I’m most interested in who are these “fems”?
fems=feminists?
fems=femmes/fems (ie opposite of dom)
fems=females?
fems=femmes (ie French women)
And I still don’t get what your overall point is
isn’t sub the opposite of Dom?
You can have a femDom easily.
IS THAT YOUR PROBLEM COLE? FEMDOMS? ON THE LOOSE?
Well, it’s not my OP and so it’s cole’s theses (and the reactions thereto) that I was addressing, as they arose in the course of the thread. That seems to be how it happens in GD’s, unless I’m misunderstanding how this whole thing works; sorry if the process appears confusing.
Cole implied “Rape=Violence” was a oversimplification or political slogan. On consideration, I tend to agree. Because I don’t fully understand the motivations behind the very vehement insistence on this slogan, it leads me to consider what rape is, and what violence is, and how our approach to rape and violence and sex and criminology gets tangled up with sloganeering. But I’m not adamantly promulgating an anti-thesis that Rape Has Nothing To Do With Violence (do the searches on “Rape is violence” and “rape isn’t violence” and you’ll see that this semantic debate did not begin with some large number of people insisting on the latter.). Saying “Rape is . . .” has implications for policy and society, and all I suggest is that policy should not be driven by simplistic slogans.
Cole also questioned in his OP the Dworkin-fringe view that all male sexual desire/activity is rape. Again, I responded to the OP, agreeing that at least some seem to be saying this (“Any unwanted sexual attention is a form of rape”) and suggesting that even if these views aren’t the mainstream anti-rape platform, they are sufficiently ridiculous and extreme (e.g., in the barroom context) that, if allowed to stand, they threaten to discredit worthy efforts against rape.
In short (if you haven’t gathered from my posts, every one of which assumes and/or states that rape is a Very Bad Thing), I don’t like rape. But also don’t think that politicizing rape or playing word games by insisting on a simplistic definition of what rape “is” has much to offer the anti-crime cause.
Hope this helps.
**
I believe this is the core of the problem. As best as I can tell (and I do not seem to be alone in perception), cole burner had no thesis. He set up a strawman and knocked it down. I am uncertain what position you think he had that made you wish to align yourself with him, or why you have made such long arguments defending him and attempting to support his position, or your perception of his position, when his own participation in this thread has been minimal.
**
You seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so I am surprised that you cannot distinguish between “All sex is rape” and “All unwanted sexual attention is a form of rape”. The latter may be poorly phrased or over extreme, but it is not equivelant to the former. It isn’t even close.
I don’t think what you’ve been doing here has much to offer the anti-crime cause either, which is why I questioned your goal. I still don’t know what it is unless it is simply to express your distaste for feminist extremists. That is my best guess as to cole’s intent as well, although I cannot fathom why he chose to disguise it as some sort of bizarre pronouncement on the nature of rape.
*Originally posted by Lamia *
**I am uncertain what position you think he had that made you wish to align yourself with him, or why you have made such long arguments defending him and attempting to support his position, or your perception of his position, when his own participation in this thread has been minimal . . . I don’t think what you’ve been doing here has much to offer the anti-crime cause either, which is why I questioned your goal. **
Again I’m thinking we have different understandings of the nature (and possible outcomes) of discussions on an internet message board. In my understanding, people tee up issues for discussion (for who knows what reasons), people discuss them, and maybe in some cases individual participants have their views altered or confirmed. That’s about it. I’ve never thought that an SDMB GD would conclude with the capture of a criminal or the passage of a law, so I’ll gladly cop to my arguments not directly fighting crime. At most, I’d hope that if my suggested approach of not relying on slogans to fight particular crimes appeared reasonable to a lot of people, and if they informed their representatives of their views, more productive/less counterproductive approaches to crime-fighting might eventually emerge.
*Originally posted by Lamia *
cole burner had no thesis. He set up a strawman and knocked it down.
