Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Is there such a thing as a "rape culture" in America? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  8  9  10   
Author Topic: Is there such a thing as a "rape culture" in America?
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While they seem to share some beliefs, Jack's style strikes me as sufficiently different.

In any case, if someone's pretending to be a different person and the mod isn't objecting, I'll treat them as a different person.

Jack, thanks for the clarification.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jack Squat
Member
Member # 6910

 - posted      Profile for Jack Squat   Email Jack Squat       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am Jack's yawning revenge.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I think it's useful to expose a sock puppet, actually.

If I'm a sock puppet, then you have exposed me. Now do you have anything to say on topic?
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I said that they are liars, when they pretend that all modesty issues relate to "rape culture."
Find a feminist who's done so. Note: someone who points out the imbalanced expectations between male and female "modesty" and notes that it creates an undue and imbalanced burden on women to limit their assumed sexual availability is not pretending that "all modesty issues relate to 'rape culture.'" You're arguing against straw women, here.

Allow me to point out that enforcement of things like the BYU modesty code are remarkably biased against women. Women jogging in yoga pants have been "prosecuted" under the "form-fitting" part of that code, while men jogging or biking in spandex have not been. I suspect that you'll find this is true of most "modesty" expectations: that when they're enforced in non-egregious cases, they are enforced primarily against women precisely because women's bodies are more likely to be noticed.

Such codes really are only a matter of degree from codes that mandate a hijab; such rules exist for the exact same reasons.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jack Squat
Member
Member # 6910

 - posted      Profile for Jack Squat   Email Jack Squat       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Who says that a man in trousers isn't distracting?

http://thesaltcollective.org/modesty-whensuitsbecomestumblingblock/

quote:
There has been a lot of talking, debating, and hand-wringing among Christian bloggers lately about modesty; particularly yoga pants, making men uncomfortable by being attractive, and in general, ways in which to combat everyone’s favorite “evil”: lust.

If we were having this conversation back in the 1980s, when there was a generalized sense that women "made men lust", it wouldn't be a blatantly dishonest straw man to respond to formal, worship and professional dress codes of this decade by pretending that they affirmed a rape culture.

You can't force a reasonable person to lust, but you can distract them. You can create an uncomfortable environment. And when the restrictions are equal as to which gender is allowed to do what, it's dishonest to claim that "rape culture" is involved.

If a man can't show his chest or bare legs in a social situation, it isn't rape culture to say that the woman should cover up as much as we expect the man to.

Pop-feminists who use "rape culture" to demand a double-standard against men, are a disgrace to anything that could be called a civil rights movement.

Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If we were having this conversation back in the 1980s, when there was a generalized sense that women "made men lust", it wouldn't be a blatantly dishonest straw man...
I find it fascinating that you think this attitude has vanished.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jack Squat
Member
Member # 6910

 - posted      Profile for Jack Squat   Email Jack Squat       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Allow me to point out that enforcement of things like the BYU modesty code are remarkably biased against women.

BYU has standards that unreasonably oppress males (no facial hair and no sandals) as well as standards that unreasonably oppress females. If Jesus was ever to visit BYU, he'd get tossed out for beard, long hair, sandals, and body-piercing.

I agree that women have it even worse than men at BYU. Some jerk at the testing center wouldn't let my friend in because she didn't have a bra on. How did he know? Because he looked down her blouse when she signed in. That's not a typical day at BYU, but it happens.

Fortunately BYU standards don't apply outside of BYU. And the self righteous dweebs that sometimes make BYU hell, either grow out of it or move to Snowflake Arizona or Pleasant Grove Utah.

Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jack Squat
Member
Member # 6910

 - posted      Profile for Jack Squat   Email Jack Squat       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
If we were having this conversation back in the 1980s, when there was a generalized sense that women "made men lust", it wouldn't be a blatantly dishonest straw man...
I find it fascinating that you think this attitude has vanished.
Straw man. I did not say it had vanished, I said that it's no longer pervasive, except among fundamentalist Muslims and white trash.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:

And when the restrictions are equal as to which gender is allowed to do what, it's dishonest to claim that "rape culture" is involved.

