PC (I assume in the detrimental sense) and a whole host of other things; it would behoove you to stop the finger-wagging and take your own advice.”
The difference being called a knee-jerk-PC-etc. and racist is the difference between calling someone a jerk verses calling them a child molester. If you don’t understand that difference in degree then we can just agree to disagree.
“I never equated Muslims with Arabs.”
No one said you did. People had a problem with your comments about Muslim gangs roaming enlightened European countries raping non-Muslim women for violating sharia law, and western soldiers not getting congratulated for spreading their religion through rape. That came off as racist.
“I was speaking specifically about the Mulsim slums in France, Belgium and Denmark where Sharia law is gaining traction over western law. This is information you can find at the Daniel Pipes website – but after reading some of the responses, I can only assume that reading Daniel Pipes must make me a neo-fascist western colonialist.”
No, but according to someone who *lives* in France, and is well-versed in the issues there, your assumption was inaccurate. Is it too much to expect that you could actually listen to someone who *lives* there, or is it more comfortable for you to get defensive during a debate?
“Ampersand had no problem understanding what I said and disagreeing with it. Jimmy had to take my points and turn me into one of the hated right-wingers he rails about on his blog. Forgive me for ignoring him.”
Actually, Jimmy had no problem with understanding what you said and disagreeing with it. I see you haven’t acutally provided any hard evidence or stats about these gangs that supposedly terrorize non-Muslim women.
“If America is a “rape culture,” then I want to know what the criteria are and if it is reasonable to apply them to other cultures. If Muslim teenagers can rape women not of their culture in Denmark to intimidate them (a common practice for thuggish men throughout history), would that qualify as a rape culture?”
Amp and several others have already discussed this at the beginning of the thread. But FWIW, he never specifically said that this was only about America. He does seem to concentrate on (North American) Western culture, because he knows it best.
“If the point is to fix the problem, then we have to understand rape in a historical context to solve the problem. Focusing on data that only addresses prisoners and college boys without adult supervision is unhelpful.”
Did you even read Amp’s post? Good lord, he was talking about cultural mores and expectations. (And BTW, the vast majority of college students are legal adults, not boys and girls.)
“But if your purpose is simply to bash men, bash western culture, and deny any culpability on the part of non-white, non-Western societies, please feel free to continue misusing my words to paint me to be a monster.”
And if your purpose is to read things into what Amp said, instead of what he *actually* said, feel free to cast yourself as a martyr when we call you on your misinterpretation.
“But you might want to start your own blog.”
And you might want to actually *read* what people have written about the subject (in this thread and others) instead of whining about how we are bashing men and the west and giving other cultures a free pass. Of course, that would require you reading what people wrote, something you don’t appear willing to do.
Larry, there is a world of difference between telling someone thier comments came off as racist, and falsely accusing someone of being a child molester. Note that I’m not freaking out over Yeti’s comments that we are bashing men and the west–and I don’t liken his comments to accusing someone of being a child molester.
Sheesh, talk about being over the top. Go to a knitting blog, take a few deep breaths, and come back when you’re calm and rational.
Neither Larry nor Yeti addressed the questions I raised.
Let me see if I can make it clearer: Yeti said, “The solution is nor [sic] misandry. It’s raising and supporting masculine boys who understand that the protection of the weak is the true basis of manhood.” That’s what the military does, or is supposed to do. In fact, it may be the only institution that consciously tries to instill these particular values. Soliders should behave better than non-soldiers because that is the way they’re being trained. So they should have a much smaller rate of sexual harrassment than any other organization, company, or group of people anywhere. Why is that not the case?
As far as prisons are concerned, why, if inmates are all “violent, partially civilized [people] who don’t play by societies [sic] rules,” is rape is much more prevalent among men in prisons than among women? I mean, they’re all criminals. They’ve all done bad things. In each case, some are more powerful than the others. So why aren’t the stronger women going after the weaker ones? (Oh, I forgot: Women do that thing with the “interpersonal feud that can last their entire lives and lead to depression, anxiety, ulcers, drug-use, and massive personality changes.”)
Here’s the part where I go even more off-topic and irritate Larry:
Ahh I see, because “Many, many” people believe that, and “Many. many” is greater than Yeti (one), then obviously Yeti is one of those.
You think is a coherent argument? “Person X says something contrary to what ‘many, many’ other people believe, so Person X is completely right”? Or is it, “If Person X believes one thing, anyone who accuses him of anything else is completely wrong”? Intentions matter, but only if they’re clear.
The difference being called a knee-jerk-PC-etc. and racist is the difference between calling someone a jerk verses calling them a child molester.
…What? How? I don’t see the connection at all. “Racist,” in this instance, describes a sentence. It’s based on a reading of that sentence. “Knee-jerk etc.,” and “jerk” and, for that matter, “blind zealotry” describe people. They’re insults and also ad hominems. (I’m so glad I learned that phrase.) “Child molester” describes a behavior. It’s either a fact or libel. “Child molester” is not even a little bit like “racist,” and I have absolutely no idea how you connected them. (Have you come up with an alternative word for “racist” yet? Because I’d be glad to change it.)
