What planet do feminists live on?
I can’t stay away from HuffPo and articles by delusional feminists. I just found one that starts out being about Sexual Assault Awareness Month but veers weirdly off into statements that are either completely untrue or are made by a woman living in a different reality than the rest of us. The writer, Jenny Block, says that she has had a great, healthy sex life, and that she likes to write about it. :
Some people are not so happy about my writing. They are uncomfortable with my life and with my willingness to talk about it. It offends their sensibilities. “Who do you think you are?” their comments say. “How dare you think not only that your sexuality and your life is your own but also that you have a right to tell your story and give voice to the stories of others?”
Really? Actual people say those actual words, phrased like that? Sorry, I don’t believe it. Even the most hardass, Jesus-lovin’ conservatives I know would never in a million years say that kind of shit. “How dare you think your life is your own?” I think it’s made up.
And the thing is, if it is true that she gets comments saying that, she needs to get a grip, stat. Those are the people we call trolls. They are never to be taken seriously or to be given a moment’s worry because they are so far out on the extreme edges of the asshole bell curve that they parody themselves. You don’t write serious articles about a serious issue and quote trolls as evidence for your thesis, for shit’s sake, unless your thesis is about trolls themselves.
I was going to stop with that but I can’t, because it drives me freakin’ NUTS when feminists attribute completely idiotic and ridiculous opinions to their “enemies”. For example:
Jennifer Baumgardner has created a t-shirt as part of a multimedia rape awareness project that is causing quite a stir. The graphic is of an open safe in which a small handwritten note sits. “I was raped,” the note reads. People are polarized by the shirt’s message. Survivors of rape are supposed to keep silent, to be ashamed, and ultimately to feel responsible for the crime committed against them, right?
What?? I want to know precisely who has ever said that survivors of rape are supposed to do any of those things. The implication is that it’s everyone - society at large - which is absolutely preposterous. Anyone who did say those things would be viewed by the rest of the country as a totally worthless asshole. I really am curious as to whether or not I’ve been living my whole life in an alternate reality from these feminists, as no decent person would ever say anything like that on the planet where I live. Apparently they do on Feminist Gaia.
And one more quote:
Not only are we going to speak the “unspeakable,” we’re also going to talk about the happy, healthy sex lives we enjoy from blissful, chosen monogamy to life-affirming, conscious polyamory. We’re going to be in heterosexual couples, lesbian couples, open marriages, whatever we like, and we’re going to talk about it. A lot.
You don’t have to listen. But I think that would be a shame.
And therein lies the crux of the this feminist writer’s problem, why she’ll never understand why more people don’t take her and her “sisters” seriously.
I agree it would be a shame for anyone to try to silence a rape victim. OF COURSE.
But it’s not a shame that someone might not want to listen to people talk about open marriages or “conscious polyamory” (are you kidding me with that phrase?). It’s a choice. Because some people think that stuff is seriously messed up, or even just silly, or even simply boring to talk about because they’d never do it themselves. Not even necessarily because of morals but just as likely, as in my case, the fear of the three H’s (the hep, the herp, and the HIV). So you can talk about bangin’ every guy you meet and how liberating and “healthy” that is, and I’m going to tune you out because to me it’s a pointless discussion, and there’s no shame about it.
I’m a woman, hear me roar, isn’t everything I do supposed to be all about choice, including not wanting to hear about some stranger’s sex life? That’s what I thought.
Islamofascists, mostly. Maybe those are the people these women are taking a stand against! Yeah, and they are planning to make a line of “I was raped” burkas….
April 16th, 2008 at 8:06 amI knew a guy once -thankfully not as all well- who liked to talk about all of the barnyard animals with whom he had had intimate encounters. I really didn’t want to hear the crap he spouted and told him so in no uncertain terms. Somehow, I guess that was a shame, too.
I’m one of those Bible-totin’ bitter people that Obama talked about, but I’m pretty much a live and let live sort of guy when it comes to relationships and sex; I’m certain my pastor would be horrified. Anyway, I don’t care what you do as long as it’s legal and between consenting adults. However, I do not want to hear about it. At all. Seems to me that where your desire to tell me butts into my intention to not listen, you should lose. Unfortunately, we’ve become a nation of narcisstic exhibitionists, wherein it’s always about ME and YOU MUST LISTEN ABOUT ME or it’s “a shame”. What I find a shame is that people like this are wasting my precious oxygen.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:13 amOh righty then. I maybe willing to listen to people talk about their open marriages or “conscious polyamory”, but it has to be tit for tat and they have to be willing to listen to why I, the spawn of a spawn of polygamy, think it sucks the almighty.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:13 amAmen..to just all of it.