It would be a strawman if cole’s assertion that activists equated rape with violence only, or denied that sex had anything to do with rape, were incorrect. However, because this assertion is completely correct as to how at least some mainstream activists have chosen to characterize rape, his premise is, um, not a strawman. I’ve provided exemplary cites for the fact that reputable ‘authorities’ are indeed making these statements, in haec verba, so I’m not sure where we disagree. Conversely, I have never weighed in on cole’s more far-fetched premises (that feminists equate regrets about sex with rape, or that feminists blame bad daughters on bad fathers), and these may indeed be strawmen, but that’s not what we’ve been discussing.
*Originally posted by Lamia *
I don’t think what you’ve been doing here has much to offer the anti-crime cause either, which is why I questioned your goal. I still don’t know what it is unless it is simply to express your distaste for feminist extremists.
Or expressing my distaste for extremists, period. And arguing that statements of policy, or attempts to redefine punitive categories, should be made as such, and not disguised as factual identity statements. And arguing that facially-factual statements should not be adopted or promulgated or relied upon by those holding punitive or penal authority over others (e.g., the universities and police departments who promulgated the dogmatic “rape has nothing to do with sex” and “unwanted sexual attention is a form of rape” positions that I cited) when these “factual” statements could only be valid by assuming a serious re-definition of or departure from established definitions of the terms they use (“rape” and “violence” for instance).
If someone began pushing the message that “arson is a form of gluttony,” it would not be untoward to ask him to explain (a) what factual proof he had for the notion that a large number of arsons were being motivated by people mainly because they couldn’t control their appetite for food; or (b) whether he was redefining “gluttony” to mean something different from its dictionary and demotic meaning – for instance, redefining it to mean “the desire to light fires.” It would also not be untoward, failing such explanation, to suggest that the National Ass’n Of Fire Chiefs should not promulgate his dogmatic statement in its official literature or change the laws on arson or the strategies for fighting and punishing it. If someone said that “war is never motivated by anger,” you’d put him to his proofs – and neither of you would necessarily be passing judgment on the morality of war or the sufficiency of the war-causer’s motives.
Closer to home: There are lots of people who believe that abortion is as bad as murder of an adult human. They sometimes even phrase this belief as “Abortion is murder.” I suspect many of us would have a problem if this “factual” identity statement (or “abortion is about killing a human being,” or “abortion has nothing to do with the mother’s health,” or “abortion is motivated strictly by the desire to kill a fetus”) were adopted by, say, a police department, government health agency, court, or university women’s services department, or printed in a biology text. No, if the text has to say anything, it should only be “Some activists argue that the laws and definition of murder should be re-cast so the redefined provisions would apply to abortion.”
Ideas have consequence. Bad extreme ideas can have bad extreme consequences, especially when promulgated by those in power. I think that twisting language, or concealing argumentative motives, to make opinion masquerade as a quasi-fact can be a bad idea, and that it is a bad idea in the criminological context when politicized “definitions” of rape (or any crime) are taken as factual reflections of circumstances existing in the world or of defendants’ motives, rather than arguments for re-classification of those circumstances and motives.
Awhile back I quoted Proudhon’s “Property is theft.” It’s not doing anyone much harm today because we know it’s just a provocative slogan, just like saying “the profit on a good is the property of the laborer.” Not so long ago, various regimes enacted entire constitutions, and launched revolutions, based on assertions not much different from Proudhon’s – the difference being that they attempted to enshrine this opinion as fact or bedrock policy, and woe betide anyone or anything that contradicted or thwarted such “fact.” I think the outcomes that ensued were bad outcomes. YMMV.
What strawman, precisely, did I set up?
Huerta88 has laready defended my points 1 and 2. They are not false. Fems DO say these things, and not fringe either. How is attacking them a strawman? By the way Lamia, you said I made up claim #2, I hope to hear an apology from you now that you see the sources provided.
