Enough from the defenders of rapists already

[Peremensoe]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Of course you do.

Saying a woman’s entire value is in her sexual attractiveness amounts to saying that women have no other value. Saying that women also have value in being sexually attractive does not denigrate women’s value in other areas.

This is a truism. But the issue is whether you’re insulting women in general or just the woman that the remark was directed at. Your claim is the former (which is incorrect), but here you’re falling back on the latter (which is correct).

Right. But again, calling a specific man stupid does not amount to denigrating men as a group.

Or do you disagree with this too?

What if it was a black man, and you called him too stupid to lynch?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Frylock

But to the more general issue of whether there is something wrong, whatever you want to call it, with asserting that women are to be judged in part on their sexual attractiveness–the basic idea is that there is something wrong with any statement of the form “women are to be judged in part on the degree to which they are X, to a different degree than men are to be so judged” for any X.

It is my impression that most feminists would call any such statement “misogynistic.” But again, that’s an empirical question about how a word is used. What I will definitely affirm is that there’s something wrong with making any assertion of that form.

OK, so I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.

[As a side note, there’s no implication in calling a specific woman unattractive that women are judged on their appearance to a different degree than men. However, it happens to be true (that they are judged to a different degree) even if not implicit in this insult, so not worth arguing about.]

I have not said that the remark is an insult to women in general. (I’d agree with that statement as well, but it’s a red herring, not being relevant to what I have said here.) I have said, instead, that the remark, to work as an insult, must presume something about how women are to be judged.

The target of the insult is undeniably a single person. The presumptions behind the remark concern women in general.

Again: If the remark did not presume a standard that applies to women in general, then it would lose all force of insult, because it would fail to imply that the particular target has failed to meet a presumed standard. Without that implication, no insult has taken place.

I wouldn’t say it implies a “presumed standard”. What it implies is that more is better and less is worse.

In any event, if you now say you’re not saying the remark is an insult to women in general, then I’ve lost you completely.

The “stupid man” insult is not denigrating to men in general, but it does make presumptions about how men are to be judged.

I disagree with this (to the extent that you claim it’s a unique statement about men).

But in any event, the context of this discussion is whether SA’s retort to FF was some sort of uniquely abhorrent insult, such that despite all the abuse she was spewing his way he should have refrained from saying it. It now seems like you’re making a statement about insults in general and not anything specific about calling women ugly, so irrelevant in context.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Peremensoe

What if it was a black man, and you called him too stupid to lynch?

It’s hard to compare directly, because you don’t need any sort of intelligence to be lynched, so that remark has no meaning.

But beyond that, the edge in that remark is not in the “stupid” part, but in the “lynched” part, in the implication that you’re raising the possibility of lynching the guy.

But that’s not the case here. FF herself was the one who raised the rape issue, in contrasting how people acted around her to how SA acted (or justified acting).

[Drunky_Smurf]

I’d bet money that Starving Artist and Fotheringay-Phipps aren’t pretty enough to rape either.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Well I certainly don’t remember anyone ever trying, so you might have a point there.

[Starving_Artist]

@Drunky_Smurf

I’d bet money that Starving Artist and Fotheringay-Phipps aren’t pretty enough to rape either.

Can I have part of that bet?

[zweisamkeit]

This is from a couple of pages back, but it’s really important to point this out, IMO:

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Well you can do whatever you want in your personal life and no one can tell you what to do. But if we’re just kicking the subject around in a thread, I don’t think your mere declaration that you haven’t seen any evidence backing up what’s widely thought to be true and backed by common sense carries any weight. Especially as it’s not as if you’re declaring that it’s false either - just that you don’t know of any evidence. Not much in that, IMO.So it seems like you’re backing off what you wrote earlier.