I think my favorite thing for you to talk about is the nutburgers known as feminits..I mean feminists ahem.
They drive me up the friggin wall and when you write and explain away all their BS and that they’re nuttier than fruitcakes..well it makes me happy:) because it means not all woman are nuts.(I found that out after coming here,there are sane women..who knew?..besides myself of course*whistles*)
~
April 16th, 2008 at 8:16 amOhh and we should totally make WAR against that psssssycho planet^_^
Preach it sister! I don’t care what you do in your sex life - it’s none of my business, and -get this- I really don’t care! It doesn’t empower anyone, it’s just more laundry flappin’ in the breeze.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:18 amAs for the rape victims, again, -get this- it isn’t about you! I cannot imagine anyone with half a brain behaving as that idiot suggested. Victims of such a horrible crime, just like a person grieving, should be allowed to adjust in their own way, the way that works best for them. We cannot judge or expect their reaction to be anything but their own. Get over yourself!
What… WHAT.
I really have nothing to say. That hurt to read. (The Quote I mean)
April 16th, 2008 at 8:32 amAs usual, spot on. Of course when you run contrary to the affirmations of a HuffPoo blogger, you’re almost guaranteed a spot-on designation in my book. If you ever do get a bead on this alternate reality Rachel, please send us the address.
Off-topic: your revamped mobile interface is rockin’!
April 16th, 2008 at 8:42 amIt seems deviants pressingly feel the need to define themselves by their sexuality. The out-and-proud set (heteros and homos alike) don’t seem to have much else to offer. That’s pathetic. There are many things in life greater than biological function. Additionally, the hypocrisy of being out and proud while claiming immunity from criticism is precious. They can’t really be that stupid, can they?
I prefer the my-private-business set (heteros and homos alike). They generally are concerned with more interesting things. Sex just isn’t that important, as most discover when they finally grow up.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:51 amYou want a daily does of outrage? Check the shit that Amanda Marcotte brings every day to her idiot blog Pandagon. Every other sentence she writes has that sort of deranged nonsense you’re rightfully ramming on here.
I once wrote that a rumble I’d pay to see would be one between you and Amanda. NOt only do I think you could physically kick her mondo 3rd wave pathological-feminst ass, but you’d shred her arguments with very little effort.
It’d be so much fun watching you take her out, I’d pay to see it.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:53 amAnd we, your loyal minions, thank you for that.
Life-affirming. Right.
I’m sure that’s what all the men tell her after they’re finished passing her around like a frisbee.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:57 amphysics geek, this strikes me as circular. Or maybe contradictory. It seems to me that unless you’re in favor of legalizing prostitution, you really do care what consenting adults do.
I’m probably reading too much into your comment, but this is just a pet peeve of mine. I’ve heard plenty of people claim something is wrong (immoral) because it’s illegal. WTF?
It seems so clear to me—morals are what each of us thinks is right and wrong. Laws in this context are just morals that we’ve decided to forcibly impose on everyone. Isn’t that right? Am I missing something? How can right and wrong depend on what’s legal, but what’s legal depends on what’s right and wrong?
April 16th, 2008 at 9:04 amWhat constitutes unconscious polyamory?
April 16th, 2008 at 9:05 amI hear that being faced with death is rather ‘life-affirming.’ Maybe its taunting HIV that gets them off.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:06 amSeriously, I don’t want to hear the details of anyone’s bedroom activity.
“the asshole bell curve” - hee hee. Might have to steal that.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:06 amAwesome Fisk-ing, Rachel! This chick is stuck in the dialogue of her own mind and I, too, think she is making this shit up.
As for the idea that women who have been raped are supposed to be ashamed, well that’s just beyond silly. Rape laws in this country inherently protect the victim and and her privacy. In fact, they continue to protect her identity even if her allegations prove false. What more are they supposed to do? And, unless we want to scrap the basic foundation of criminal law, the accused has a right to defend himself and assert points of fact that may call in to question whether or not a rape has occurred. Perhaps the ashamed and muted “victims” are such because they don’t have the desire to see the case through, or they know they don’t have a case. The incidence of “retroactive rape” on college campuses, and many cases of so-called “Date Rape” are part-and-parcel of many women’s schizophrenic attitude towards sex and personal responsibility.