Possibly true, but rarely the case in practice. The afore-mentioned LDS Church only allows men in positions of leadership, the source of explicit dress codes. Women are expected to follow these rules (as are men), but will never have any voice in what the rules actually are (whereas men are not similarly disenfranchised). If you don't think there is a connection between patriarchy and rape culture, you need to stop and think about what rape is actually about in the vast majority of cases (hint: it isn't sexual desire).
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the discussions around these dress codes and such referred only to making people uncomfortable or being unprofessional, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jack Squat
Member
Member # 6910

 - posted      Profile for Jack Squat   Email Jack Squat       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I said that they are liars, when they pretend that all modesty issues relate to "rape culture."
Find a feminist who's done so.
Find a feminist who writes an OP on a mormon feminist blog who DOESN'T do so.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jack Squat
Member
Member # 6910

 - posted      Profile for Jack Squat   Email Jack Squat       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:

And when the restrictions are equal as to which gender is allowed to do what, it's dishonest to claim that "rape culture" is involved.

Possibly true, but rarely the case in practice. The afore-mentioned LDS Church only allows men in positions of leadership, the source of explicit dress codes. Women are expected to follow these rules (as are men), but will never have any voice in what the rules actually are (whereas men are not similarly disenfranchised). If you don't think there is a connection between patriarchy and rape culture, you need to stop and think about what rape is actually about in the vast majority of cases (hint: it isn't sexual desire).
I already said rape is about power, and I pointed to the prisons as an example. Whether rape is about patriarchy depends on how you defend patriarchy. I imagine you might make up a definition of patriarchy that could be plausibly blamed for male/male prison rape. But you're blowing smoke when you blame LDS boys passing the sacrament for rape.

Show me stats showing that active LDS males are more likely to commit rape than others, and then let's talk. But if you hop on Marni's general big anti-mo feminist lie is to point to rape stats in Utah being higher than Maine (rather than comparing to other western states like California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and Arizona) as evidence of LDS male priesthood causing rape, I will be unable to respect you in the morning.

Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jack Squat
Member
Member # 6910

 - posted      Profile for Jack Squat   Email Jack Squat       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
If the discussions around these dress codes and such referred only to making people uncomfortable or being unprofessional, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I'm not sure if we are having a conversation. No one so far has responded to my suggestion that dress codes be gender-neutral, i.e. it's OK to ban short skirts in situation where men can't wear short shorts. OK to show cleavage if a man can wear an open shirt that shows his chest.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
If we were having this conversation back in the 1980s, when there was a generalized sense that women "made men lust", it wouldn't be a blatantly dishonest straw man...
I find it fascinating that you think this attitude has vanished.
Straw man. I did not say it had vanished, I said that it's no longer pervasive, except among fundamentalist Muslims and white trash.
In other words, you have your head deep in the sand and are trying to argue from an assertion that doesn't actually align to reality. It's still pervasive, perhaps a little more subtle, but still as powerful as ever. The fact that it's easier for you to ignore doesn't mean that it's gone, and certainly doesn't mean that it's time to pat ourselves on the back and stop working on trying to fix the ongoing problems.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Leaving aside other potential confounds, using rape stats to judge the effect of modesty culture on the men seems prone to inaccuracy. It's not like marital rape is going to be reported, for example. If rape culture can be said to have an intent, gettting women to believe they don't have the right to refuse would be a big part of it.

No one's responded to the gender-neutral comment because it's not controversial.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
If the discussions around these dress codes and such referred only to making people uncomfortable or being unprofessional, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I'm not sure if we are having a conversation. No one so far has responded to my suggestion that dress codes be gender-neutral, i.e. it's OK to ban short skirts in situation where men can't wear short shorts. OK to show cleavage if a man can wear an open shirt that shows his chest.
LEaving aside that, as noted, the issue still exists at the enforcement level, that proposal is not even remotely gender neutral, given that you're specifying different clothes based on the sex of the wearer.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jack Squat
Member
Member # 6910

 - posted      Profile for Jack Squat   Email Jack Squat       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Pyr, [DOH]

I'm saying that shorts should be the equivalent of a skirt. Obviously I have no problem with men wearing skirts or women wearing shorts, either. The issue is what body parts can you show in a particular setting.

