Sharing stories of violence.
Sat, 2002-08-10 21:32
#1
Sharing stories of violence.
Sat, 2002-08-10 21:32
#2
My comments from the "strategies for survival" thread:
quote:
I'm surprised by the stat thatquote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Half of Canadian women (51%) have been victims of at least one act of physical or sexual violence since the age of 16.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Depending on what you use as a definition of physical or sexual violence, it's more likely that ALL women have been victims.
A few years back if I had been asked whether or not I'd experienced physical or sexual violence I probably would have said "no." As my understanding of feminism and violence against women has matured I have refined my definition of violence and my answer today would be a difinitive "yes."
I have been accosted on a dark street by a man wearing an underwear mask. (sounds kinda funny now, but it wasn't at the time.) He stole not only my dignity but my feeling of safety even on the street I live on. (It doesn't go away.) I have been felt up anonymously on a crowded city bus while trying to push my way to the door. In highscool a couple of boys went through a phase of whispering disgusting and violent images into the girls ears. I have had a man expose himself to me (again on public transit.) I have had johns mistake me for a prostitute while waiting for a bus, and they get pretty mad when you tell them to f-off. This is the tip of the iceberg.
I may not have come away from these situations with brusies or broken bones, but I did come away with the sense that it is not safe to be a woman. That I don't have access to many parts of the city I live in without fear. That my sex makes me a fair target for men.
I sense that when discussing violence against women some people think they are talking about a marginilized group of abused wives, when in fact every story of violence I hear is an attack on ALL women.
I wonder if any other feminist babblers would like to share their stories of violence? Or their view of what it is and how it affects them?
Sat, 2002-08-10 23:05
#3
You bring back memories skadie. Men exposing themselves. Scary sexual remarks when I was really too young to understand but got the drift.
Felt up on a bus yes.
Very scary and not nice. I just wanted to add that the feeling of helplessness is the biggest horror.
[ August 10, 2002: Message edited by: clersal ]
Sat, 2002-08-10 23:18
#4
I have a (perhaps unanswerable) question: what characteristic of male sexual violence against women makes it an attack on all women? Ubiquity? Frequency? Something about the violence itself? Cultural significance? And if it's more than one, how much of each?
Corollary to that is the question: what are the conditions under which, in the future, we can say that one particular act of sexual violence is [b]not[/b] an attack on all women? That is to say, at what point can we call it an isolated incident, or at least in the same category as all other acts of violence?
A third question: If one act of sexual violence is committed against all women, then can you say that it has been commited by/on behalf of all men? I should make this one clear: I am not saying that all men assented to it, just like one cannot say that all women directly experienced it. This is not as simple as it sounds. If the perpetrator's (subconscious/implicit) intention is to attack all women, then on whose behalf is he doing it? Only on his own?
Sat, 2002-08-10 23:27
#5
I would guess that it is a power trip. Also the complete feeling of impotence in the situation. Who can you tell? Who will believe you? The feeling of shame. That one I cannot answer. Why should we feel ashamed that we were victims. Our bringing up?
Sat, 2002-08-10 23:30
#6
Yes, but you are phrasing that answer in terms of you and the perpetrator...at least that's how I interpreted it. My question is more focused on exploring the "ALL women" part, since extrapolating an individual act to a political act is complicated, IMO.
Sat, 2002-08-10 23:41
#7
Certainly not all women. There are still women who feel that women who are victims of violence somehow deserve it. Even those that have recieved violence, sexual or other.
Probably has to do with bringing up. I think that there is an unspoken understanding that as a woman you are primarily a sexual object. The object takes away a certain humanity and women are sort of in limbo in the equality equation. A mixture of things not easy to explain to men as one sort of has to live it to understand.
Sat, 2002-08-10 23:54
#8
When I refer to "all women", I refer to it in the same sense that skadie repeatedly used in her first post on this thread.
I am not questioning here that in most human cultures, women are more objectified than men. But if you cannot explain it (and I am sensitive to the argument about why you can't), then it is also very difficult to change it. Which I suppose is a tautology, but does it shift the burden of proof in any way?
Sat, 2002-08-10 23:59
#9
quote:
what characteristic of male sexual violence against women makes it an attack on all women?
One act of male sexual (or non-sexual) violence against one women communicates the sad truth that it isn't safe to be a woman alone. The telling of these stories affects women from the time we are old enough to understand what rape means. (And what does it mean, anyway?) Do men have the same fear? Even though men are raped, does one act of violence against a man make all men slaves to seeking out safety? (the company of others, the carrying of certain weapons or tools, the avoiding of "dangerous" situations.)
Men are brought up to trust in their physical strength to help them avoid violence. When a man is confronted by another man the playing field is somewhat more even than when a woman is confronted by a man.
It is the culture of violence, the fact that women live with violence and/or the threat of violence every day, wherever they go. The fact that we come to accept it and even ignore or excuse it.
quote:
If one act of sexual violence is committed against all women, then can you say that it has been commited by/on behalf of all men?
My views are a bit extreme in this perspective. I believe that all men benefit from violence against women. I believe that all men share responsibility for the culture of violence and that men will be central to:
quote:
the conditions under which, in the future, we can say that one particular act of sexual violence is not an attack on all women
quote:
I think that there is an unspoken understanding that as a woman you are primarily a sexual object.
I don't think it could be called unspoken.