I also think there is a big difference between being “sex positive” and living in the delusion that other people give a rat’s patootie about your sex life. What happened to sex lives being personal? And why is it somehow “suppressive” if others would like it if you kept it to yourself and didn’t require props for your public immodesty?
April 16th, 2008 at 9:29 amYour significant other has an affair and doesn’t tell you about it.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:29 amlegalizing prostitution?
The difference between sex for money and sex for free is that sex for money is a lot cheaper.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:34 amPersonally, I just don’t find discussions of sex all that interesting. I often find it odd and somewhat inconsistent that the left often acts as if sex is not the big deal that many repressed social conservative types make it out to be, but then feel the need to talk about it constantly. If it’s not a big deal, then what’s to talk about? It’s no more interesting than describing in detail what you ate for lunch. Perhaps most people with healthy and fulfilling sex lives simply don’t like to talk about it, not because they’re repressed, but because they simply don’t need to.
Kind of like the teenage boy in high school who talks about sex so much that you know he isn’t getting any, while those who are keep it on the down-low. That’s my theory at least: discussions of sex often serve as substitutes for actually having it.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:37 amAsshole Bell Curve? What a GREAT image! Give yourself an attagirl for that one.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:04 amLove that phrase…Asshole Bell Curve. Someone quick create a graph!
We can plot people. *giggle*
I really don’t understand the women who claim to be feminists but don’t really want to let women chose their own lifestyles. If I wanted to stay home instead of work I’d be considered “anti” feminist even if it were my choice.
And I do not see how wearing a t-shirt that says “I was raped” is healthy. I certainly wouldn’t want to announce it to the world. I may talk about it or even blog about it but I just don’t see why a t-shirt is necessary. But that’s me. I don’t care if someone else finds it therapeutic.
I’m glad I’m not the only non crazy woman (well, relatively speaking).
April 16th, 2008 at 10:15 am“Survivors of rape are supposed to keep silent, to be ashamed, and ultimately to feel responsible for the crime committed against them, right?” No, “Sister”, survivors of rape are supposed to tell the cops what happened, and the cops are supposed to do their job and try to bring the guy in, and do the whole “court thing.” Also, “Sis”, the survivor is supposed to make sure she tells her Father and Brother and Uncles and Cousins (all male, of course) that a certain dude took indecent liberties with her, and those guys are supposed to find the guy themselves and administer non-lethal but never-to-be-forgotten justice of the most physically painful kind. THAT’s how it is supposed to work.
Unfortunately, most men nowadays are complete pussies, and would never think to actually administer justice in such a fashion. Not because rape survivors are supposed to be quiet, etc., but because men have been raised to be pussies.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:23 amJennifer Baumgardner needs a t-shirt that reads, “My shibboleth was raped by Rachl Lukis!”
April 16th, 2008 at 10:24 amI have children. I don’t think it is appropriate to wear a t-shirt with “I was raped” on the front of it, just as I don’t think public pornography is appropriate.
You wear, you speak, you act in public in ways that will not upset or injure children. I’m sure Ms. Baumgardner wasn’t planning on wearing an “I was raped” t-shirt to the polyamorous bar she attends. No, she’ll be wearing it in public, to shock people. The hurt and confusion she gives children is of no concern to her, but it is to me. My sons and daughter will learn about rape and weird sexual practices in due time. In the meantime, I’m allowing them to be children.
If I saw that t-shirt in public I would have STRONG words with the pathetic woman wearing it. Being raped doesn’t give you the right to injure others.
Whew, I think I’m a little bit steamed up right now. I’ll go look at dog pictures for a while and I’ll be okay.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:47 amAs always you are on the mark Rachel! I am so sick to death of these loony tunes women that give women in general a bad name. Couldn’t they just shut it for awhile?
I for one don’t care to discuss my sex life in the public forum and I don’t really care to hear about anyone else’s. We are no longer in high school where it is cool to discuss every detail and giggle about it.
To all of the “feminist” bloggers who feel it is their duty to share their most intimate moments with the world I say “Ladies (and I use the term with a smirk on my face) grow up, throw out the high school mentality, and have a bit of class.”
April 16th, 2008 at 10:52 amDate rape?
Makes sense to me. It’s all about changing the shape of language.
Illegal aliens = “undocumented people”
Adultery = “life-affirming, conscious polyamory”
Psychobabble = “constructivist feminist psychotherapy”
That IS weird, now that you mention it. Liberals are full of contradictions when it comes to sex.