If a woman's allowed to wear shorts or a short skirt to work but men aren't allowed to wear shorts that show the same amount of leg, that's a hostile work environment where it's implied that some people's bodies are more professionally acceptable than others. A feminism that was actually about equality would recognize that.

Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not aware of any dress code telling LDS women to wear skirts or dresses at worship services.

I am aware of a dress code for LDS women missionaries that bans pants, but those aren't guidelines for general membership of the church.

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jack Squat
Member
Member # 6910

 - posted      Profile for Jack Squat   Email Jack Squat       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
If we were having this conversation back in the 1980s, when there was a generalized sense that women "made men lust", it wouldn't be a blatantly dishonest straw man...
I find it fascinating that you think this attitude has vanished.
Straw man. I did not say it had vanished, I said that it's no longer pervasive, except among fundamentalist Muslims and white trash.
In other words, you have your head deep in the sand and are trying to argue from an assertion that doesn't actually align to reality. It's still pervasive, perhaps a little more subtle, but still as powerful as ever.
Because you said so. [Roll Eyes]

Rape acceptance is growing among social media but left-wing social masturbators are targeting the churches because of views that were pervasive back in the 1970s. Your movement betrays victims of sexual abuse by moving the target.

Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jack Squat
Member
Member # 6910

 - posted      Profile for Jack Squat   Email Jack Squat       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
If rape culture can be said to have an intent, gettting women to believe they don't have the right to refuse would be a big part of it.


True. But that's not something being taught in many Christian churches ... the closest thing to that is the internet/social media fad of "Christian domestic discipline," which is nonconsensual misogynistic BDSM wrapped up in internet bible manglings.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's a terrible distortion of what Pyr said.

phil, wearing pants to church is a big deal for mormon feminists. I think it's second only to opening the priesthood to women for hot-button issues.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jack Squat
Member
Member # 6910

 - posted      Profile for Jack Squat   Email Jack Squat       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
That's a terrible distortion of what Pyr said.

Since that's how you interpreted it, I removed the statement. I inferred that to be his position since he seemed using the skirt/shorts technicality to evade the issue of equal standards. I phrased shorts for men because men don't generally *want* to wear skirts. Other than Scottsmen.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
Because you said so.

Because I discuss the issue regularly with people bearing the brunt of it, and I actually listen to what they say and their experiences, rather than pooh-poohing them because I'd like to believe otherwise.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jack Squat
Member
Member # 6910

 - posted      Profile for Jack Squat   Email Jack Squat       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
I'm not aware of any dress code telling LDS women to wear skirts or dresses at worship services.

I thought there was a written bulletin for how men and women should dress when attending the temple.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
That's a terrible distortion of what Pyr said.

Since that's how you interpreted it, I removed the statement. I inferred that to be his position since he seemed using the skirt/shorts technicality to evade the issue of equal standards. I phrased shorts for men because men don't generally *want* to wear skirts. Other than Scottsmen.
How is pointing again to the fact that nominally equal standards are, in practice, enforced very unequally amount to evading the issue, rather than pointing out the disingenuity of trying to say that all you have to do is make the rules the same and pretending that the real problems will vanish?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't get the side track into religious rules. They don't have to be rational from a secular point of view.

Isn't the more serious question, the secular one? At lease in this country, no one is forced to follow a specific religion, or its doctrine. There's no reason that a church can't suffer a schism if some people feel a change is warranted. If anything, US churches schism too easily.