[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: skadie ]
Sun, 2002-08-11 01:12
#10
If we go with the one man doing these things example, once he gets away with it once, he will do it again and again. Any man with the inclination who hears of this will do it too and so on. That is how it effects all women.
The examples are not personal in that these are not men known to the women they do this to but it is personal in that it is a violation of the woman's person, safety and security. This means that any woman may be victimized in a random act. Therefore, all women are at risk.
Sun, 2002-08-11 01:54
#11
skadie: So, let me paraphrase your answer to my first question to make sure that I haven't misunderstood: An attack is an attack on all women because it creates a climate in which women are more afraid than men to act independently. Fine, I can see how this works, but that isn't a characteristic of the violence [b]itself[/b] (particularly since you have included non-sexual violence in this), but rather a side effect of the violence, considering that it occurs in a context where, as you have pointed out, women are raised to be less confident in their ability to be safe than men. But is there a characteristic of the violence [b]itself[/b] that makes it an attack on all women? Or is it merely the prior cultural contingencies that make it that way? And what are these cultural aspects, exactly?
I have a problem with referring the victimization of all women to the fact that women are not raised to be confident in their physical strength. Firstly, it leads to the notion (that was debated in an unbearably caustic manner on other threads) that it becomes simply a matter of exhorting women to be more confident. Secondly, it implies that the perpetrator is responsible not only for his own act, but for the prior cultural contingencies that you mentioned--this is necessary if his act is to apply to all women, and it strikes me as unfair. How could he be responsible for the fact that all women are affected by their cultural training? So the question becomes, [b]beyond ways in which his act creates an unsafe feeling[/b], how does his act feed back into these cultural contingencies that make women feel the way that they do (or the way you say they do)?
What does "benefit all men" mean in this context? Now, I understand that this doesn't mean that all men are responsible for a particular single act (I hope). But I can see how benefit (whatever that is) can be accrued without it? But what does it mean to benefit? You know already my views on that: anything that confines women and makes them sexually, etc, dependent benefits all men in terms of reproductive success. That is to say, it helps enforce a kind of contract that ensures certainty of paternity, under conditions of mistrustfulness that other men will not respect a given man's reproductive turf (thereby leaving him at risk of cuckolding). But I know that you do not accept that explanation. Then how do you construe benefit?
Saying that "all men share responsibility for the culture of violence" is a nice catch-phrase, but to me it doesn't mean much. I certainly didn't do anything--I hope--so how am I responsible? Do you mean to say that all men share responsibility in dealing with it (rather than being a cause of it)? If so, how?
And it doesn't really answer my last question: what conditions exactly will lead to a state wherein violence against women is no different from other violence? It's not enough to say that men will be central to it, unless you can define what [b]how[/b] it is that men are central to it.
Yet another question (I'm really piling it on here, so please bear with me): do you think that it is possible to eradicate sexual violence? My position is that the potential will always be there, just as we have potential for violence in any other domain; and therefore, it is possible to reach a point at which sexual violence exists and yet women are equal? If no, then I think we are forced to conclude that women will never be equal [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]
A last point: I find that the "culture of violence" is too broad a term. There is always a lack of safety. If you want to claim that even non-sexual violence is an act against all women, even in non-sexual contexts, then I'm not really sure how to distinguish between conditions wherein women are equal and those wherein they are not. And though I look forward to skadie's reply to all of this, are there any other takers?
[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: Mandos ]
Sun, 2002-08-11 08:10
#12
quote:
Do men have the same fear? Even though men are raped, does one act of violence against a man make all men slaves to seeking out safety?
Men are brought up to call fear "prudence" or "waryness" or other words like that. There are places I go where I become "wary" and want to be very much aware of who is behind me, what the layout of the street is, etc. I don't feel "afraid", but it could very well be because I'm brought up to call that feeling of fear something else.
And, there are places I don't go, because I'm not looking for trouble. And I guess I'm not looking for trouble because I'm afraid of getting my nose broke or my haid stomped?
No, we're not slaves to safety, except when it comes to looking after the women in our lives, be they wives, daughters, nieces, etc. We worry too, we fear for their safety, and I think I am perhaps more fearful for them than many of them are for themselves.
quote:
I believe that all men benefit from violence against women.
I'm not going to take issue with a statement like that. I do think it needs to be explained in more depth, because for the life of me, I can only see violence against women as nothing but disadvantageous to me, personally and men in general.
Maybe a fuller explanation will open my eyes to something I don't see at the moment.
Sun, 2002-08-11 21:08
#13
quote:
I have a problem with referring the victimization of all women to the fact that women are not raised to be confident in their physical strength.
Mandos, I think you missed my point.
I used to go camping alone a lot. Up until a few years ago I was very comfortable doing this. My friends however, have told me it's a stupid thing to do and that I am putting myself at risk. Eventually they wore me down and I don't camp alone anymore.
One act of violence done to one person is definitely a pain only the victim can understand. But the communication of that act of violence, the fact that it is not uncommon, the fact that 51% of women have been victims of violence (again, a number I think is probably underestimated) the fact that I myself have been a victim of violence affects me, my family, my friends and women around the world.
Why shouldn't I feel safe camping on my own? Why shouldn't I feel safe walking down a city street to my own home? Fuck FEELING safe, why can't I BE safe? (Or at least as safe as a man is.)
I have three sisters. I realized at about thirteen that statistics supported the probability that at least one of us would be raped in our lifetimes. Nice way to start womanhood, huh?