It seems to me that “keeping the government out of our bedrooms” entails keeping your bedroom out of the public arena.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:53 amI prefer death-affirming unconscious polygamy.
Sincerely,
April 16th, 2008 at 10:55 amTed Bundy
Thomas Sowell, in his eloquently brief wit, said “Freedom of speech does not imply the right to an audience.” Of course, if you hang out at HuffPo reading her tripe, I guess you’re giving her an audience…
I got some really evil stares during a sexual assault training video one time. I’m sitting maybe three rows back in the auditorium, so there are lots of people behind me, and it’s mandatory, so the auditorium is 90%+ full. We watch the video, and it’s a truly horrendous story - there were actors, but the story was real. We had a “discussion time” after the video, where they said “Who did what wrong?” After hearing comments about all the things everyone else did wrong (”Her friends should have watched out for her”, “His friends should have done something”, “He should have listened”), they were about to wrap up.
I raised my hand, stood up, identified myself, and said “One thing we haven’t talked about is the situation the victim put herself in. Granted, it’s not her fault, but shouldn’t we discuss ways to prevent this from happening, rather than allowing potential victims to continue engaging in risky behavior?” I felt several eyes boring through the back of my skull, and the facilitator stammered around, eventually saying something like “Well, yeah, I suppose.”
I think this whole “protect the victim” mentality has gone way past the dictionary definition of those words. As langtry said, some “victims” aren’t even identified once it’s proved that they weren’t victims at all! And any discussion of bad situations that people put themselves in that led to attacks are called “blaming the victim.” I think that this does a disservice to women at large, by not teaching them some of the basic personal safety steps they can take. Don’t drink anything you haven’t seen come out of the bottle, and don’t leave it unattended. Don’t go to someone’s room unless you’ve already decided that’s what you’re going to do. Don’t go out by yourself, and go home with the same people you went out with.
You’re supposed to be able to go to a club, grind your butt against some stranger all night, go to his house, start making out, and just before the deed is commenced say “wait - I’ve changed my mind” and expect him to stop and say “oh - okay.” Yes, that’s the ideal world, but we don’t live in one of those. Wouldn’t it be smarter to avoid the risky situation?
April 16th, 2008 at 11:12 amWell said, R. And how about being subjected to said TMI conversations while trying to, I don’t know, eat lunch at the next table, or mail something at the post office? Those are *my* favorite times.
Discretion is dead. I don’t know whether to blame talk shows or the let-it-all-hang-out people, but in any event I mourn its loss. Daily.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:24 amKit Says:
I hadn’t thought of the adultery aspect of it. I was thinking that she calls out some one else’s name during the act, accidentally (thus, unconsciously). Isn’t polyamory when one woman has multiple men? Or how about she dreams about sex with a lot of guys.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:32 amIsn’t polyamory when one woman has multiple men?
April 16th, 2008 at 11:54 amOr when one man has women.
Chris_RC, you beat me to it! I was dating a woman who practiced “polyamory” right up until she told me about the other guy. I assume that she’s replaced me with another “polyparamor” or three
April 16th, 2008 at 12:00 pmThanks BillMax, but that was a failed attempt at blockquoting a blockquote. Kit said that thing about the significant other having the affair and not telling you.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:06 pm“Retroactive rape?” What’s that? Does that have anything to do with waking up with a hangover, looking at what’s in bed with you, and saying “I fucked WHAT?”
April 16th, 2008 at 12:07 pmNote to HuffPo: The reason an “I was raped” shirt causes a stir is not because people believe that the victim should be quiet.
Rather, it’s because anyone wearing this shirt, by definition, wants the first thing that complete strangers know about her is that she was raped. If everything else in such a person’s life becomes so secondary that they defines themselves primarily as a rape victim, then you’re giving the rapist more power, and thus a second victory.
A rapist may be able to take your body by force, but when you willingly give power over your mind to him, that’s your destructive power, not his.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:40 pmCris_RC,
Thanks for pointing out the failure. Was it my failure? I’m new to the protocol regarding blockquotes. Mmm….what’s a blockquote?
April 16th, 2008 at 12:47 pmCarbo said:
You’ve got me there. I am pretty much against prostitution being illegal. Please spare me the moral arguments, since I actually agree with them. But please tell me how much better it is for woman to have a guy buy her an expensive dinner and take her to a show for a blowjob than it is for some other woman take whatever the going price is for such a service in cash and then performing it on the same guy. Because from where I’m sitting, the only difference that I can see is that the second case is more honest than the first one.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:48 pmDaniel, I think I understand what you’re trying to say, but one specific question of yours needs answering.
