Peter Hitchens blames women if they get drunk

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
[b]You have to stand in sheer bogglement at the nerve of the guy.[/b]

---

No actually, I do not. He is not any different than the men who think they can take, and think it is our fault for some reason.

And he was was trying to frame the arguement that women maybe be claiming rape for the money they get.

The whole thing was misogynist, and racist as well.

I had trouble reading this. Kept checking if I was asleep. So much wrong.

I'm scared that this is still disseminated to the masses.

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooter:
[b]The guy lacks empathy. I suspect he would be upset at smokers requiring expensive lung cancer treatment.[/b]

---

Maybe only if said smokers are women. [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]

I don't why I read the article, and getting myself all riled up in the process, but, here comes a rant.

quote:

---

So I suppose we must resign ourselves to the fact that a growing slice of our taxes will be handed over to victims of unsolved rapes, while rape itself increases – the inevitable result of the collapse of sexual morality.

---

Um, sexual morality has nothing to do with anything. Rape is a crime, whether we live in a sexually open time/place or not. And you know what, I bet all of us would love more prosecution of rapists, leading to fewer monetary settlements. Hey, I'm such a wacky feminist dreamer I hope for (and work for) a world with less rape and sexual assault.

He's such an asshole.

And this?

quote:

---

The collapse of the Tory party into the arms of Leftism

---

. What planet is he on, like seriously?

Oh - from the Daily Fail, that explains a lot.

quote:

---

suspect it is the result of the almost total failure of the criminal justice system to prevent crime, catch culprits or punish them when caught. Instead of offering justice, the state provides a cheque.

---

Okay, I'll give him something here - but that's a much more general issue.

quote:

---

rape itself increases – the inevitable result of the collapse of sexual morality.

---

Nope - not buying it. Historically, there was as much or more rape at times of strong "conventional" sexual morality than there is today.

quote:

---

This is flatly untrue and she must know it is. Of course she is culpable, just as she would be culpable if she crashed a car and injured someone while drunk, or stepped out into the traffic while drunk and was run over.

---

False analogy. Those have to do with the effects of actions you take while in a state of intoxication you caused. This is why you shouldn't be entitled to compensation because you got drunk and walked into a wall. Rape is someone else's decision.

I think it's "men" not "most men" but I could be wrong.

I think his point is that women should be faulted for letting down their guard around men, given that we men are animals unable to control ourselves. This is the argument of conservative moralists like George Gilder and Steven Goldberg - who wrote "...female wisdom comes from resignation to the reality of male aggression". Taking a cue from Virginia Woolf, Dworkin took apart the trap inherent to that ideology in her brilliant essay [url=http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIID.html]"Biological Superiority: The Most Dangerous Idea in the World"[/url]

[ 22 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Nothing offers more proof--sad, irrefutable proof--that we are more like men than either they or we care to believe.

---

hear hear

This thread makes me very uncomfortable, and I can't quite figure out if it is; all the men who are posting in it, minkepants oblique slam against women, by using Dworkin's words to support some personal position of his, or Martin's words of "sexual liberals", or all of the above.

quote:

---

Originally posted by minkepants:
[b]how's it a slam? by slamming myself? my gender? I liked the Dworkin article. That's it. If I wanted to say something nasty I dont have to hide my light under a bushel, I'd say it straight up. If you dont want men posting in this forum than you should suggest that it become segregated. [/b]

---

How did you slam yourself?

Then how about you say what you meant by your "here here", straight up? I would love to hear you explain what exactly you meant.

As for your your last segregated comment, get a grip, there are more men posting in this thread than women, and it is telling that you choose to:

1. Frame your words in a "Christian" sub text

2. Take exception to my taking exception to all the men making comments in this thread, as opposed to women

[url=http://www.sooeys.com/viewtopic.php?t=4202&start=15&sid=5ebd23b9e141afe8... troll is back:[/url]

quote:

---

Originally posted by minkepants on Sooey's:
[b]What fucking fun is it to argue with some dishrag on babble?[/b]

---

Okay, martin. but you've beaten this drum before. you've actually equated consenting adults engaging in sex with more than one partner over time to the abusive relationships found Bountiful, etc. You've called it the desire for a "harem".

so i'm not too concerned about who or what you label a "sexual liberal"; i'll probably wear the title with pride.

And what an effin' con-job! You've managed to take the rantings of a paleoconservative ex-trotskyist dork (like his neoconservative ex-trotskyist dork Christopher)and turn it into an attack on "sexual liberals"!

This is about someone who would suggest women get what they deserve when they get raped. That's pretty vile, in my estimation. Are you attempting to suggest that unless one agrees with you about porn that one must therefore be supportive of Hitchens' perspective?

Tell me you're not trying to go there.

No, I am not trying to go there. Try as I may, I can't even understand how [b]you [/b]got there. My reasoning was Hitchens = sexual conservative (like Gilder), the kind attacked along with female essentialists by Dworkin. Sexual liberals - as defined by radical feminists - falsely attacked Dworkin as essentialist. But there is no way I am labeling anyone as sex liberal, nor that I am suggesting one has to agree with Dworkin to hate Hitchens.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
[b]I lack empathy. I see too many idiot smokers who have no empathy for the damage they do to themselves, never mind their families, in their selfish preoccupation with substance abuse.[/b]

---

I see too many idiot consumers who have no empathy for the damage they do to everyone, never mind their families, in their selfish preoccupation with hedonistic pleasures, and self gatifying hobbies, because they can "afford" them. Say nothing of their addictions to said hedonisitc pleasures and hobbies.