I'm enjoying this conversation but I just worked twelve hours in the sun with a hang-over. I'll have to expound some more a little later.
Mon, 2002-08-12 01:34
#14
It was a reasonable question, clearly put. I'm going to leave domestic violence out of this (too complicated), and concentrate on the kind of casual molestation that happens on the street and buses, elevators and parking garages, every minute, in every North American city.
quote:
what characteristic of male sexual violence against women makes it an attack on all women? Ubiquity? Frequency? Something about the violence itself? Cultural significance? And if it's more than one, how much of each?
The fact of its being sexual makes it violence against women. The fact that it's anonymous makes it violence against any woman at random, and thus all women. The ubiquity and frequency strongly suggest - if doesn't prove - that a great many men are doing it, and getting away with it. Which means that the society doesn't take it seriously enough to make it taboo. That would be the cultural significance - or part of the cultural significance.
quote:
at what point can we call it an isolated incident, or at least in the same category as all other acts of violence?
My personal opinion: when a woman can turn around and accuse her molester without fear of being ridiculed, ignored or blamed. Say, for example my grandmother had been waiting for a trolley and the man in line behind her rubbed his body against hers. She would have been shocked and outraged - likely out loud. Everyone else in that queue would have been shocked and outraged. In that time, in that society, it would have been more unusual, more despicable than it would be today, here, for a man to walk up to a total stranger and punch him in the nose, just for fun. Today, here, the second kind of attack is still an isolated incident; the first kind is so common, it's hardly noteworthy.
quote:
If one act of sexual violence is committed against all women, then can you say that it has been commited by/on behalf of all men? ... If the perpetrator's subconscious/implicit) intention is to attack all women, then on whose behalf is he doing it? Only on his own?
No, he's not doing it on behalf of anyone but himself. And it's not benefitting other men. The only way that decent men are involved is to be part of a malfunctioning society.
To the extent that the society is and has been dominated and directed by men, all men are part of the problem. To the extent that women have failed to address the aspects of society which contribute to the raising of dysfunctional boys and compliant girls, all woman are part of the problem, too. The problem is HUGE, and it's really not much about sex: it's about consumerism and powerlessness and moral confusion and a lot of other things.
Mon, 2002-08-12 02:33
#15
quote:
I believe that all men benefit from violence against women.
Too complex for me to write a proper defense, so I borrowed this:
quote:
"I want to bring in a notion that I think can raise consciousness, and perhaps even induce activism about the relation of men as a group to violence: namely that all men benefit from rape.
This comment usually rouses angry rejoinders from men who have never thought of themselves as rapists, would never rape, etc. But in fact such men also receive the stepping aside, the unearned politeness, the deferential and preferential treatment, that goes with belonging to a class that is known to sexually attack and terrorize. So what about these nice men? What it the ethical stance for them to take? If they are not part of the solution--actively working to help women achieve the parity that blocks violence (and that link is clear, according to research), then they are part of the problem, no less than whites who stand by while blacks are terrorized."I have to agree with this comment, though it's a really tough thing to come
to
terms with as a "pro-feminist man."
[url=http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:Nlns2yPXGaUC:www.mail-archive.com/em... worth reading. [/url] I could never put it as well.
[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: skadie ]
Mon, 2002-08-12 02:59
#16
I guess I really haven't answered your questions yet Mandos, so here goes!
quote:
what characteristic of male sexual violence against women makes it an attack on all women? Ubiquity? Frequency? Something about the violence itself? Cultural significance? And if it's more than one, how much of each?
All of them, Mandos. As for the significance of each, it must depend on the individual and the situation.
quote:
what are the conditions under which, in the future, we can say that one particular act of sexual violence is not an attack on all women?
I like what nonesuch said about that.
quote:
If the perpetrator's (subconscious/implicit) intention is to attack all women, then on whose behalf is he doing it?
It isn't necessary for every attacker to have the intention to harm all women in order to have that effect. Viruses don't have malicious intent but they still harm us.
Mon, 2002-08-12 11:19
#17
I have to take exception to 'all men benefit'.
Yes, to deference - although i wonder how much all decent men enjoy this. Yes, to privilege, which they do enjoy.
But there is another side: all men get blamed and accused, and i'm quite sure they don't enjoy that. Nor do men, generally, benefit from living an insecure, fearful, hateful society.
In a sane community, the decent men protect women, children, elders and the weak from violence and train the boys in good behaviour. Every member of the community benefits from that.
Mon, 2002-08-12 11:26
#18
[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]
Mon, 2002-08-12 11:40
#19
Yes Rebecca, prevention is the only way to go. I hope but wonder when it will happen.
Mon, 2002-08-12 20:11
#20
As long as women are devalued in our society, we aren't going to get much further in attaining safety. I've experienced a variety of forms of abuse since age 16, some because I was an orphan, some just because I was a woman alone, some because I married a man who had a violent side. The only thing all these events had in common was that I was considered an object, not a person.
This situation isn't improving. Look at how single women are treated under welfare, the U.S. is pushing marriage, even bad marriage, as protection for women and children. Iowa is demanding the names and addresses of women who had positive pregnancy tests from a planned parenthoot clinic, Florida is publishing the sexual history of single mothers opting for adoption. I'm going to put the links to these stories on the Feminist thread. Father's rights groups are demanding protection for the family be abolished and their control over their families given back to them.