The bolded section above highlights a fundamental difference between you and many of your interlocutors, Fotheringay-Phipps. This isn’t just “kicking the subject around in a thread” for others*. From an essay that explores that chasm of difference between these two perspectives, this quote is a good summation:

There are the occasions that men—intellectual men, clever men, engaged men—insist on playing devil’s advocate, desirous of a debate on some aspect of feminist theory or reproductive rights or some other subject generally filed under the heading: Women’s Issues. These intellectual, clever, engaged men want to endlessly probe my argument for weaknesses, want to wrestle over details, want to argue just for fun—and they wonder, these intellectual, clever, engaged men, why my voice keeps raising and why my face is flushed and why, after an hour of fighting my corner, hot tears burn the corners of my eyes. Why do you have to take this stuff so personally? ask the intellectual, clever, and engaged men, who have never considered that the content of the abstract exercise that’s so much fun for them is the stuff of my life.

• AKA women and also men who already understand this difference.

[Your_Great_Darsh_Face]

As Kipling already observed when he wrote The Female of the Species.

[Starving_Artist]

There are the occasions that men—intellectual men, clever men, engaged men—insist on playing devil’s advocate, desirous of a debate on some aspect of feminist theory or reproductive rights or some other subject generally filed under the heading: Women’s Issues. These intellectual, clever, engaged men want to endlessly probe my argument for weaknesses, want to wrestle over details, want to argue just for fun—and they wonder, these intellectual, clever, engaged men, why my voice keeps raising and why my face is flushed and why, after an hour of fighting my corner, hot tears burn the corners of my eyes. Why do you have to take this stuff so personally? ask the intellectual, clever, and engaged men, who have never considered that the content of the abstract exercise that’s so much fun for them is the stuff of my life.

But its being the stuff of your life doesn’t give you carte blanche to be wrong, and what these intellectual, clever, engaged men are trying to do is show you how you’ve allowed your life experiences to lead you to adopt erroneous beliefs and arrive at faulty conclusions.

[Spice_Weasel]

[QUOTE=zweisamkeit]

The bolded section above highlights a fundamental difference between you and many of your interlocutors, Fotheringay-Phipps. This isn’t just “kicking the subject around in a thread” for others*. From an essay that explores that chasm of difference between these two perspectives, this quote is a good summation:

• AKA women and also men who already understand this difference.
  [/QUOTE]

So, a part of me is like, A-fucking-men, thanks for noticing. And another part of me is like, ''Why must this dichotomy exist?" It’s not like caring about a thing renders one incapable of sound judgment. Nor does it mean anyone affected directly by these issues must stick to a particular stance or narrative, nor does it mean those who aren’t directly affected by these issues aren’t capable of providing insight into them.

I feel more responsibility to keep a steady hand than anything else. If someone suggests you’re an overemotional, knee-jerk, irrational shrill harpy, the best response isn’t to shout, ‘‘But no, I’m not!’’ It’s just to not be that thing they keep insisting you are.

[QUOTE=Your Great Darsh Face]
As Kipling already observed when he wrote The Female of the Species.
[/QUOTE]

The Poem.

[QUOTE=The Female of the Species]
So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
To some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands.

And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
Must command but may not govern—shall enthral but not enslave him.
And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,
That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.
[/QUOTE]

Just so we all know what you’re referencing.

[Heffalump_and_Roo]

@Starving_Artist

But its being the stuff of your life doesn’t give you carte blanche to be wrong, and what these intellectual, clever, engaged men are trying to do is show you how you’ve allowed your life experiences to lead you to adopt erroneous beliefs and arrive at faulty conclusions.

I’m going to disagree with this on one part. Feelings are not right or wrong. People are allowed to feel and express those feelings any way they want, and they’re right that they do feel that way.

But then I’ll agree with you that those feelings of the woman in the article don’t trump other peoples’ feelings or their arguments.

I don’t agree with the zweisamkeit quote if it’s supposed to represent the feelings of other women on the issue. ‘You don’t understand’ how I feel is not the winning trump card for every argument, and doesn’t make it right.

I really love the article Spice Weasel linked earlier in the thread (thanks Spice Weasel!). I’ll re-quote a portion of it:

the collapsible woman—one model of mental health for an uncountable number of individuals. She is too weak to hear debate, too soft to speak openly about her experience, and too fragile to expect much from. This definition doesn’t come close to accounting for the grit and character that can be found among us.

The collapsible woman doesn’t represent every woman.

[Spice_Weasel]

@Heffalump_and_Roo

The collapsible woman doesn’t represent every woman.