The military is huge. Millions of vets have passed through the ranks. Of both sexes. And it instills martial virtues, not masculine ones. They are related, but there is a difference.
The military teaches discipline and camaraderie. That’s not necessarily manly values.
If you think the military has more rape and more harassment than other institutions, than you’ve never been a member of the military.
In groups that large, you will always have enough evidence to paint a picture. But it’s not the truth. In fact, the military takes many of the same young boys that are violent and anti-societal and teaches them.
Bringing up military rape is an attempt to defame American culture by pointing out weaknesses. It’s not truly an argument about military culture. It’s a strawman.
“The military is supposed to be the paragon of manliness. So American soldiers raping proves the culture is debased.”
Sheesh.
So if I can provide proof of Muslim youths raping non-Muslim women in Europe to intimidate them in preparation for an Islamic revolution in Europe, would that still be racist? Or does that validate my argument? Is all I’m missing here a link?
Because that’s the only argument anyone made outside of Jimmy’s wildly anecdotal comment that he lives in France and thus knows more than anyone else about France.
Not that it stops him from discussing his view on Americans in his blog. No bias there. He’s a reputable source.
Now – is the attack on Larry another attack of intimidation because the arguments are all personal? Can we get back on the thread topic?
I lack the time to respond in detail, so for the moment I will only adress the remarks about the Rape of Nanking:
As Emilie rightly pointed out many comments ago, using the word “metaphorically” was misleading and partly wrong, because it seems to imply that “rape” is not meant literally in this expression.
Of course, systematic raping was a part of the tragedy, and it is in itself horrendous enough, but what makes this historical event even more dreadful is that this was “only” one of the many tortures imagined by the Japanese military to humiliate and destroy the people of Nanjing. While rape was all-too commonly used as a way to mark the absolute power of the occupation force in every territory conquered by the Japanese army, the goal in Nanjing was a high-scale slaughter. In fact, I’m not even sure if the “rape” in “Rape of Nanking” refers directly to this practice, or to the violation/destruction of a whole city.
As a matter of fact, it is traditionally called “the Big Massacre of Nanjing (Nanjing da tusha 南京大屠殺)” in Chinese.
As for the issue about racism, I’m glad Neko, Corwin, and the others responded a lot better than I would have.
The Yeti, the reason I put your name in quotations marks is simple: whenever I write the Yeti, I have this image in mind. I needed to distinguish it somehow from “the commenter who signs The Yeti”. I see no objection in calling you The if you tell me that this is really your first name.
So Daniel Pipes is your authority on French Muslims? Why am I not surprised (remember I did guess LGF)? Whatever happened to Bernard Lewis.
For the record, I saw The Yeti’s post right after I posted mine. I’m off anyway.
I guess I just can’t help but being pulled back into the off topic discussion.
Hestia: “Ahh I see, because “Many, many” people believe that, and “Many. many” is greater than Yeti (one), then obviously Yeti is one of those. You think is a coherent argument?”
OMG! The argument was incoherent to the point of lunacy, thus I was being sarcastic.
Hestia: “…What? How? I don’t see the connection at all. “Racist,” in this instance, describes a sentence. It’s based on a reading of that sentence. “Knee-jerk etc.,” and “jerk” and, for that matter, “blind zealotry” describe people. They’re insults and also ad hominems. (I’m so glad I learned that phrase.) “Child molester” describes a behavior. It’s either a fact or libel. “Child molester” is not even a little bit like “racist,” and I have absolutely no idea how you connected them. (Have you come up with an alternative word for “racist” yet? Because I’d be glad to change it.)”
I probably wasn’t very clear on this point. Even though “child molester” does work, it probably wasnt the best term to use in my explanation. In the way that it works: being called a jerk is fairly harmless, being called a child molester has a heavy stigma attached to it.
So Let me try again without the analogy. The way I see things is that there are harmless names that can be thrown around, and then there are labels which should be given and taken seriously.
Group A- Harmless: Jerk, asshole, idiot, loony, reactionary, geek, sh*thead, hippy, etc.
Group B- Serious labels that carry a heavy negative stigma: Nazi, fascist, racist, anti-Semitic, Bigot, etc.
So Larry, how are we supposed to classify statements like, “Muslim culture is all about the rape” (okay I’m oversimplifying) if not bigoted. This isn’t being a geek, this is a statement laden with anti-Islamic bigotry. It doesn’t mean person who said it is a bigot, merely that the person made a bigoted statement. And the fact that neither you nor the yeti can see what’s wrong with saying off-the-cuff statements that seem to say to be Muslim is to be intrinsically pro-rape means I get to ignore any of your gripes about fairness.