Women who fight their abusers physically are jailed, protection orders are mostly useless, women's shelters are being reduced, more women are being murdered by ex-lovers and there's more.
Look at the popularity of movies and games that show violence of all kinds. Girl gangs are on the rise and just as violent or more violent than the boy ones. Teachers and parents have very little authority. The way I see it, we are in danger of loosing what protection we have.
Tue, 2002-08-13 02:44
#21
I dunno, Skadie, I think the idea that all men benifit isn't particularly well backed up in your quote or the body of the email quoted from.
"Unearned Politness" ?! Everyone has my politness, until they earn it otherwise, and I'm sure I'm pretty ordinary this way. I'm sure the majority of women are the same way and I'm rather unconvinced this has anything to do with violence against women.
It's how civilized people of all genders behave.
The other examples cited are undoubtedly present, but inarguably could be due to environmental factors other than rape. It's a non-sequitor to say that the "stepping aside" and defferential/preferential treatment is due to rape.
quote:
This comment usually rouses angry rejoinders from men who have never thought of themselves as rapists, would never rape, etc.
No doubt. Not only is it a statement that seems to have little substantive support, it's a hurtful, sweeping generalization to boot.
Tue, 2002-08-13 02:54
#22
quote:
I believe that all men benefit from violence against women.
skadie quoted this, but I didn't find who she quoted.
I cannot express strongly enough how offensive I find this utterance. I can't believe that anyone could think such a thing.
"All men benefit from violence against women."
The statement is perverse.
Tue, 2002-08-13 03:22
#23
I'm gay. How do I benefit from violence against women?
Tue, 2002-08-13 04:49
#24
meades
I'm not sure exactly how to phrase it, but I think Skadie's right. I'm not sure if "benefit" is the right word, though, but something similar, definitely. When a man assaults a woman, it symbolizes (among other things) the continuing subjegation of women. It places fear and anger (or any number of other emotions depending on personality) into the woman, and gives the man a position of power which he aught not have.
I recall watching a program on tv a few days ago, and they said that in any society, we have every right that we assert. We have every right that we assert up until the point where we are countered or suppressed.
When a man assaults a woman, it is an assertion of power, and control- thus through this, [i]all men[/i] have a position of power and control (those two may not be the best words). This goes well beyond sexual orientation or anything of that nature, because violence against women cannot only be perpetrated by straight men. If I were to strike a woman (which I would never do, because it's just plain wrong) I would be making just as much an assertion of patriachy (if that's the correct term) as a straight man doing the same thing.
We may not want to benefit from violence against women, but that doesn't change anything, I don't think. Again, "benefit" might not be the right word I'm looking for. The answer isn't to shift blame and pretend it's not our problem- because it is. Instead we should be working to counter violence against women, and put a stop to it, forever (I'm sure we all agree with the last phrase, so don't think I'm using as, or as part of an argument)
Tue, 2002-08-13 08:53
#25
You will not find me disagreeing, my friend.
Tue, 2002-08-13 10:17
#26
quote:
Yes Rebecca, prevention is the only way to go. I hope but wonder when it will happen
When violence against women and children starts to effect everyone, or costs some asshole money, or they start posting gruesome pictures of beaten and murdered women and children everywhere. Other than that, it's status quo - much hand-wringing from a few well-meaning liberals who at least have the moral wherewithal to give a shit, if not actually do something. It's easy to see why the people who work in shelters get burnt out and become ineffective. It's hard to see so much and realize that no one cares enough or at all.
At least there are shelters now. When I was pregnant and getting the crap kicked out of me, there was nowhere to go in the city I lived in. All our friends and neighbours knew what was going on, but no one helped or intervened in any way. Now, there's at least more public awareness around issues of domestic violence. And remember when children who were being molested and sexually assaulted by a family member were almost never protected or listened to? It was always a private family matter, don't talk don't tell.
Change is too slow for those who suffer the violence, but considering how long there was no help or support at all for women, it's change at lightening speed.
Tue, 2002-08-13 11:34
#27
But, Rebecca, everyone is affected by this.
All of these women are someone's daughter, mother, sister, lover, wife, aunt, niece or friend. Who else does it need to affect?
It happens everywhere.
I see violence towards women on the idiot box everytime I turn it on. It's not just directed towards women, but, they are always portrayed as sexy vixens or helpless victims. Even the shows ABOUT rape titilate and glorify.
We're insane if we as a society try to say that we aren't influenced by it. The average American watches FOUR HOURS of it a day. If I spent four hours with a platypus every day I think I'd grow a bill.
Is that the answer? How do we get past the "artists" who insist that their objectification is their only way to express themselves and that censorship in all it's forms is evil?
Is the answer to start a serious movement to switch it off rather than try to regulate it further?
Is the violence more rampant now than fifty years ago? Or do we just think it is because we see it on the news? Do we have other countries and approaches that we can look to? What's the violence rate in Norway?
I'd like to see change, but I don't know if it's possible.
[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: Trinitty ]
[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: Trinitty ]
Tue, 2002-08-13 12:16
#28
quote:
"Unearned Politness" ?! Everyone has my politness, until they earn it otherwise, and I'm sure I'm pretty ordinary this way. I'm sure the majority of women are the same way and I'm rather unconvinced this has anything to do with violence against women.It's how civilized people of all genders behave.
