I don't know... don't you think that Blacks have long been told not to act uppity, gays not to look effeminate, lesbians to defer to men in their attitude, etc. etc., all this in justification of overt acts of discrimination/violence?
[ 25 January 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]I don't know... don't you think that Blacks have long been told not to act uppity, gays not to look effeminate, lesbians to defer to men in their attitude, etc. etc., all this in justification of overt acts of discrimination/violence?[/b]
Good points, and yes I do, but was in this instance talking about violence victims. And should have perhaps qualified the focus a bit more.
Women/grrrls, in my opinion, have more acts of violence, induced by hate, perpetuated against them than any other identifiable group. And when women belong to other identifiable groups, the hate experienced has potential to be much higher. For example the Picton murders, the murders along the 'highway of tears' and the serial murders in the Edmonton area.
Violence against females, induced by hate, runs the spectrum from; murder, assault, rape, through to, verbal and emotional abuse, sexual and labour exploitation.
Yes, I agree -- with the proviso that the women's movement has had to fight for decades for violence againt women to be recognized as that in the first place. Few people know that there weren't any books published about incest, rape in general or wife-battering until the seventies. The words barely existed; most are still wrapped in euphemism such as "domestic violence". As an early feminist wrote, these assaults used to be just called "life"...
So, could it be that we White folks are not yet seeing and protesting as hate crimes the violence waged againt non-Caucasians in war or in the "management" of Canada's Aboriginals, for instance?
Th MSM daily bombards us with ideological railing against Iranians, Afghans, Arabs, Muslims, the Palestinians, the Chinese & North Koreans, Indians (I can't keep score!)... and with biased accounts of 'crises' and Western 'fears' justifying more bombings, boycotts and invasions.
Isn't that hatred too, the difference being not the number of deaths (there are much much more on their side), but the fact that misogynist hatred & exploitation cuts closer to home, dividing the White community -- beside its selective focus on minority women, especially in issues such as commercial sexual exploitation?
I don't want to sound as if I am preaching but I do know that, as an Euro-Canadian, I have been trained to have the kind of selective vision that tends to normalize a "natural" hostility to groups deemed "ethnic" as something justified by what *they* are alleged to be doing...
I wouldn't call that less than hatred if it justifies wars of aggression and emprisonment of civilians in concentration camps such as Guantanamo, with nary a peep from Canadian elected officials.
This said, I totally support the anti-rape activism and awareness-raisng referenced here. I just don't think women are the only group being told how to conduct themselves to avoid assaults.
[ 25 January 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b] Violence against females, induced by hate, runs the spectrum from; murder, assault, rape, through to, verbal and emotional abuse, sexual and labour exploitation.[/b]
In large part, these things occur to women both inside, and outside the home, at work, leisure time, everywhere in fact. There's very few places that offer safety from it.
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Yes, I agree -- with the proviso that the women's movement has had to fight for decades for violence againt women to be recognized as that in the first place. Few people know that there weren't any books published about incest, rape in general or wife-battering until the seventies. The words barely existed; most are still wrapped in euphemism such as "domestic violence". As an early feminist wrote, these assaults used to be just called "life"...[/b]
Frankly, I do not believe it is recognized for what it is, it has been named yes, it is still internalized and shrugged off as life, by not only men.
I do not want want to deflect away from a discussion about sexual assaults and other acts of violence against women, as acts of hate, and not being recognized as such, into the areas of race hate, wars, etc, I only mentioned it to acknowlege awareness that there is a continuing scale of violence, and/or overlooked violence, within the ranks of sisterhood, beyond what white women experience.
[ 25 January 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]I only mentioned it to acknowlege awareness that there is a continuing scale within the ranks of sisterhood, beyond what white women experience.[/b]
Can you clarify what this means?
quote:
Originally posted by rural - Francesca:
[b]Can you clarify what this means?[/b]
Edited my post above for more clarity, hope that helped.
are you saying that sexual crimes against white women are more seiously therefore (and this is my interpretation so please forgive if I error) white women have it better in terms of sexual assult?
quote:
I do not want want to deflect away from a discussion about sexual assaults and other acts of violence against women, as acts of hate, and not being recognized as such, into the areas of race hate, wars, etc, I only mentioned it to acknowlege awareness that there is a continuing scale of violence, and/or overlooked violence, within the ranks of sisterhood, beyond what white women experience.
Yes, but reading that, one might assume that women of colour are being more abused then white women and then the finger pointing would then be on men of colour.
my concern is that we'd message that white women are fine, or that it doesn't happen to them, or that those that are white and have been assaulted she be glad they are not of colour too.....
Okay for further clarification, as it seems my examples way above were not integrated into concepts.
Picton, and the man from Abbotsford, who was just arrested, were able to carry on murdering women for years without getting caught. Why? Because the majority were FN's and marginalized white women, and were even further down the bias scale as they were also sex trade workers. If there was a serial murder running around North Van, the police and Vancouver society at large would have been up in arms much much faster.
If there were white women being burnt in the fields outside of Edmonton, there would be full scale efforts to find out who the hell is doing that, until they were found, instead of it being backburnered.
And I believe men, the most hate filled against women, choose the most marginalized to conduct their hate upon.
Just as abusive men pick women who have already been victimized, so that they can inflict their hate easier and with more success.
That is the type of continuing scale I meant.