I don’t know (to my knowledge) any man that has stranger raped a woman, or used force to have sex with a woman any longer than she wanted to. Part of the problem may be that I don’t hang out with people who don’t respect the autonomy of other people (which I think is a trait all rapists have).
So what should I be doing to diminish the occurence of rape in Minneapolis, Minnesota?
Terry31415
Yes, I’m entering the convo very late, but I was out of town. So, I’ll be backtracking a bit:
Amp: This is why the “rape isn’t about sex, rape is about violence” analysis falls short. It’s not true – not from the point of view of many rapists – and it denies the true horror of the situation. Many rapists don’t rape because they hate and want to hurt women; it’s not that personal. Rapists rape because they want sex; they don’t consider the woman’s feelings at all, because a woman’s feelings aren’t worth considering. They’re just women, after all.
I wouldn’t disagree with this — but I also wouldn’t say this is always true. I think, more often than not, it is true in cases of acquaintance rape (which, yes, make up about 86% of rapes), but not always in cases of stranger rapes. In cases of stranger rapes, there often is various levels of hatred of women, a desire not only for sex (and sometimes not for sex — as most of us know it — at all) but for degredation, humiliation, and torture.
To expand on this, Mithras asked: Do you have research on rapists’ attitudes toward women to support this? I have always been under the impression that most rapists actually enjoy the emotional pain and fear of their victims. And since such emotions can be experienced by both male and female victims, it would seem to be a better explanation of why both men and women get raped than your “women are worthless” theory. Also, it shows the critical psychological difference between men who rape and men who don’t. In short, it’s not that rapists hate women, it’s that they hate people.
Most studies who have shown these types of responses have been done with those men convicted of stranger rape. Talk to the man convicted (or accused) of acquaintance rape, you’ll get a very different answer.
we have one thing going for us, i guess. Our courts won’t throw out a rape case if two men didn’t witness it. How twisted of us. And sick, for that matter.
Well, not openly, anyway. Our courts find other ways to throw cases out, or get acquittals based on lies and falsehoods. We have defense attorneys who will end run around rape shield laws in every effort to show that the victim was a “slut” and therefore “couldn’t have been raped” (“sluts” are even lower than “women” don’t ya know, can’t rape a slut — and if you do, she probably deserved it — yes, that is sarcasm). Hell we have “liberal” TV shows making claims that rape shield laws are “constitutional violations” and harming the poor men (see: The Practice).
Mithras wrote: One other thing. Your theory seems to presuppose that only men whose masculinity is threatened rape. How to explain men who have willing sexual partners who then also rape? To use your analogy, how to explain the rich person who embezzles or commits tax fraud?
Entitlement, entitlement, entitlement. That and the fact that masculinity is so fragile that it can be lost at a moment’s notice. And there is an element of power in over-powering someone; taking from them something they didn’t want to give (so to speak). Having a willing sexual partner (or partners) doesn’t guarantee continued ensurance of masculinity, that needs to be constantly proven. It’s the same reason that men who have willing sexual partners (and, in particular, those big name stars who not only have willing sexual partners, but could get 90% of the women in the room to willingly have sex with them) go to prostitutes.
Larry said: I don’t think we are taught masculinity; I think it is mostly genetic predisposition. And I think it is perfectly natural in a primitive way.
To paraphrase John Stuart Mill, if these things are so inherent and ingrained, why then does society spend so much time and energy teaching, demanding, and controlling it? Mill was speaking of femininity, but the same applies to masculinity. The very fact that we have to teach it and mold it and demand shows that it’s not inate. And believe me, watch any child growing up, and you can see how much these things are taught to children.
Raznor said: I cling to the belief we can change society for the better, through government controls and general activism.
Maybe it’s the radical feminist in me, but I just can’t get behind the idea that government controls will ever do anything to change society for the better. That’s not to say that I don’t think laws and such are necessary, I just don’t think they do enough to actually change society. Rape laws won’t stop rape, sexual harrassment laws won’t stop sexual harrassment, Affirmative Action won’t stop racist and sexist hiring standards. We need to go beyond laws if we want to actually change society, we need to get to a point where men realize that rape is WRONG, not just because they might go to jail, but because it is inhuman (and inhumane) and just plain WRONG.
Joe M. said: Of course women don’t commit rapes. They don’t have the necessary equipment.
Not true. First, rape (by men or women, of men or women) can consist of penetration with an object (not necessarily a penis). Second, it is physically possible for a woman to rape a man by forcing him to have sex with her. People cannot always control physiological responses, so while the man may not want to have sex, may actively be fighting against it, he can still have an erection, which the woman can insert in her vagina against his will. Yeah, it’s rare. But not just because of physical reasons.
Amp said: why rape is uncommon in female prisons but common in male prisons
OK, I know I’m being nit-picky (and really, I do get what you’re actually saying, and agree with it), but rape is not uncommon at all in female prisons. It’s just that the rapists are the male guards, not other prisoners.