I think it goes further than that for women, Tommy. I'm not sure, but perhaps what skadie was talking about when she said "unearned politeness" is the politeness that women show towards men even when they're acting inappropriately towards women. Laughing politely at a sexist joke. Staying politely quiet when a man does something rude instead of calling him on it. Etc.
I just recently had a very disturbing experience with a man, and I'm not the soft-spoken type. And what did I do? Did I call him on his inappropriate behaviour? No, I was polite and tried to help him save face almost instinctively because I was so bewildered about how to respond.
Am I on the right track, skadie?
Tue, 2002-08-13 12:33
#29
quote:
All of these women are someone's daughter, mother, sister, lover, wife, aunt, niece or friend. Who else does it need to affect?
I'm afraid I wasn't very clear. I do not mean to suggest that violence doesn't have far-reaching effects. What I was doing was expressing frustration - suggesting that until absolutely every person is directly effected by domestic violence, there won't be enough of an outcry to precipitate real action on the part of legislators and governments, because people are so damned complacent and have to literally be beaten over the head before they get of their duffs and do something.
I deleted my own story from this thread, but let me assure you, no one knows better than I what kind of effect violence has. Ask my mother. Ask my daughter, my sister, her daughter, my brother's ex-wife, his son and daughters.
Tue, 2002-08-13 12:37
#30
I read your story Rebecca. [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]
I was more or less venting WITH you, rather than asking a real question I guess. I'm getting angrier by the minute reading the thread.
Tue, 2002-08-13 13:38
#31
It's a difficult issue for everyone, isn't it. It's a particularly ripe breeding ground for miscommunication between men and women who are struggling to make some sense of the whole thing. It's emotional, people feel defensive, things get misconstrued.
Frankly I'm amazed that we do as well as we do.
Tue, 2002-08-13 16:56
#32
quote:
"I believe that all men benefit from violence against women."skadie quoted this, but I didn't find who she quoted.
Arch, I did make the comment earlier in the thread and then quoted someones quote of it! But the credit for the sentiment goes to Andrea Dworkin who said "All men benefit from rape." I think the most valuable thing about such a "perverse" comment is the discussion it incites. As Christopher Hitchens says, it's not what you think, but how you think.
[url=http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/]Her web page.[/url]
quote:
Am I on the right track, skadie?
yup!
quote:
Is the answer to start a serious movement to switch [the television] off rather than try to regulate it further?
I haven't had TV for years. People think I'm nuts. I HATE TELEVISION!! Violence is only the tip of the iceburg, but I guess this belongs in another thread.
Tue, 2002-08-13 18:52
#33
quote:
My views are a bit extreme in this perspective. I believe that all men benefit from violence against women. I believe that all men share responsibility for the culture of violence.
It must be a bit like original sin then. The mark of Cain upon the gender. I feel sorry for people like Jack Layton, who have invested huge amounts of time and effort in campaigning against violence
against women. But even he is responsible!
Tue, 2002-08-13 19:35
#34
quote:
But even he is responsible!
Right, as usual Jeff! [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] I don't know who Jack Layton is, but I'd guess a feeling of responsibility is what keeps him campaigning.
[i]Ha Ha, just discovered Jack here on babble. See what not having tv does to you?[/i]
[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: skadie ]
Wed, 2002-08-14 01:23
#35
quote:
I just recently had a very disturbing experience with a man, and I'm not the soft-spoken type. And what did I do? Did I call him on his inappropriate behaviour? No, I was polite and tried to help him save face almost instinctively because I was so bewildered about how to respond.
Well, I think we have to take the word of the author of the e-mail Skadie quoted from, and not read too much beyond it. If he meant to say what you think he might have meant, it was incumbant upon him to say so.
Be that as it may, I see your point. What you may not realize though is that men face the same things too. People say the darndest things, and one can't respond with justified vitriole everytime. It's a judgement call how we handle these things, and believe it or not all men go through this too. It's part of life.
The question is, do women deffer more often just from the ubiquitous threat of violence, or as the author of the e-mail suggested, because of rape, and do ALL men benifit from this.
I can't answer the first part, I think only women can-- after they have done thier best to step outside their gender for a moment, and try to gain a perspective. I am thinking that some things women think happen because of their gender has other causation. As the author pointed out, the violence inherant in this system where the wealthy get to beat up on the poor and working class might be the real cause that women just happen to be caught up in.
The powers don't really take advantage of women, or natives or workers because they are women, natives or workers, but because they can. It's the nature of this system of economic libertinism. We are ruled, every man, woman, child, transgendered or any other catagory you care to name, by Sadists, in the true sense of that word.
As for the rape part of the question, one would have to assume that rape makes women-- all women--highly acquiescent to all the whims and desires of all men. Being in that group of all men, I can assure you that this runs contrary to my experience.
Wed, 2002-08-14 13:52
#36
writer
quote:
I can't answer the first part, I think only women can-- after they have done thier best to step outside their gender for a moment, and try to gain a perspective.
Tommy, this is really bogus. We HAVE perspective. It's a perspective gained by BEING WOMEN in an oppressive culture.
Back to the subject of this thread, "Sharing stories of violence":
Here is a subtle, but at the time very scary, example.
This happened when I was in my mid-twenties. I was on the subway, returning around 10 p.m. from a friend's barbeque. I was reading Harpers magazine - it had a cover about genetic engineering or something like that.