So what exactly is the relevance of 80's culture references? Is it like the same idea when you're talking about grandparents and racist attitudes to say that racism was the rule when they grew up? That may be where they come from, but what's relevant is how they interact with the world today, and the overall trend. The geeky 'deserving' guy ending up with the prom queen is stupid trope and it does make for unreasonable expectations (I know several guys who are alone in their forties because they believed they deserved a super model). But does that really contribute to a rape culture? Or just a pathetic one?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The geeky 'deserving' guy ending up with the prom queen is stupid trope and it does make for unreasonable expectations (I know several guys who are alone in their forties because they believed they deserved a super model). But does that really contribute to a rape culture?
I think it does, especially once you grant that things like "date rape" constitute rape. The whole Pick-Up Artist movement, which specializes in helping men identify weak-willed but attractive women and teaches them tricks to leverage their way into their beds, is essentially the promotion of sex through coercion, bullying, and deception. Whether that constitutes rape -- or whether a man willing to dehumanize a woman into a sexual target, plaything, or trophy would further dehumanize her into a target of violent rape -- is arguably a matter for debate, I suppose.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The relevance of the reference to the 80's is that it's an easy and clear example of an attitude that is still pervasive and that most women have to fight off (or capitulate to) on a routine basis.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
True. But that's not something being taught in many Christian churches ... the closest thing to that is the internet/social media fad of "Christian domestic discipline," which is nonconsensual misogynistic BDSM wrapped up in internet bible manglings
I'm pretty sure christian theology still requires spouses to provide sex, though I imagine the implementation has changed. I suspect the mainstream churches suggest abstinence until counseling can resolve issues rather than lying back and thinking of England.

Sorry, Seriati, I'm a sucker for theology. As to your scenario, do you think that if people feel entitled to something, it will increase the chances of them trying to take it?

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/03/examples-of-rape-culture/

http://www.safercampus.org/blog/2011/03/essential-concepts-how-patriarchy-and-rape-culture-hurt-men/

A couple of good bits of reading to get you on the ground with what's actualy meant by the term "rrape culture" as well as an actual feminist position on the matter rather than the assertions of someone for the sake of supporting the kind of argument they want to make.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jack Squat
Member
Member # 6910

 - posted      Profile for Jack Squat   Email Jack Squat       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
Because you said so.

Because I discuss the issue regularly with people bearing the brunt of it, and I actually listen to what they say and their experiences, rather than pooh-poohing them because I'd like to believe otherwise.
I have yet to pooh pooh anyone about their own experiences.

What I'm saying is that in my experience, I saw lots of statements in the 1980s that suggested that a scantilly dressed woman deserves to be raped, and that the last time I heard any such statement in the general public square was early 1990s. That when I see such statements now, they tend to come from white trash or from internet geeks or from fundamentalist Muslims.

Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jack Squat
Member
Member # 6910

 - posted      Profile for Jack Squat   Email Jack Squat       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
The relevance of the reference to the 80's is that it's an easy and clear example of an attitude that is still pervasive and that most women have to fight off (or capitulate to) on a routine basis.

And when we ask you for contemporary reference to demonstrate contemporary status quo, we're "pooh poohing" rape victims. [Roll Eyes]

Mind rape.

Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jack Squat
Member
Member # 6910

 - posted      Profile for Jack Squat   Email Jack Squat       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
That's a terrible distortion of what Pyr said.

Since that's how you interpreted it, I removed the statement. I inferred that to be his position since he seemed using the skirt/shorts technicality to evade the issue of equal standards. I phrased shorts for men because men don't generally *want* to wear skirts. Other than Scottsmen.
How is pointing again to the fact that nominally equal standards are, in practice, enforced very unequally amount to evading the issue, rather than pointing out the disingenuity of trying to say that all you have to do is make the rules the same and pretending that the real problems will vanish?
See, NH? Pyr is still being evasive, refusing to address the issue of equality:
If a woman's allowed to wear shorts or a short skirt to work but men aren't allowed to wear shorts that show the same amount of leg, that's a hostile work environment where it's implied that some people's bodies are more professionally acceptable than others. A feminism that was actually about equality would recognize that.

[ July 28, 2014, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Jack Squat ]

Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jack Squat
Member
Member # 6910

 - posted      Profile for Jack Squat   Email Jack Squat       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

That's Pete in a nutshell. Coupled with the defense of "baby-daddy" as a term to maintain the relationship of biological fathers to their children, he's either Pete or someone so identical as to be functionally indistinguishable.

Last I checked, it was Seneca arguing for the rights of biological parents, and Pete arguing that fathers' rights vested through marriage.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
What I'm saying is that in my experience, I saw lots of statements in the 1980s that suggested that a scantilly dressed woman deserves to be raped, and that the last time I heard any such statement in the general public square was early 1990s. That when I see such statements now, they tend to come from white trash or from internet geeks or from fundamentalist Muslims.