I first read that essay years ago and it never fails to speak to me in some new way. I wish I’d had it when I was 19 and my life was falling apart because I didn’t have any other model to follow.

I do often lean on my own experience to discuss issues like these, because I personally respond well to arguments that contain illustrative examples, plus I’m absolutely motivated and affected by those experiences and don’t want to imply otherwise. But if I’ve ever given the impression that I was claiming the last word on the subject as a result of that experience, I apologize. I don’t think that emotions are the enemy of rational debate the way some claim, but neither do I think they are a trump card to be exploited. ‘‘You don’t understand’’ is not an argument. Neither is, ‘‘I have really strong feelings about this so it must be true.’’ God, if anyone should know how dramatically feelings can be confused for reality, it’s me.

[Spice_Weasel]

I’ll add that I’m always a little bemused by the ‘‘women are too emotional’’ archetype, because as much as I loathe gender essentialism I am a fiercely, unequivocally emotional person. No amount of pretense will ever make that not be true. What I would challenge is the suggestion that this somehow permanently disables my capacity to reason.

Demasio would be inclined to agree. I think I’m going with the opinion of a neuroscientist over the opinion of a poet.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Spice_Weasel

I kind of wish we could internalize this reality a bit better as a society, because it’s much easier to believe someone is an opportunity rapist than they are a sexual sadist. When we marginalize or villainize rapists to this extent we make them a lot harder to recognize. And honestly? I think we make it a lot harder for them to recognize themselves.

Totally agreed. I think of articles I’ve read in which date rapists call up their victims the next day all flirty and sweet, as if they hadn’t committed rape the night before: they genuinely don’t see what they did as rape. In part, I think, that’s because we’ve told so many stories about how rapists are violent strangers in the night who hate women and just want to humiliate and demean them. Some delusional dudes who are horny and horrible people don’t especially hate women, and they’re not necessarily going out of their way to humiliate anyone; they’re just entitled to sex in their own minds, and if it’s all about sex, it can’t be rape, right?

We need to make it very clear to young guys who are still forming their ideas about sex (and here I’m talking middle school and high school) that rape can be many things to the rapist, but the one component that’s necessary and sufficient for rape is a lack of clear, ongoing consent. If they really like the girl, if they took her out for nice dinner, if she was flirting with them, if she was making out with them, and if they coerce her to have sex even when she doesn’t consent to sex, it’s rape. If it’s all about sex for them, it’s still rape.

The more we promote the story of the rapist motivated solely by misogyny, the harder it’s going to be to get potential rapists to see what they’re doing as rape and to get them to do something else instead.

[wonky]

@Spice_Weasel

I think I’m going with the opinion of a neuroscientist over the opinion of a poet.

deletes opinion

FINE!

[Spice_Weasel]

@jsgoddess

deletes opinion

FINE!

Oh noes!

And I think I misunderstood Kipling’s intent with that poem, too. I thought he was implying women are incapable of reason, but I sent it over to a poetry-reading friend of mine for his perspective, and he thinks it’s more of a ‘‘hell hath no fury…’’ sort of deal, and started pontificating about rationality and reason having no place in the house of violence.

Anyway, poetry is just fine.

[Your_Great_Darsh_Face]

@Spice_Weasel

Oh noes!

And I think I misunderstood Kipling’s intent with that poem, too. I thought he was implying women are incapable of reason, but I sent it over to a poetry-reading friend of mine for his perspective, and he thinks it’s more of a ‘‘hell hath no fury…’’ sort of deal, and started pontificating about rationality and reason having no place in the house of violence.

Anyway, poetry is just fine.

He wasn’t implying that women are incapable of reason; but he was saying that you should beware of arguing with a woman who, like the writer whose quote prompted me to make the reference, is emotionally invested in her argument. “How dare you attempt to sway me with your “reason” and “logic”! Don’t you understand how important it is to me to be right on this?!”

Kipling’s thesis, of course, is that woman’s propensity to fight to the death for her child is likely to carry over to other dealings if she doesn’t happen to have a child to fight over at the time.