I was sitting in a seat right by a door. My head was bent down while I read. Suddenly, as the train slowed for its next stop, I felt a hand on my right breast, groping it. I looked up to see a guy around my age smile, then rush out the open door.
It all happened so fast.
Now, my first impulse was to raise bloody hell. But I stopped myself. That's because I realized I was the only woman in the car. I was going to be getting off after the next stop, and I didn't want to draw any more attention to myself than I already had.
And yes, most guys are fine. But some aren't. And I didn't want to set myself up as a vulnerable target for the next asshole who wanted to take an emotional ("weak") reaction as an invitation to follow me home.
I kept my face blank. I looked back down at the magazine, pretending to read. My hands trembled slighly, but I tried to keep it to a minimum.
A little while later, I told a guy I was dating about what happened. He laughed and said to me, "You mean you didn't recognize me?" (We didn't date for very much longer.)
Yeah, I'd thought he was a nice guy. I still think he's a nice guy. But I didn't think he was funny.
The good news is, I reminded him of this exchange a few years ago. He was horrified he'd said what he did.
Every man *does* benefit from the threat of rape. Women don't take jobs because of it; they cripple their independence because of it; they aren't assertive, challenging, confrontational because of it; they depend on "good" men to escort them, protect them, be valiant. "Good" men become princes in comparison to the bad.
Jack Layton is doing his bit to turn violence around. He's doing the least men can do to counter the putrid environment women have to navigate every day.
The dynamic Dworkin is pointing to will turn around when the genders are treated as equals socially, sexually, politically, culturally, economically. It's not a question of "blaming" all men for the actions of a significant segment of their gender. It's just naming the fallout for what it is.
It *is* similar to all whites having the advantage in a racist society. Better housing, better jobs, privilege in education ... etc.
Individual whites might protest against such racism, but I would think they do this in part because they recognize that the advantages they enjoy aren't fair, aren't earned and in fact lead to a larger kind of emotional / spiritual / human crippling of the potential we all carry within us.
[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]
Wed, 2002-08-14 15:50
#37
The self-imposed silence is a common response to incidents of sexual violence. I've experienced it myself, several times. The first was when a man grabbed my crotch - I was in a stereo store in downtown Winnipeg. I was shocked, and for some reason ashamed, and my 14-year-old sense-of-self just was not strong enough to raise any kind of hell whatsoever.
Later, I kept silent after another experience at university. About a year afterwards, having heard about many, many incidents of date rape and sexual violence on our campus, I wrote an anonymous editorial for our student newspaper. Why did I keep it anonymous? I just didn't feel safe talking about what happened to me - it was hard enough having people speculate about whether or not the author of the anonymous editorial brought what happened to her upon herself. Hell, it's hard enough just writing this.
The negative reaction to my editorial - and there was plenty at my small, catholic-dominated university - reinforced my instinct to keep silence. So did a lot of other things that happenend on that campus, for which perpetrators were identified but never punished. I had hoped that my editorial would let women know they weren't alone and to encourage them to speak to each other about it, at least. Sadly, all it did was highlight a perverse, dysfunctional and patriarchal climate at an institution of higher learning. This was a couple of years, by the way, before the famous "No means No" incident at Queen's.
I guess my point is that our culture doesn't encourage women to come forward - indeed, we've been told that we must somehow be responsible for the violence we experience, even if that is a random act by a pervert in a stereo store. This is pretty deeply ingrained, and not easy to overcome. When men make light of sexual violence towards women, or remain silent themselves, they do contribute to the systemic tolerance of violence and ensure its continuation.
[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: vickyinottawa ]
Wed, 2002-08-14 16:59
#38
It is rampant isn't it vicky? Insane that we can think we brought it on.
Jesus, has EVERY regular female poster been sexually assaulted? [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2002-08-14 17:17
#39
leads one to think the 51% statistic might be a bit off, huh?
Wed, 2002-08-14 18:22
#40
quote:
Tommy, this is really bogus. We HAVE perspective. It's a perspective gained by BEING WOMEN in an oppressive culture.
With all due respect and in the spirit of civil discourse, I don't think it's bogus at all. We do live in an oppressive culture, but to think it's designed specifically so that all men can go around either raping, or benifiting from rape indicates a certain myopia. As feminists who have been through sexual assault I can certainly understand this.
But we're also, most of us here, concerned with justice, and it's my view that even in the most challenging circumstances we all have to stand back, outside ourselves, so that we don't end up being like the blind men with the elephant.
quote:
Jesus, has EVERY regular female poster been sexually assaulted?
I have difficulty articulating my reaction to events like these when women have told me about them. Silence is not a sign of insocience in my case. I feel rather impotent, and I don't even want to bluster about "what I'd do to someone who'd do such a thing." As the Bard said, "Words, words, words."
I'm intruding here and this will be my last post on the subject. I always read the feminist threads here, and in spite of what it looks like, I don't often contribute.
I found the generalization about all men benifiting from rape, besides hurtful, and so far to me unsubstantiated, unhelpful if we are ever to address rape the way it should be addressed. And, to be honest, I think this goes a small way into ensuring my daughters face the same risks their mother and aunts faced twenty years before.
Wed, 2002-08-14 18:29
#41
writer
Speaking about our oppression in no way dismisses the fact that this culture oppresses others. However, throwing other oppressions up as a way of silencing us about our own experiences speaks for itself.