Yes, she expects him to stop. A person’s body is their sovereign domain. If you’re in the middle of “the deed” and she says, “Stop” then you stop, period, end of rationalization, unauthorized behavior terminated. She has every right to do just that.
Teaching women to avoid unwanted circumstances is wisdom. Your question treads a bit too far on the wrong side of the line, though.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:49 pmNo failure on your part. The system didn’t work as expected. I failed to properly ensure the obvious nature of the quote to the original source, that is all.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:05 pmDr. Feelgood:
You are, of course, right in principle here:
However, in practice, a woman who does that is just asking to be raped in the same way someone who flashes a roll of hundreds in a bad neighborhood is asking to be robbed. Are both people victims? Of course. Were they completely STUPID? Also yes.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:23 pmI knew girls in college who engaged in the kind of “flirting” Daniel discussed (butt-grinding, making out, undressing with the guy, foreplay) specifically because they enjoyed controlling and frustrating those men. They never intended to have sex, and once they were gratified, they were done with the guy. Fortunately for them, none of them were raped that I know of. But it’s a little like hanging a raw bloody steak around your neck and going swimming in a shark tank. You’re gonna get bit. We women do have a responsibility to not engage in stupid and dangerous activities, and I think that this qualifies. It’s a completely unnecessary risk.
…Meaning I failed to make it obvious. I see that can be read in a different way, a mean way, that I did not intend.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:24 pmMany years ago I used to identify myself as a feminist. Not anymore. The term has been hijacked by lunatics who use it to further their own victim-based agenda. As in “I’m a victim of (fill in offense of choice here) and therefore I should get everything my way from now on.” Absolute moral authority, don’t you know. Jeez. Stick around on Earth long enough, everybody qualifies.
Feminism used to be a push for equality — in jobs, opportunities, pay. Now it’s a bludgeon to hit people — mostly men — over the head with. True feminism meant that if a woman chose to stay home and raise her kids, good on her. Perfectly fine choice. Try suggesting that to a “feminist” today and she’ll rail at you about “oppression” and the whole “barefoot and pregnant” thing. It’s patently absurd, when you consider how hard it is to raise kids nowadays, and that the job involves no benefits, no retirement plan and no vacation for at least the first eighteen years. I wouldn’t want to do it. In fact, I didn’t.
Having said that — I don’t want to hear about anybody else’s sex life. I really don’t. I don’t believe endlessly carping on one’s sex life is “life affirming” or “liberating.” It could be exhibitionist. Whatever you call it, all I can say is, “Ewwwwww….”
“Asshole bell curve.” Heh.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:25 pmI agree - and, the part immediately after what you quoted of me said as much. (At least that’s what I was thinking - though looking back, I could have expressed that more clearly.) And, having gone through that exact scenario, I chose the “ideal” path - but that’s just me. I very easily could have chosen a different one, and probably gotten away with it.
Kit hit the nail on the head.
(p.s. Rachel - nested blockquotes aren’t being rendered correctly. I know they used to work…)
April 16th, 2008 at 1:36 pmKit and Dr. Feelgood, there’s also the ever-increasing aspect of alcohol to deal with. In an ideal world, if a woman goes home with a man and decides in the middle of the deed to change her mind, they shake hands and go their separate ways. However, what if they’ve been boozing all night together and when the woman suddenly changes her mind the guy is too drunk to process that? AFTER she has voluntarily knocked back shots the whole night, voluntarily removed her clothes and voluntarily jumped into bed? Does that count as rape, or does that count as bad decision-making processes on both sides? To me, there’s a definite difference between that situation I’ve just described, and rape.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:48 pmOf course I agree with you, Kit and Daniel, that enticing criminal behavior is stupid. It might even be a little evil in the case of those women who enjoy controlling men through frustration. It is not at all, however, similar to swimming in a shark tank with a bloody steak. Men are not sharks–we are not programmed predators and even those of us who exhibit predatory tendencies retain the moral ability to choose against programming. Sharks are supposed to bite you when you pretend you’re food. Men are supposed to be able to control their behavior, no matter what the stimulus. The difference in culpability for the victim is in the level of expectation. For good or ill, our social mores allow for sensual provocation by women of men without fear of endangering themselves. Even if I agree that it’s stupid to engage in this risky behavior, even if I think it’s morally wrong for women to do so, it does not even approach wisdom to hint at the “she had it coming” mentality, which is precisely what the shark analogy does.