@Kipling

She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast 
May not deal in doubt or pity—must not swerve for fact or jest. 
These be purely male diversions—not in these her honour dwells— 
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great 
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate. 
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim 
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

She is wedded to convictions—in default of grosser ties; 
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!— 
He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild, 
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

Unprovoked and awful charges—even so the she-bear fights, 
Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons—even so the cobra bites, 
Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw 
And the victim writhes in anguish—like the Jesuit with the squaw!

I don’t claim that Kipling is right because he is a great poet, only that he puts the point of view rather eloquently.

[Frylock]

Was the author really saying her emotions trump reason, make her more likely to be right than her “rational” interlocutor, or anything like that? I thought she was just arguing that it’s wrong to assume she’s doing something wrong just because she expresses strong emotions about the topic under discussion.

[Spice_Weasel]

@Your_Great_Darsh_Face

He wasn’t implying that women are incapable of reason; but he was saying that you should beware of arguing with a woman who, like the writer whose quote prompted me to make the reference, is emotionally invested in her argument. “How dare you attempt to sway me with your “reason” and “logic”! Don’t you understand how important it is to me to be right on this?!”

Kipling’s thesis, of course, is that woman’s propensity to fight to the death for her child is likely to carry over to other dealings if she doesn’t happen to have a child to fight over at the time.

Oh god, I should have read the entire article that was linked to. Holy shit the misandry!

"I don’t hate men.‘’ (lists a bunch of reasons to hate men.)

I hope those men will hear me when I say, again, I do not hate you. I mistrust you. You can tell yourselves that’s a problem with me, some inherent flaw, some evidence that I am fucked up and broken and weird; you can choose to believe that the women in your lives are nothing like me.

No, I strongly denounce statements of that sort. No, I’m having all kinds of feelings about that sort of reasoning. Prejudice based on personal experience is weak-minded, intellectually lazy bullshit. This is the collapsible woman. This is exactly what Veselka was talking about, this is the alternative to repression held up in feminist circles. It is nothing heroic or inspirational and it sure as shit will accomplish nothing by way of facilitating mutual understanding.

And a fucking trigger warning for vague statements about dealing with misogyny? Give me a fucking break.

Responding more to your argument, I think it’s kind of silly to single women out for being emotionally invested in an argument. Based on what I have read about human perception and cognition, we think primarily with our guts. The heart decides, then the mind follows. We are constantly rationalizing our moral instincts. That is the state of humanity.

From my perspective ‘‘you’re too emotionally invested to be right’’ is just another kind of ad-hominem attack.

[QUOTE=Frylock]
Was the author really saying her emotions trump reason, make her more likely to be right than her “rational” interlocutor, or anything like that? I thought she was just arguing that it’s wrong to assume she’s doing something wrong just because she expresses strong emotions about the topic under discussion.
[/QUOTE]

I dunno, whatever good point there was to be made was buried in drivel. I’m sorry but that pissed me off.

Yes, most people seem to be operating under the delusion that having feelings about something makes you less likely to be right about it. To borrow again from my Kipling-reading, pontificating friend, emotion is the horse and the mind is the jockey. You need the horse to get from point A to point B, just make sure you’ve got it trained.

[Hector_St_Clare]

@furt

This is nonsense. If this were the case, we’d expect to see rapists going after whomever is most vulnerable, the easier to exert their will. In reality, women are at their highest risk for rape between ages 12-34, males are victimized much less often, and girls ages 16-19 are four times more likely than the general population to be victims of sexual assault.

Is is some kind of coincidence that rapists just happen to go after women who are in their prime fertility years (Or, if you prefer, in the age range that multiple studies across cultures pretty much universily describe as the apex of female physical sexual attractiveness)? This despite the fact that girls aged 16-19 are much more capable of physically fighting back than a prepubescent child, a feeble old man, etc.

No doubt some do get off on the power, per se, since rapes of feeble old men do indeed happen. But it seems obvious that much of it is misdirected/repressed/deformed sexual desire.

People commit rapes for different reasons. I’m sure some are about sex, but some are also about power. A good example of the latter would be wartime rapes, like the mass rape of German women and girls (everyone from eight to eighty, proverbially) by Soviet soldiers during the liberation of Nazi Germany, and like other epidemics of mass rapes in war zones more recently.