A person of Asian descent may well experience racism in a way that differs from a person of African descent. It's good for us to hear from both experiences, rather than demand that one must speak of all oppressions and not point to specifics.
My crotch and my tits are gendered. They've been assaulted by men. I make no apologies or rationalizations for this correlation.
As far as the assertion my statements about male privilege are unsubstantiated: do you go home alone at night? A lot of women can't. The figures have been provided in several threads. Now, you might not benefit directly from this one example, but I think I've referred to a number of other areas where you might have. If you've worked night shift, for example. Think of the implications of such a job for a woman afraid of rape. She doesn't take the job. You do.
[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]
Wed, 2002-08-14 18:37
#42
I had the same gut reaction to it too Tommy.
I found it hurtful, since, the two people most close and trusted to me in my life are men.
Please feel free to express your thoughts on how we as a society could combat it, I'd be interested to hear them.
Wed, 2002-08-14 18:44
#43
writer
Listen, I love men too. I just married one for god's sake. This isn't about dumping on men, just like saying whites benefit from racism isn't saying all whites are devils.
Geez.
Wed, 2002-08-14 20:41
#44
quote:
I found the generalization about all men benifiting from rape, besides hurtful, and so far to me unsubstantiated, unhelpful if we are ever to address rape the way it should be addressed. And, to be honest, I think this goes a small way into ensuring my daughters face the same risks their mother and aunts faced twenty years before.
I find the generalization very helpful, TP. It gets people talking, as you can see from this thread.
Your daughters DO face the same risks as adult women. I'm guessing the rates of violence against women aren't falling. How does it feel to know that your daughters will probably be or have already been assaulted? (Youth will definitely not protect them.) What do you want to do about it? What [i]can[/i] we do about it?
quote:
I can't answer the first part, I think only women can-- after they have done thier best to step outside their gender for a moment, and try to gain a perspective.
Let's try that the other way round.
Wed, 2002-08-14 21:20
#45
quote:
I'm intruding here and this will be my last post on the subject
I knew I'd regret that. I do try very hard to be a person of my word, but I think I've found a better, and more susinct way of explaining myself.
All whites do not benifit from racism. Racism divides people, most usually poor/working class people against each other so that the abuse can go on from above unabated.
How do poor Appalachian whites in the U.S. benifit from racism? It's the constant focus on hatred of blacks that keeps them from seeing who the heck it is that's keeping them in the trailer park.
This weekend one of my daughters is going to a friends cottage in Ipperwash. Most of us are familiar with the mess there. It's classic. All the tory and liberal post war governments are to blame for the mess there, but it boils down to Natives and local non-natives at each other's throats for Ottawa's cynicism. And, I have to warn my daughter about not straying on the former military base lest her white skin earns her a beating or worse. All because of the Sadism of Jean Chretien, Brian Mulroney, Pierre Trudeau, Lester Pearson, John Diefenbaker and Louis St. Laurent.
It's the same with rape. Why do rapes go unreported? Is it because rape "trains" women to be compliant to all men?
I submit it has more to do with a judicial system that, frankly, could give a flying fuck about crimes against individuals, be they men, women or children that aren't part of the ruling class. Rape doesn't divide all men and women, it is the fact that victims of rape don't get justice, or protection from a system that doesn't give it to anyone other than their own ilk.
That's the shell the pea is under, boys and girls.
Stories of violence.
I don't have any. When I was a preschooler or maybe a bit older, I stood by a display case of matchbox toys while my parents shoped for a new bed. An old guy came up and wanted to take me to a place where there were all kinds of these toys, for free. My dad had inculcated me, not on pedophiles, but on the fact that you don't get nothin' for free, and I told the old guy I wasn't interested, (born sceptic, I guess) and left at once. It would have been a story of violence, I'll tell you, if my dad would have got his hands on him.
I'd have a story of violence if it was my daughter a London judge would not let testify against her molester, on the basis that "she had no concept of divine retribution, rendering her oath invalid."
Or how about the B.C. judge that aquited a man because the little 5 year old girl he raped "acted in a sexually provocative way."
These are the cynics, the Sadists that allow animals to get away with their crimes, and keep people like us fearful.
You are right Skadie, it's a provocative statement that makes for discussion.
I'm only one guy. One working class guy. Unlike the wealthy in this society, I can't afford to purchase a politician so that my concerns for my daughters and loved ones get to the fore. I don't have connections that would get a Crown Attourney to give proper attention to crimes against individuals, instead of property which is the priority now, as it always has been.
I can only do what I can do. And to stand accused in all this of being part of the problem has me.....experiencing many emotions.....
If there was one effect I could have on the many factions on the left in Canada, it would be to draw attention to which shell the pea is under. I feel frustrated and alone in this.
Wed, 2002-08-14 21:44
#46
Twice, now. Oy.
quote:
Your daughters DO face the same risks as adult women. I'm guessing the rates of violence against women aren't falling. How does it feel to know that your daughters will probably be or have already been assaulted? (Youth will definitely not protect them.) What do you want to do about it? What can we do about it?
I've told my daughters that if it ever happens, we'd do what we had to do to help them recover, and that whatever they wanted to do about it, in regard to pressing charges or not, I'd assist them, one way or another.
That's a lie, of course. I don't know how much justice I'd expect from "the system". As you can see, I have little faith in it. I might give it the benifit of the doubt, and see what it could do.
More likely, I would fullfil my number one responsibility as a father, which is to ensure the safety of my daughter (s) against a recurrance. Hopefully, the justice system would do that. If not, then I would.