The fact that what you guys are saying has any ring of truth to it at all (and it does) is so mind-bogglingly depressing that I may need to hit the range this weekend just for a cheer-up session. Women ought not ever to feel like potential prey in the company of men. That we “men” have allowed this to happen leaves me utterly speechless. The Nanny State wins again.
Excuse, I’m off to find a hippie to punch…
April 16th, 2008 at 2:02 pm“the extreme edges of the asshole bell curve”….and that is why I keep coming here. You rock!
April 16th, 2008 at 2:09 pmLissa, I agree with you. Drunken sex under ambiguous consent conditions (how’s that for lawyer language–Obama’s got nothing on me) is still wrong, but it deserves different treatment under the law when it can be proved that all parties involved were impaired beyond reasonable judgement. I don’t quite know how to write that law, though.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:15 pmAnd this in and of itself is folly. Yes, you, I or most men would do the right thing. However, I’m pragmatic enough to realize that there are some who will not - and, in this case, I’d say you can either be right or be a victim.
I also think of those poor teenage guys. I thought about sex nearly non-stop during my teenage years, and I went to a school with girls who had to wear modest clothing (skirts one inch below the knee or longer). With today’s cleavage-baring, low-hip-hugging clothing, I’m surprised those guys can learn anything!
There’s another aspect to this, and it cuts to the core of selfishness vs. thinking of others. In one of his letters, Paul was talking about eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols. While he didn’t have a problem with it, there were other people who did, and so for their sake, he avoided it. That would be a much better attitude for our society to adopt - and it floors me, given how opposed to sexual assault everyone claims to be, that more people don’t see it that way. “There are people out there who can’t control themselves - but, that’s not my problem!” Not until they become a victim, that is - then it’s all males who are ravenous dogs.
(wow - how’s that for a “stream of consciousness” for you? :> )
For some things, the consequences of the action are punishment enough in and of itself.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:35 pmDoc, I love that you think this has been “allowed to happen.” It makes you a very good man. However, look back in history, look across the mammal world, and find an example where the female does not have to fear the male. Carnivorous and omnivorous creatures are predators until proven otherwise. Therefore, in my world, men are predators until proven otherwise. I didn’t always feel this way, but I’ve learned better.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:37 pmI’ve been sexually assaulted. I’ve been mugged. I’ve been groped by random men when I was working at the grocery store. They would just walk up behind me and grab my arse while I was bent over filling the lowest shelves. And I’m not attractive! I’m fat and have frizzy hair. I was just there. It happened all the time. And I mean that literally. It happened at least once a day. I learned to guard myself by turning my body sideways so that my butt was “covered” by the stack of boxes I was emptying. It took longer and it was uncomfortable, but I was tired of being grabbed!
And this is tame compared to the casual rape and assault of women in earlier times. A soldier would rape his way across the countryside once upon a time. It was part of their looting process! Slaves were common in all parts of the world and they were to be used however the master wanted.
In an ideal world, all men would be as good as the guys who hang out here, but they are not. I’m not trying to male-bash. I understand that, in theory, most men are not bad people, and I am opposed to that sort of “men are guilty until proven innocent” ideology when it comes to our laws and our media, but practically, a woman needs to assume that strange men are dangerous. It keeps her safe.
physics geek:
Your logic would be correct if one assumes that the man is only taking her out in order to have sex with her and she is only accepting the date in order to have sex with him. In other words, it only works if sex is the single goal of both parties.
The minute one of them has any additional goal — e.g., companionship, badinage, love — there is a defect in your assertion.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:01 pmLike wise, practically, men need to assume women are liars and manipulators until proven different. You can have consensual sex with a strange woman you meet, and she can later decide she is ashamed and call rape.
For either situation I believe it comes down to this: despite what society says, sex (and the acts associated with it) is still a big deal, and it should never be treated casually, my man or woman. Doubly so in this day of STDs. Know your partner, trust your partner (and that includes partner in the lead up fore-play discussed earlier in the manipulation through frustration case).
April 16th, 2008 at 3:02 pmThen we can suppose that these feministas support the polygynist colony in Texas, now in the news. After all, if we are to believe in open marriage and conscious polyamory, then why not polygyny and, frankly, just lower the age of consent! Why not have LEGAL sex with 9 or 10 or 12 year olds?