Yeti said: Or accounts of Western soldiers raping a populace. Of course, when that happens, those soldiers are court-martialed and sent to prison, not congratulated on spreading their religion.
Oh, really? I’d suggest taking a look at military history — real military history, not what’s taught in high school social studies classes. Read about the massive rapes in Viet Nam, Bosnia, and all the places we aren’t “technically” “at war” but simply have soldiers stationed there. Rapes are ever present among US soldiers, both in war time and “peace” time, and 99% of them are never court-martialed or discharged from service. Read Bananas, Beaches, and Bases. Read Against Our Will. There’s enough history of Amerian soldiers proudly raping and being cheered on for doing so, it would turn a humane person’s stomach on edge.
Yeti: You’ve surely heard of the problems win Denmark, Belgium, and France? Are those rape cultures?
Uhhhh, I do believe it’s already been stated that all of Western culture is a rape culture, and unless there’s been a drastic overturn in power last night, those are Western countries.
Bean, a few immediate responses:
Man I cringed when you reminded me of guard on inmate rape in women’s prisons. That sort of thing has always caused me to have a particularly visceral response. I guess that I probably should have a visceral response but . ..
As to what you said directly to me, I agree, but that’s why I said government control and general activism. Of course I’m being a bit ambiguous, but to use a bad and overly explained analogy, if you want to fix a leak, you plug it (government control) then stop it’s source (general activism). I don’t think either part should be de-emphasized, and government action is the first step to changing society for the better. And to all, please don’t waste your time tearing apart my analogy, it sucks I know, and it would be shooting fish in a barrel, but let’s move on.
As far as soldiers raping innocent victims – I file that sort of behavior in general war atrocities. The kind that’s bad, but not big enough to be strongly noticed, and the kind that are almost impossible to prosecute, since Officers don’t see everything that’s happening in the field, soldiers will protect their own from discipline, and officers don’t want to stop their soldiers from dehumanizing the enemy, nor suffer the loss of blood lust that would cause. It’s a different phenomenon than shooting civilians on a whim or beating surrendering POWs to death, but I fear it is still one of the ugly realities of war, and there’s not much we can do except to avoid going to war when unnecessary, but then that brings up all sorts of tangent arguments. And besides this is all off-the-cuff speculation by a guy whose taken a Vietnam history class and read James Jones, so never ignore the possibility that I’m just pulling this all out of my ass.
I can’t help myself I’ve gotta respond to some of these comments
Bean: I think, more often than not, it is true in cases of acquaintance rape (which, yes, make up about 86% of rapes), but not always in cases of stranger rapes. In cases of stranger rapes, there often is various levels of hatred of women, a desire not only for sex (and sometimes not for sex — as most of us know it — at all) but for degredation, humiliation, and torture.
I don’t think the distinction is that clearcut – somewhere in the midst of the flame war I posted a quote from Ruth Rendell about how the perception of worthlessness affects peoples actions. What she is careful to point out is that it doesn’t require hate but only a belief that someone is a second class citizen and that hate can evolve from the consequences of this belief. I would bet that all “stranger rapists” start out as “acquaintance rapists”.
What this implies is that mysogyny evolves from Amp’s second point “The low regard of women in society” rather than from “the fragility of maculinity”.
I do think however that these two points are related. I’d refer you to Wilhelm Reich back in the 1930’s (before he started inventing orgone boxes etc.)Reich was interested in how society persuaded men to go to war – he reasoned that it was through the process of humiliation and degradation to the point where men will obey any orders given to them. Why don’t men rebel, he asked? Because they are given women to possess, he answered. It’s that old Judaic scripture thing about not being born a woman.
So, as Bean rightly points out rape is an integral part of war, and an integral reward of war in whatever society you are in. The processes of humiliation and degradation become generalised outside of the military to become the source of concepts such as ‘fragile masculinity’ which creates a war like culture.
It’s worth asking who wins out of all this, because it is not all men that win but only privileged men that win. Most men learn to bite their tongue when their bosses humiliate them and go home and take it out on the wife (I know this is a cliche but it is also true).
The consequence of the rise of feminism is that a lot of men feel highly emotionally distressed because the female safety net has pulled from under them and yet they are not ready or able to take on the big guys with the power and money.
IMHO it all a function of economics – which is a function of the kind of government you’ve got, the kind of taxes you collect and the kind of laws you make.
In post-industrial societies the cost of having children has risen dramatically against the benefits from having them. This, along with the control of reproduction has given women unprecedented economic power.
IN the last 10 or 15 years there has been an ideological backlash against this but as the saying goes “My karma ran over my dogma”
The question really is whether men can become pacifists or whether they want to keep fighting wars and humiliating each other and … raping women…
Bean wrote we need to get to a point where men realize that rape is WRONG I couldn’t agree more – what that implies though is that men don’t just feel guilty about rape but feel ashamed about it.
Bringing up military rape is an attempt to defame American culture by pointing out weaknesses.