As for #3, feminist author Julie Hilden, “The Bad Daughter” Algonquin Books; ISBN: 1565121856; (May 1998), goes into detail about how it’s Daddy’s fault that women can’t have good relationships with men and do bad (sexually irresponsible) things.
This theme is repeated in many other feminist writings.
You may not accept the truth of it (I don’t either). But you can hardly deny it’s a feminist theme.
What’s my overall point? That the feminist mantra of “rape is never about sex, it’s just about violence” is simplistic, misleading, outright wrong.
Do you disagree?
I disagree. I believe that SOME EXTREMIST Feminists believe that. And that no crime is ever 100% about ONE thing. Rape IS mostly about violence and power, but (in my case) it was also because I was holding out on offering SEX. (I still think it was about power, but YMMV)
Don’t lump all “fems” in with extremist “fems”.
Really? Would you say that NOW is an extremist organization? Is Kim Gandy an extremist? How about Patsy Mink? Or Eleanor Smeal?
Tell you what: you tell me what organization / person reliably speaks for feminists, so I don’t get confused by quoting extremist feminists instead of the reasonable kind. Tell me who speaks with a reliable feminist voice, and then I’ll tailor my remarks / analysis to that person/organization’s public statements.
**
Um, no, it isn’t.
**
Um, yes, it is.
**
Um, no, you haven’t.
Do you see what a ridiculous situation we have now found ourselves in? You have given me so little to work with that I am reduced to simple contradictions. The problem is not that I have misunderstood the nature of this forum, but that you and cole burner have misunderstood the nature of debate itself. A debate is not a reaction against your perception of the position of an opponent who is not present and possibly does not even exist, but that is how this thread began. Even were cole’s summary of the feminist platform correct this would still not be a debate. It be a rant, and not a particularly clever, compelling, or well-written one at that.
It might have turned into a debate had you or cole presented a clear position of your own so that others might engage you in debate, or if anyone had come along and been willing to support the platform ascribed to feminists by cole in the OP, but neither of these things have happened. That last one is especially noteworthy, as the members of this board represent a wide spectrum of political, philosophical, and ideological beliefs. If you can find a position that no one here is willing to support, it is probably very marginal indeed.
**
I did not address your second claim at all. It was the third that I said was made up. Perhaps you should apologize to me.
But I am being uncharitable. You are clearly confused about a lot of things, so perhaps I should not expect you to remember the sequence of your own points. I shall give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that your meant to say “claim #3”. In that case, I must say that I have not seen any sources provided to support the claim that
I have seen no evidence that this specific view has ever been expressed by even a single fringe feminist writer or speaker, much less that it is a tenant of mainstream feminism. Have you been providing your cites in invisible ink?
**
That was your second claim, not your third one, and a single book by a single author published nearly five years ago and a vague claim that the theme appears elsewhere is hardly proof of mainstream feminist acceptance of the ideas expressed in that book, or rather your interpretation of the ideas.
Funny, I’m a feminist, and no one ever told me that was our mantra. Perhaps I missed a memo. Or perhaps you just made it up the way you’ve made up so many other things in this thread.
**
I see that your confusion extends to the very concept of feminism. Feminism is not a political party. One does not register as a feminist, nor is there any election process by which feminists elect leaders. “Feminism” is a label attached to a wide-ranging and sometimes contradictory system of political and social beliefs. You are not going to find a person or organization that reliably speaks for all feminists. Such a thing does not and in fact could not exist.
Ever if there were such an entity, tailoring your remarks to that entity’s public statements would still be nothing more than a rant against that entity. Once again, a debate requires that you have a clearly expressed position and that someone else be willing to take up a position in opposition to it. You cannot simply describe what you think the opposing position is and say that it is wrong.
I beg your pardon, Lamia, but while I’m not taking a position on the OP’s claims, to the extent that they may be divined, I do think it’s a bit of a cop-out to suggest that there is no core set of beliefs that may be correctly called “feminist.” If there are not, then the label is utterly meaningless. Yet you identify yourself as a feminist, suggesting that this is a descriptor that has some meaning.