THAT is where were are headed. And, might I add, much of it is where we came from. After all, it was only a century or so back that 14 year old girls could marry and start having children.
So, if many of us don’t listen to the feministas, it’s because we’ve already been through the history books of the U.S. as well as other peoples around the world (as in anthropology and world history books). When feministas start “teaching” us to practice foreign ideas about sex and marriage and relationships, expect us to react by thinking them (the feministas AND the practices) to be strange, alien and just plain uncomfortable and/or wrong. Like having sex with a 9 or 10 or 12 year old. Even if it IS legal.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:07 pmThat’s a very good point and it made be think of something interesting.
The whole premise of “date rape” is that women under the influence of drugs are unable to truly consent to sex. Even if she says “yes” it can still be rape because she wasn’t in control of her actions.
Therefore, doesn’t it follow that a man under the influence of drugs might be unable to stop when a woman asks him to?
April 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pmKit…you are so correct. I realized the other day that I am no longer comfortable around all people. I never used to worry about going out in public. I was mildly assaulted at the age of 16 while working at a fast food restaurant. The guy got fired (he hadn’t only targeted me) Thank God but it was really difficult to go through.
I used to LOVE having guys check me out and now, if someone looks at me too long I get super uncomfortable. And defensive. I honestly don’t know why because I certainly wasn’t manhandled in the same way Kit was.
But I also refuse to be a victim and am aware of my surroundings when I go out. I have a defensive posture at all times - quick walk, head held high, keys in hand.
Women who purposely put themselves in dangerous situations have much less sympathy from me just as they would get little sympathy for walking at night in a bad neighborhood with flashy jewelry. Duh!
April 16th, 2008 at 3:20 pmYou mean an example where the female never has to fear the male, at any time, ever? No, I don’t think there are any examples of that.
But then, is that really a fair question? After all, the female doesn’t always fear the male. There are plenty of species out there (both mammal and non-mammal) where males and females live together in relative harmony. Gorillas immediately come to mind. They are big, powerful, aggressive animals yet entire colonies of both male and female gorillas live together peacefully. Sure, there are probably times when the females have to fear the males, but there are just as surely times when males have to fear females. Especially if the female is older and larger than a younger male. Does that mean it’s fair to say that the males fear the females?
April 16th, 2008 at 3:43 pmmightysamurai:
Praying mantises immediately come to mind.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:52 pmRegardless, humans are not animals. We are free moral agents, by which agency we understand concepts of right and wrong. Animals are just biological computers. Running genetic programming doesn’t require morality. It’s incredibly complex stimulus-response with them, but it remains that they have no moral agency. This is why animals can be trained, because we’re constantly improving our understanding of their stimulus-response mechanisms.
People are different. The animal kingdom provides little useful insight on human behavior because we can choose. When people do begin to act like animals (choosing not to choose) it invariably leads to debauched behavior (sociopaths). Viewing humans as mere animals is a mistake. It robs people of their moral foundation.
April 16th, 2008 at 4:28 pmHey there, ho there, Dr. Feelgood.
It sounds like you’re making the case that humans are just fundamentally different than animals, and that ‘animal urges’ and stuff are more or less irrelevant.
I disagree. I think we are ‘animals plus.’ We’re just like them except we’re smarter and have created lots of societal rules and mores and stigmas that, for the most part, make the whole of society far greater than the sum of its parts. But that’s no reason to pretend that we don’t still have lots of ‘animal’ within us.
April 16th, 2008 at 4:43 pmI think Doc’s point is that we should be better than all other mammals. Not to bring evolution (as the origin of species) into the discussion, but this is one of the problems with it - if man(kind) is just a super-evolved animal, then this behavior is to be expected. There’s no motivation to “do better” because “it’s just natural.” If, on the other hand, we were created differently than the other mammals, we are responsible to elevate our behavior above other mammals.
Isn’t that called “marriage”?
*ducking*
(full disclosure - I’m very happily married, and the only time I have to fear my wife is when I’ve done something wrong.)
April 16th, 2008 at 4:47 pmDaniel, it’s actually much worse than you think. If natural processes are all that are at work in the universe, then all thought and it’s consequent behavior is predetermined by chemical reactions over which we have no control. In that case not only is this behavior to be expected, it is inevitable. Moreover, my opposition to this behavior is no less predetermined by chemical processes set in motion at the Big Bang. This is one of the reasons I reject naturalism–by accepting it as a rational premise, you undo the basis of rationality, our ability to choose and determine.