Uh, no, it’s an attempt to disprove your assertation that we need to teach boys traditional masculinity. I’m not saying the military is evil; I am saying that your argument doesn’t stand up in light of the rate of sexual harassment and rape in the military, where boys are taught traditional masculinity. I thought I was pretty clear about that.
Group A- Harmless: Jerk, asshole, idiot, loony, reactionary, geek, sh*thead, hippy, etc. Group B- Serious labels that carry a heavy negative stigma: Nazi, fascist, racist, anti-Semitic, Bigot, etc.
Oh, whatever. This is an entirely subjective opinion that doesn’t take into account the fact that Group B can factually describe a comment while Group A is an opinion of a person. (You never offered a better word, by the way, nor did you respond to my suggestion of “stupid,” “ignorant,” and “hateful” as possible alternatives.) I have better things to do than get into a stupid semantic “Your insult is worse than my insult!” argument. (Ooh, does a string of Group A insults trump a single Group B one??) I stand by what I said and my reasons for saying it.
Not that anybody cares, but I think I’m done in this thread. I feel like I’m talking to a couple brick walls, and I’m not interested in wasting any more of my time on that. And I never really had anything brilliant to say about Amp’s original post anyway. Sorry for any derailment my posts caused.
I’m a man but I honestly can’t think of any other crime that is worse than rape. Murder, even brutal murder is better because you never wake up the next morning to face the world… and yourself.
Come on guys, don’t you have wives and sisters and (God forbid) daughters?
Chris, strongwallafrica@yahoo.com
Id like a moment to quote on this from the top of the page by ‘ampersand’ “From early boyhood, men are taught that their masculinity must be protected above all else, or else it will be lost. Men who have lost their masculinity are objects of contempt, derision and violent abuse, and have lost the right to be loved or respected by their fellow men and by their fathers.”
May I ask what the hell made you write this and all above below? I have never had men (ie parents friends) force a manly side apon me, I have turned out fine, Never been beeten up, I can talk out a fight, If needed I can be in control of a situation and I am very much intouch with my feminine side, my best friends are women. I can see that you are relating to some people but to call every man wrong and say that we all are made like machines to be against anything which makes us look queer or feminine is just plain stupid and you must be incased in the smallest wall ever. There is no such thing as wrong or right, so how every man is wrong i would love to know… our human exsistance is based on where we live who we know and what we do. sorry I had to say that but as you put it i will piss alot of people off as we all have views.
I would also like to mention that I was forced by a man at a young age (I knew this guy for more than 4 years) to have sex with my younger brother (I am male for the record), I luckly escaped before anything happened and I told an adult next door, I would love to get my hands on this guy if i ever saw him again, I was lucky I only got some emotional pain from it, but it is still horrid to tell some 1 they tryed to make u have sex with your own brother and to keep remembering it every day.
Rape has been among us for years, I would even say that animals to a certain extent push sex upon the females. animals fight with other males. this sounds like a descripton on men that I hear so many women say (that we fight, are wrong, are not needed, fight all the time, have to prove something, all are bastards – this is the most common.)
Man and woman has been sexualy active for the whole generation and rape with or without physical force is everywhere, I bet lots of men get girlfriends and have sex with them whilest they are sleeping as do women to their boyfriends, maybe rape is a nateral way of life for humans (yes males in general do have high sexual urges). If, like I said above, there is no right or wrong then if a person believes he is not doing something bad or wrong then he wont feel guilty and will do it. Now we all have our right and wrong sides, I dont believe in religion as i think its control and is wrong, Then I think that the reason I think like this is because I have been brought up in a non religious way and have other people other than family saying how they hate it. I became acustomed to this, I can look back and see how everything I know as right and wrong comes from other people’s ideas and control, the same thing goes for sex… In some religions you cannot have sex until you are married, If those people didn’t grow up in the environment that made them think this way they would proberbly have sex at the first opertunity, or even rape.
Now the only thing that I can leave to being the reason more men rape than women is that we have an urge to shag as much as possible, its fun, enjoyable and not many men on this planet stay virgins all their life.
Now we have been talking about RAPE, is it really wrong or is it just wrong to some of us because we have all grown up listening to a powerfull set of people and or family and or government say that sex with out both sides wanting it is rape… they set a rule and like sheep people with no power over the people telling them this (ie government) follow. A few people dont cause they dont like people being higher than them, they may believe we are all equal or may not like the fact that they have rules set for them, so they break them because they believe it is the right thing to do, the parents, friend or family proberbly believe the same.
I will leave you with that, some of us will realise ‘hey it makes sence! why are we disscusing something we will have to live with almost all of our human existance? can it be stoped?’ My only answer is not even definate but I am sure something will be tried and some device that is issued to every child born will be implanted or sumthing to try and control the man/woman it is implanted in, then some how nature will take over and 1 man or woman will get out (proberbly hundreds will escape the control or not get caught in the first place). That will be when once again all hell will break out and rape, theft, attacks, and so forth will reign down on this planet once more and the cycle will continue.