Of course, it may be the case that none of feminism’s core beliefs is being either challenged or described in this thread, rendering the question meaningless for this discussion. But the blanket disavowal of any single feminist principle is, I think, an unworthy dodge.
- Rick
“I don’t know exactly what feminism is. All I know is that, whenever I express opinions that differentiate me from a doormat, I get called a feminist.”
Source unremembered.
And . . . sorry about the extraneous quoted clutter.
And . . . Good luck.
Please define “crimes of violence” for me. Seriously. Not a dictionary definition , not even a legal definition. Your definition. And then tell me if being surrounded by a group demanding your money, being held hostage and being robbed at gunpoint, (with no physical injury or even physical contact in any of the cases) are violent crimes or non violent crimes. If you find those examples to be non-violent, well, then I guess a rape without actual physical injury is non-violent in your world, but I don’t think most people believe a gunpoint robbery is only violent if you get shot. But wait, here’s a dictionary definition
1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure (emphasis added)
Seems to me that covers even a rape where someone is restrained by another body lying on top of them. Unless, of course, you don’t think rape is abuse.
Oversimplification is the nature of slogans. If they included qualifiers they wouldn’t be slogans.They’d be too long. If oversimplification is your issue, you don’t have a problem with this slogan, you have a problems with slogans in general.
And if you interpret “Rape is about violence” to mean this :
, then you are reading things into the statement that simply aren’t there.The original statement mentioned no studies, didn’t say the rapists had no interest in sex, and doesn’t even imply that the desire to do violence (or exert power) is on a conscious level or completely separate from sexual desire. Rather like the people in NY who thought Pataki’s slogan of “No parole for violent felons” meant that violent felons wouldn’t be released from prison before the end of the sentence. He never said that - he only said they wouldn’t be paroled.
Perhaps I was unclear. I did not claim that there were no core feminist beliefs; that would be ridiculous, as I defined feminism as a belief system. I deny only that there exists, or even could exist, a person or organization who could reliably speak for all or most feminists, which is what cole was asking for.
Hey kids, want to see what Richard Posner has to say on rape? From Sex and Reason (1992) Can’t find the text online, but I’ll type some of it out for you…
It goes on, but I assume you get the bent. All of this is to show that the OP is not entirely without some support in the academic world.
Lamia When did you have stopped beating your boyfriend?
Sex and Reason
grrrrrr, When did you stop beating your boyfriend?
I could be wrong, not having read the whole book, but I think Posner is referring to a somewhat different theory here- the one in which rape is used by men as a group to oppress women as a group.
I’m not going to say this isn’t accurate in societies with a brideprice, but I do want to point out two things that perhaps I should have mentioned before- Most of the rapists I have encountered (and there have been quite a few, as I work in the criminal justice system) had wives or girlfriends, meaning that consensual sex presumably was available to them. And even those who didn’t have wives or girlfriends were no more unattractive (physically, mentally or financially) than the criminals who didn’t rape. If anything, the rapists were in a better position to get consensual sex than the drug addicts or the robbers- they were cleaner, more intelligent and more likely to have a job.
By my reading Posner is saying that rape is largely about sex, and that the harder it is to get consensual sex, the more rapes there will be.
I think what Posner is saying is that if all men were always able to find consenting partners for sex, then there would be very few rapes. If rape is not, primarily, about sex, as the feminists argue, then the number of rapes should be unaffected by the availability of consenting partners.
If A rapes B because A can not find a consenting partner, then presumably A would not have raped B if he could have found a consenting partner, call her C.
If A rapes B because A is interested in something other than sex, then presumably even if C were available, A would still rape B. Posner is claiming that the vast majority of rapes fall into the former category, and that rapists would readily substitute consenting partners for victims if they were available.
I am not sure that I agree with him, and I haven’t read his whole book, but it is an interesting theory.