I really wasn’t trying to raise this discussion again. My apologies, Rachel.
April 16th, 2008 at 5:11 pmI have a simple approach to this, it is that everyone who isn’t me is a demented pervert. to function in a world filled with perverts I have come up with a simple attitude that requires only 3 rules.
The attitude is “I don’t care about your sex life, do as you please”.
The rules are -
1. That you NEVER tell me the details,
2. That it is between consenting adults, and
3. That anyone harmed has consented to be harmed.
Why is it that the more demented the pervert, the more of the rules they feel the need to break?
April 16th, 2008 at 6:17 pmBecause my own experience with people like Jenny Block and Jennifer Baumgardner, you will have a hard time convincing me that the things Rachl highlighted above are direct quotes from comments to those ladies. People like that have their own very special interpretation of disagreeing POV. It could have very well been something as benign as “That last story about your sexual hijinks was just a little bit of TMI.” Or “That rape T-shirt is quite provocative.” However, they have already decided that people are going to hate on them and have formulated their understanding of any disagreeing comments before any are actually made. When readers made disagreeing comments, it just solidified what they already knew people were going to say about their work, regardless of what the actual comments said.
Just like my statement of “People like that” will quite likely be understood as another sexist generalization about women. When in reality, I am a woman and my experience with this type of attitude has come from a close relation who happens to be male.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:39 pmGuys, I’m not suggesting that men should have to fear women as well. Someone said that women should be considered liars until proven otherwise. I’m totally fine with that. I agree with it.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:01 pmI’m also not suggesting that men are incapable of controlling themselves, but many choose not to. It’s just that whether they lack the ability or the desire, it comes to the same thing. They’re dangerous, and we have to be careful.
The shark analogy may be somewhat imprecise, but analogies almost always are. I think it was intended to show a different point: SOME men are predators. Acting in a manner that assumes that NONE are is as stupid as acting as if there are no sharks, when you know there are.
Oh, and when I was in college, a pamphlet was being passed out that said that exactly the scenario Daniel laid out was to be considered Rape. So they were telling women that it was OK to act this way, because it was all the man’s fault.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:02 pmJt Said:
I must’ve been asleep during that period because I’ve never known a time - in my working life of 40+ years - when there wasn’t equality.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:49 amAs someone who’s supervised people in large corporations for a long, long time … and had mainly women on my “teams” … I’ve never experienced a case of two people doing the same job for different pay that wasn’t backed up by qualifications. In fact, nothing drives me bonkers quicker than someone making pay decisions based on anything other than work … I have always had arguments with my peers over crap like “… but she’s a single mother and needs the raise/job/whatever.”
In Canada, the feminists were, and are, fighting for “equal pay for work of equal “VALUE”" … where they get to determine the value … and get to claim that a file clerk is the equivalent of a nuclear scientist, or a plumber.
Equality is such a tough thing to establish and enforce … because women are not men (praise the lord, or your favorite deity). I don’t ever remember one of the guys getting PAID maternity leave (in Canada, that actually qualifies for UNemployment Insurance benefits !!). Taxpayer funded pregnancy leave … never quite understood how pregnancy was equated with being downsized …
Maybe I’m just one of those bitter old white men … but I’ve seen disturbing discrimination for a long time. But not against women.
I once blew up at one of the HR folks and hollared that the only way I could possibly meet their hiring requirement to fill one of my open jobs would be to hire a one-legged, pregnant, Indian woman. I’ve never been asked for a list of my promotable PEOPLE, but do get quarterly requests for a list of my promotable females. I have to provide reports, for government reporting, on how much business we’ve done with minority-owned and women-owned businesses.
The pendulum has swung so far on the other side of equality that I’m constantly surprised the sexes or races still talk to each other.
That’s what I was going for, Wayne. Perhaps I should have just said “go swimming in the ocean.”
April 17th, 2008 at 9:24 amThere has been a plethora of false rape accusations. Many of these feminazis believe all sex with men is rape.
It is time we stop giving women who claim to be raped unconstitutional rights like never having their names published.
It is too bad that these feminist wacos make it difficult on real rape victims.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:41 am…
Right, I understood that point. I just wanted to point out the flaws in the analogy for the sake of clarity.
I never did find a hippie to punch yesterday, but I did watch Rob Riggle’s Berkeley bit on YouTube again, which is highly cathartic.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:27 pm