DMA
Ho hum. Conjecture and speculation, that’s nice.
“Rape has been among us for years, I would even say that animals to a certain extent push sex upon the females. ”
This is one of my all-time favorites!!! Do you realize that human men are sooooooo convinced the female sexuality is BAD ™ that they refuse to see the very obvious participation of femles of any species in the act of sex. Why do you think the term “bitch” is so popular with men and so derogatory in nature? Have you ever watched a bitch dog in heat trying to get what she wants??? Females like sex. Females enjoy sex. Females actively and even aggressively pursue sex. But because *men* have stigmatized this in females and women (based their conceptions of female spirituality and intelligence on the unnatural and untamed sexual apetites of women) it *appears* that men are more prone to “shagging” and wanting to “shag”. Utter garbage. But even if men want to “shag” more than women, how does that create a rape society? If anything, it would create a homosexual society. :p
I have yet to see, ever, an ounce of proof that men like sex more than women. However, there is proof that women probably like it more than men–we’re the insatiable sex, after all.
Upon some of the accounts that have been brought up in this discussion, I would say that my own personal veiwpoint is that Rape is not due to men wanting to “get their end away” is it because men love the sense of power that they are given when they can hold down someone basicly do what they want to it. Its that destructive urge that men have, to wreck something pure, scar it, leave your mark on it.
Also I am unfortunate enough to know many people who have been raped, sometimes on more than one occasion in their short lives, and in every single case, it was a fully grown attached man with a healthy sex life. Two thirds of the time, it was the father who did the raping.
I would say that its not so much because its denied, its the fact that men do, physically, have the “power” to rape women and because its a complete taboo, they get all the more pleasure from it. They love the control. Doing what is forbidden, wrong.
Now that we have the “date rape” drugs, more men have this power, and will exercise this, even if they have a good sex life.
I am not saying that men who are denied sex are not going to rape because they cannot “get any”, because anger is also a cause in my opinion, the frustration of being turned down over and over and having their sexuality questioned is a big thing, because masculinity is indeed a fragile thing. So is pride.
But back to my point, if its because men are denied, why is there gang rape? Because power and control is a big turn on, for women as well as men, and this could be why there is not much female rape. Because women hold the power, they decide if any sex is given out, they pull all the strings in a relationship, sexual or otherwise. Rape could be caused by the dislike in their lack of power, showing again that they are not in charge, and not “being a man”. So they could rape their spouse or a girl they meet in a bar if denied, by simply dropping a pill in the womans drink and having that exilerating little bit more power over a woman.
I hope that I have interested some of you, or pissed at least one person off, and i would be honoured if it makes some of you think.
Man will dominate due to nateral anger and the fact he likes to be in control, he has to prove it!
Due to anger, this world, the fact women are in control and men want it, and many other aspects… some men will rape.
I can quite happily say women are in control, I have nothing against women and sorry I seamed to focus on men in general because we were mostly on about male rape. I have said before women are my best friends and I prefer hanging out and chatting to them than men.
I wish men and women could all get on but both sexes make it hard for the other and the cycle gets worse. If this world ever manages to put its differnces aside on a world wide scale then we may see some progress. Till then ladies do what you do because no measure will stop rape and mens victems vary so much you could dress 1 day to look unatractive and get raped cause some guy thought u were being too clever, atempting to avoid rape may be the type of victem that guy goes for cause it may threaten the control he wants. This is just a thought I had, who knows how every man on this plannet thinks we have some weird people in the world and the best thing you can do is get on with life and not worrie.
I will never agree with rape and I will never do it. I will help in anyway I can to minimise risk but it is stupid to try and stop it as it will exist for all humanity. I found this thing online about a flyer a guy saw saying “Every man rapes or watches”, I am trying to help sort it out I am not just letting it happen I have stoped a rape happening by removing a bottle from a girls hand before she drank it, then I got her another drink. I plan to stop as many as I can possibly encounter before its too late (it requires helping women and men near the time of rape as you cannot stop it by spreading words).
Thats all I have for you and I will prob forget about this site unless I produce a solution or have sumthing to add… Take care people and Enjoy life, I have had shit and I have had fun but I try to think about the goodtimes not the bad.
I can quite happily say women are in control, I have nothing against women and sorry I seamed to focus on men in general because we were mostly on about male rape. I have said before women are my best friends and I prefer hanging out and chatting to them than men.
Are you drunk? Oh wait . . .
Your comment sounds surprisingly like “I have black friends! I’m not racist!”
Anyway, this guy (accidentally) raised a pretty good point when he claims that women are in control. As a student of very old literature, I have noticed such a claim in texts about courtly love and all that jazz. The woman is above the man and greater than him, etc. This view does not give the woman any agency, however; she may HAVE something, but is she able to EXERCISE anything? The idea of man as actor and woman as receiver still exists everywhere, especially in sexuality.