Not to mention rape prevention campaigns that put the fault for rape entirely on women (Do this things to avoid being raped) as opposed to on men (here's what you can do to avoid becoming a rapist). Or from people leaping to the defense of people who have been accused of rape (even though the frequency of false accusations is extremely low) and even going as far as to demonize public figures that call for a fair trial to resolve the matter instead of trusting it to the court of popular opinion.

Just because the victim blaming is more subtle does not mean that it's not still pervasive.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
That's a terrible distortion of what Pyr said.

Since that's how you interpreted it, I removed the statement. I inferred that to be his position since he seemed using the skirt/shorts technicality to evade the issue of equal standards. I phrased shorts for men because men don't generally *want* to wear skirts. Other than Scottsmen.
How is pointing again to the fact that nominally equal standards are, in practice, enforced very unequally amount to evading the issue, rather than pointing out the disingenuity of trying to say that all you have to do is make the rules the same and pretending that the real problems will vanish?
See, NH? Pyr is still being evasive, refusing to address the issue of equality

No, I've presented the issue of equality. You keep trying to make false accusations on what was already clearly pointed out as a non-controversial red herring rather than actually addressing the issue of inequitable enforcement which commonly happens in practice.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If a woman's allowed to wear shorts or a short skirt to work but men aren't allowed to wear shorts that show the same amount of leg, that's a hostile work environment where it's implied that some people's bodies are more professionally acceptable than others. A feminism that was actually about equality would recognize that.
And it does. But it's far more likely to get a situation where men can are allowed to wear shorts, or aren't punished for violating dress code, but women's clothing is heavily policed. That's also eliding the fact that when men are forbidden to wear shorts it's never because that's 'distracting' but the reverse isn't true for women.

[ July 28, 2014, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: NobleHunter ]

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
phil, wearing pants to church is a big deal for mormon feminists. I think it's second only to opening the priesthood to women for hot-button issues.

Which is really weird to me, because they can. Why get upset about not being allowed to do something that you are allowed to do?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RacerX
Member
Member # 6928

 - posted      Profile for RacerX   Email RacerX       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks, a lot of good info and some good debate.

Somebody mentioned the old accepted logic that "rape is about power not sex". How does this square with drunk frat-'boys', and I emphasize "boys" as I loathe them and they are not by any means men, forcing girls to have sex with them?

I openly state it is "rape", but how is it not about sex? Especially in cases in which the girl goes far enough to get the young idiot aroused and then says "No". (Fully agree that she should have the right to say no at anytime and be heard and that he stop. Not my point.) The point is at this point isn't his raping her about the need to finish the sex act."

Posts: 73 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RacerX
Member
Member # 6928

 - posted      Profile for RacerX   Email RacerX       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought LDS women could only wear pants to church on certain days or en mass as protest? Think that is what a friend and old OA member says.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jack Squat
Member
Member # 6910

 - posted      Profile for Jack Squat   Email Jack Squat       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
What I'm saying is that in my experience, I saw lots of statements in the 1980s that suggested that a scantilly dressed woman deserves to be raped, and that the last time I heard any such statement in the general public square was early 1990s. That when I see such statements now, they tend to come from white trash or from internet geeks or from fundamentalist Muslims.

Not to mention rape prevention campaigns that put the fault for rape entirely on women (Do this things to avoid being raped)
Yes, I remember those, back in the 1980s and early 1990s. Today, someone who says something like that is ridiculed in the public square.

quote:
as opposed to on men (here's what you can do to avoid becoming a rapist).
What sort of patronizing ass goes and throws that crap at boys, as if all males needed help not becoming rapists.

quote:
Or from people leaping to the defense of people who have been accused of rape (even though the frequency of false accusations is extremely low) and even going as far as to demonize public figures that call for a fair trial to resolve the matter instead of trusting it to the court of popular opinion.
I can't think of that happening in the last 15 years in any prominent US case, where the public figure was merely "calling for a fair trial." (It's not a fair trial if there's no reasonable suspicion to begin with). So I take it you're still living in the past.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  8  9  10   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1