No actually, was just pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in your words. Everybody thinks their addiction is better than others, and thus bash others to try and make themselves believe theirs isn't as destructive. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Hitchens is a tool. REBEL!

Can't keep keeping on like this.

You've noted your concern about the men in the thread, however, I'm glad I could learn something here today.

I wish I knew how to talk about this because some men I know wouldn't get it.

minkepants. Generally, I try to be blind to what people do on other forums, but you've clearly blurred those bounderies yourself.

If you post one more word on the feminist forum you're gone. In fact likewise, if you endorse that sentiment elsewhere on babble.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b]

Above you addressed the notion you thought it was "men" not "most men".

That has not been my findings, over the years. There has definitely been men, I have know(n)/understand who understand raping a woman is their choice, not the woman's/girls, under any circumstance.

What exactly do you think these men you know wouldn't get?[/b]

---

I said "some" and not "most" but pedantry aside, I think it's just very upsetting for me that some men I know couldn't see what's wrong with the drunk woman excuse.

I know I should do better iin choosing my social circle, but life's not easy.

That's why I just mentioned I hope I can learn better tips to get through their thick skulls.

quote:

---

Well perhaps you could say to them something along the lines of:

ok guy(s), if you got rolled, while out drunk and someone stole all your money, it then would be your fault that someone stole your money/possessions, by the same token?

---

Actually, I would venture that some men would say yes to that question, or would at least acknowledge part of the responsibility. (Please note that I am NOT saying that sexual assault victims ought to; I am just suggesting that this is the wrong analogy to raise awareness with.)
I feel that robbery - even with some violence - is, to a great extent, a mere crime of opportunity. Rape, OTOH, calls for more of a mindset, one where some one else's sexual integrity is discounted and sexual access is forcibly taken, indeed whether the person attacked is incapacitated or not. There is more, in rape, of a power over, misogynist, this-is-how-I-like-sex attitude than there is in the mere taking of money.
ETA: Another reason why what-if-it-happened-to-you analogies rarely work when discussing rape with men is that sex isn't a realm of danger for most men. Asked how they would feel if they woke up in the bed of a women who had taken advantage of their drunkenness, I venture that most men would say "Great!". They don't feel threatened by women. A more adequate analogy - although it brings in and may reinforce homophobia - would be to tell a man "How would you be feel about being sent to to jail and raped because you didn't bother paying a string of car tickets? Would you feel "Hey, it's tough but I just should have paid those tickets..."

[ 24 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Here is a possible distinction. In "Men who Rape" (1984), Tim Beneke interviewed convicted rapists. One of his respondents told him: "I hid at a street corner, determined to rape the fist women who would walk by" and he did. There was clearly premeditation on his part, it was only the identity of the victim that was determined by opportunity. In a more common scenario, a man who suddenly feels it is a good time to "make a move" on an acquaintance and doesn't take No for an answer can use as an excuse the notion of taking advantage of an opportunity, because he is less conscious of his premeditation, although his conscious decision is totally there, if clouded by conveninent self-talk (e.g. "she wants it"). In a third case, that of serial rapists - including many soldiers - opportunity as cause is not part of the picture: they rape systematically.

My point is not that opportunity isn't relevant, but that there is much more animus involved than in robbery.

I hope this doesn't sound glib: I am trying to make sense of rapists' dynamics, but I realize this can be painful or triggering to survivors of sexual assault, and I apologize if it is so.

Nice points remind. Power over is taken for granted in our society by men. As well, our language and beliefs, culturally, lend false credence to this, that someone can be "made" to do something as oppose to choose to do something. "You made me fall in love with you" "the boss made me soooo angry" etc... It becomes an easy extension for aggressing males to use the language to blame women for choices they make for themselves. Just think about the kinds of blaming women get -- for how we dress, talk, move, smell, breathe, sneeze, scratch our arses. Conveniently our language/beliefs regarding personal power and responsibility fits the purposes of an oppressive social structure.

[ 26 August 2008: Message edited by: WendyL ]

quote:

---

Do you think it is just convenience, or do you think it is a contrived state of being?

---

Ah, remind, I know it is designed to support an oppressive structure -- my use of 'conveniently' was just a touch of facetiousness. I would venture to guess that you know the same. I am ignorant of linguistic theory, so can't go there with this, but the oppression of peoples is always a purposeful (i.e., planned)and nuanced system. Women and children are abused as part of a systemic bias which has been carefully put into place and is bolstered by finely wrought conventions, laws (or lack thereof), desires. Within our society, we teach our daughters to be victims (talking here in the larger sense of what our social structures and values perpetrate, not what each of us individually teaches them as inoculation and just fucking good sense). So, the fight is long and tiring, even tedious at times. That is why folks the likes of babblers, with a couple of exceptions,are babbling. A damned fine thing that they are, that they have been, and that they will continue.