I do not tell my daughters this because I do not want them to protect me from myself by keeping silent.
Let me add that I'm not an advocate of vigilante justice. It's dangerous, it's uncivilized, it's criminal.
But so's our courts often enough.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't answer the first part, I think only women can-- after they have done thier best to step outside their gender for a moment, and try to gain a perspective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's try that the other way round.
[/QUOTE]
I can't possible imagine what it must be like to be groped or raped, or live with the fear of it. I can, like any other human on the planet, imagine what it is to suffer injustice. We all have that in common. Except, perhaps, idealogues.
Of all stripes.
Wed, 2002-08-14 22:48
#47
writer
But Tommy, a poor man assaulted me, as well as a middle-class teenager. Nobody rich that I can recall (the guy in the subway I don't know his class ... the guy on the bus, I didn't know his class ... they guy on the ... you get my point).
Poor white folks get a token of the privilege of whiteness: they get to be overtly racist against people of colour. I've heard working folks in Nova Scotia who'd never met an African Canadian talk more dirt than anyone I'd ever met before.
Poor men get to go into pharmacies and talk openly about how they'd like to fuck the pharmacist, depending on how old she is: "Anything over 30, it's like fucking a toilet bowl." Yeah, I heard it myself. I was waiting for my birth control pills at the time. Almost made me want to say that, on second thought, I wouldn't be needing them.
Poor men get to shout at me when I'm riding my bicycle: "Hey, honey, could I sniff your seat?" And say loudly to each other (while I pass a park): "She's going too fast." (Implying that, otherwise, they could grab me off my bike and drag me into the darkness of the park.)
In telling you about these incidents, I'm not saying poor people behave worse than rich ones. I am saying that a poor man sometimes seems to want to put me in my place: below him.
I would like to see the day when everyone is able to see everyone else as equally human.
Yes, class, race, gender, sexual orientation: all of these things are used to divide us. Some of us actively challenge the various structures of oppresion. Many more of us are complicit.
I choose to challenge the specific dynamics that are bred by the status quo. Because I name one specific one that is related to this particular thread does not mean I'm reduced to defining the whole world by that one dynamic.
It's a complicated world. We all learn more about it by listening to each other's experiences in it.
[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]
Wed, 2002-08-14 23:52
#48
Men do benefit from the rape of women. We can say it is a horrible empty benefit. As a revolutionary socialist, I despise rape and women's oppression. It dehumanizes people and it create barriers between people who could work together. However, the impetus is on men to chnage their own behaviour and to chalenge the behaviour of other men. Being a cool guy is not enough. It's OK, but won't do a lot to change anything.
The male response to all this seems very strange to me. I am a white married bisexual male. My political background is in antiracist/fascist, anti poverty, sexual liberation, peace, and labour solidarity direct action and propaganda work.
Why are guys so defensive? My family background is full of racist imperialist creeps, but that doesn't prevent me from joining cause with people of colour (including prisoners), the women's movement, and the victims of the capitalist death war machine. It seems bogus to me to try to seperate economic issues from other issues of oppression. Capitalism is founded on the gendered and racialized division of labour. To try to separate these issues is to fall in to the hand of liberal bourgeois ideology.
We need to avoid class reductionism. The two unions I've been involved in (CAW, and CUPE 79) have large numbers of immigrant and female workers.
Domestic workers are overwhelmingly women of colour. What matters more? Wages? Citizenship? Sexuality?
It's a false problem. I would point people towards the work of E.P. Thompson, Sheila Rowbotham, bell hooks, C.L.R. James, Himani Bannerji, and Pierre Bourdieu as theoreticians who grapple with the concrete practices of exploitation and oppression.
Dudes, give it up.
Thu, 2002-08-15 02:30
#49
[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: oldgoat ]
Thu, 2002-08-15 11:33
#50
quote:
Men do benefit from the rape of women. We can say it is a horrible empty benefit
That's absurd - if it's horrible and empty, it's not a bloody benefit, is it. No one benefits from sexual violence against women an no one really benefits from racism. Not society, not government, not the sick fucks who perpetrate it, not even the ruling elite. Not really. By saying things like "all men benefit from rape" and "all whites benefit from racism" implies that men and whites would somehow be worse off in a fair and egalitarian society that wasn't racist or sexist. Sorry, but that's just so fucked up. If we don't work from the assumption that everyone benefits from socioeconomic equity, then why bother? Why not just descend into the shit and mire that is the sum of our worst selves and be done with it?
Why not?
Because people on the left who haven't invested alot of emotion in eating their young and squabbling over scraps thrown to them by the controlling elite recognize that a committment to fairness and equity and support for diversity begins within one's own movement. If you can't even play nice with those closest to you, ideologically, then how the fuck are you going to convince anyone else that a fair society benefits everyone? Ya aren't.
Jeeze, sometimes...
Thu, 2002-08-15 11:51
#51
writer
Rebecca, I agree with you that in the larger sense of humanity, nobody benefits from oppression. However, in a capitalist culture, there are clearly winners and losers. And the pecking order from one end to the other helps keep folks in line, as so many are afraid of "losing their place."
If this weren't the case, we wouldn't still be living under capitalism, would we?
People are pushed into thinking that success means being on top. Fearing that they lose everything if the order breaks down. Recognizing this structure isn't "giving up."
Please.