Well, yes. Since we have of late begun to consider women free adults, they get to decide whether or not they have sex. They also get to decide what kind of work they do and where they live. And they get to make decisions about religious belief, medical care, having children, and getting married. And all kinds of other choices, too! That’s because they’re, you know, citizens. They have rights and freedoms.
I can understand why all of that is so galling, since their “right” to not have sex conflicts with your desire to have sex with whatever woman you want. But don’t despair, guys: all of that power is deeply resented both by the law and by society. It’s denied at every opportunity, particularly after a sexual assault. And all of these freedoms are being leeched away. In a few years, it will probably be legal to force a woman to bear your child. Then, it’s only a matter of time before that nasty conflict of entitlements disappears.
Why is the sense of entitlement that results in rape inevitable? Why does the same segment of society that thinks it’s possible to impose abstinence on teenagers, heterosexuality on San Francisco, and Western-style secular democracy on Iraq throw up its hands when confronted with men who rape?
Resentment is not natural. A sense of entitlement is conferred by society; that’s evidenced by all of the men who _don’t_ feel any compulsion to rape. (Hi, Amp! Appreciate it!) The guy sitting next to you on the bus has control over his wallet. The guy sitting in front of you on the expressway has control over his car. In fact, we all interact daily with people who have stuff we want–stuff we need. And yet, most men who rape and apologize for rape manage to get through the day without mugging or assaulting anyone. And we have laws that insist they do so.
So why the exception, guys? Why can’t men learn as individuals and be taught as a class not to hurt women? We’ve decided upon and largely created a society in which people are expected not to act like animals. Why is viciousness towards women exempt?
Well, yes. Since we have of late begun to consider women free adults, they get to decide whether or not they have sex. They also get to decide what kind of work they do and where they live. And they get to make decisions about religious belief, medical care, having children, and getting married. And all kinds of other choices, too! That’s because they’re, you know, citizens. They have rights and freedoms.
I can understand why all of that is so galling, since their “right” to not have sex conflicts with your desire to have sex with whatever woman you want. But don’t despair, guys: all of that power is deeply resented both by the law and by society. It’s denied at every opportunity, particularly after a sexual assault. And all of these freedoms are being leeched away. In a few years, it will probably be legal to force a woman to bear your child. Then, it’s only a matter of time before that nasty conflict of entitlements disappears.
Why is the sense of entitlement that results in rape inevitable? Why does the same segment of society that thinks it’s possible to impose abstinence on teenagers, heterosexuality on San Francisco, and Western-style secular democracy on Iraq throw up its hands when confronted with men who rape?
Resentment is not natural. A sense of entitlement is conferred by society; that’s evidenced by all of the men who _don’t_ feel any compulsion to rape. (Hi, Amp! Appreciate it!) The guy sitting next to you on the bus has control over his wallet. The guy sitting in front of you on the expressway has control over his car. In fact, we all interact daily with people who have stuff we want–stuff we need. And yet, most men who rape and apologize for rape manage to get through the day without mugging or assaulting anyone. And we have laws that insist they do so.
So why the exception, guys? Why can’t men learn as individuals and be taught as a class not to hurt women? We’ve decided upon and largely created a society in which people are expected not to act like animals. Why is viciousness towards women exempt?
Well, yes. Since we have of late begun to consider women free adults, they get to decide whether or not they have sex. They also get to decide what kind of work they do and where they live. And they get to make decisions about religious belief, medical care, having children, and getting married. And all kinds of other choices, too! That’s because they’re, you know, citizens. They have rights and freedoms.
I can understand why all of that is so galling, since their “right” to not have sex conflicts with your desire to have sex with whatever woman you want. But don’t despair, guys: all of that power is deeply resented both by the law and by society. It’s denied at every opportunity, particularly after a sexual assault. And all of these freedoms are being leeched away. In a few years, it will probably be legal to force a woman to bear your child. Then, it’s only a matter of time before that nasty conflict of entitlements disappears.
Why is the sense of entitlement that results in rape inevitable? Why does the same segment of society that thinks it’s possible to impose abstinence on teenagers, heterosexuality on San Francisco, and Western-style secular democracy on Iraq throw up its hands when confronted with men who rape?
Resentment is not natural. A sense of entitlement is conferred by society; that’s evidenced by all of the men who _don’t_ feel any compulsion to rape. (Hi, Amp! Appreciate it!) The guy sitting next to you on the bus has control over his wallet. The guy sitting in front of you on the expressway has control over his car. In fact, we all interact daily with people who have stuff we want–stuff we need. And yet, most men who rape and apologize for rape manage to get through the day without mugging or assaulting anyone. And we have laws that insist they do so.
So why the exception, guys? Why can’t men learn as individuals and be taught as a class not to hurt women? We’ve decided upon and largely created a society in which people are expected not to act like animals. Why is viciousness towards women exempt?
Because women hold the power
The power to deny something they, too, would like–sex and intimacy–because they have no other bargaining chip. Wow, how powerful. Wouldn’t you like to live in a world where your only power over other men was whether or not you agreed to give them a blowjob?
Do women that men find unattractive also have this power? If I wanted to have sex with, say, Brad Pitt, would he be helpless to refuse me? How much power do I have, exactly? All of it? How interesting.
If I wanted to have sex with, say, Brad Pitt, would he be helpless to refuse me?
Now I’m contemplating a trip to California. . . LOL.
Or wait, I’m sure I could just call him. “Hey, babe, wanna get busy? Come on over!” I’m sure he’d do the nookie run, since his penis makes him so helpless and stupid.
I wonder Bean–are these folks are serious about this idea we’re taking the piss out of? If so, maybe men should be denied positions of power. Look how easy it is to mess with them. They obviously can’t be trusted.
/sarcasm
“So why the exception, guys? Why can’t men learn as individuals and be taught as a class not to hurt women? We’ve decided upon and largely created a society in which people are expected not to act like animals. Why is viciousness towards women exempt?”
Is there anything to the argument (brought at the beginning of piny’s triple post) that we have only recently begun to treat women like free adults?
I’d like to throw in a thanks to P.J Atkin’s as well, although I think a lot of his/her arguments are more along the lines of incest-rape and/or stranger rape than aquaintence rape (which is what I feel Amp was originally writing about). I don’t believe that the hunger for power and destruction is on the mind of a date-rapist, although I do think entitelement is. These guys aren’t thinking that they want to hurt a woman, they’re not thinking about the woman at all, really.
I love it I just have to for once agree with women and look at the responce, you lash it up like angry pack of wolves, Sexist or what, I love how you can say you are the powerful sex, and its not at all sexist! I am in hysterics with the comment “Your comment sounds surprisingly like “I have black friends! I’m not racist!”” posted by batgirl. it really supports me saying this, no wait it does exactly the opposite of this “I wish men and women could all get on but both sexes make it hard for the other” It seams that I cannot admit to the truth here without someone jumping down my back and calling me a lier.
This world is becoming sexist more and more, I would love to throw examples from both sexes and I could do the same with rasism… but alas I wont because I will get jumped on for being male, P.J.Atkins is male by the way wookie as I know him well.
DMA, this blog is about politics. Things get debated in the comments. If you can’t handle disagreement, then you should frequent blogs that discuss other, less volatile topics. People disagreeing with you does not mean they are calling you a liar. It also does not mean that you are being oppressed for being male. It means they disagree with you. That’s all.
Put your opinion out there, and you will hear disagreement. It’s happened to me, to wookie, to Amanda, to alsis, to Amp. . .to everyone. You are no exception. Cope.
I except the disagreement fact, but comments not disagreements directed at me do not fall under that, and In here I have been told that I fail to include in the way I think the females species equally to the male, anyway I cannot really be bothered to try and argue anymore with the minds doing the personal attacks, so I will take your advice as i dont mind a good debate, I will stay (if this room isnt forgoton) and cope, thanks.
anyway people I am currently feeling unwell so i may not be online as I think I have tonsilitus (excuse my spelling) so I will speak soon when I am well.
Pingback: writingwomen
Pingback: scribblingwoman
Pingback: Pandagon
Pingback: my so-called blog
Pingback: The Poor Man
Pingback: Lying Media Bastards
Pingback: Sappho's Breathing
Pingback: Strangechord
Pingback: Crescat Sententia
Pingback: Burningbird
Pingback: Tales from a Yeti Suit
Pingback: Tales from a Yeti Suit
Pingback: Sweetie-Pie's Sweet Blog
Pingback: 2 B Sophora
Pingback: Dream of the Lower Beings
Pingback: Fetch me my axe
Pingback: heather corinna: pure as the driven slush
Pingback: Pictures taken from a speeding car
Pingback: feminist blogs
Pingback: feminist blogs
Pingback: Glaivester
Pingback: in a mindset, far far away...
“Sexuality is something possessed by women”
*blink* I’d never seen this aspect but I think you are spot on with it as a major issue. A sense of entitlement was clear to me but not the concept ownership (accepted by both genders) and where that comes from. Thanks.
I’ve gotta say that I disagree with just about everything you say here… I can’t, and don’t know any other men for that matter, who would identify with your ideas oon fragile masculinity, low regard for woman, and sexuality. I personally feel no need to uphold masculinity, and hold many woman in high regard.
maybe this was a typo?
if not let me just say:
the right to vote
the (universal) right to own property
ability to divorce
ability to establish credit
have custody of your children
right to not be automatically excluded from study and work in law, medicine, engineering, finance, higher on the basis of sex
right to refuse sex with your husband
legal right to use birth control of any variety
right to marry without permission of your father
are just some examples of things i think fall into the category of rights of “free adults” that have been denied women in US in the 20th century, some rather late, and some perhaps remain not fully realized