Comment invited.

[Zeb_Carter]

There are quite a few items on the list that make no sense.

Do I as a male objectify females? Duh, I put them up on a pedestal, they are goddesses who should be worshiped for their special abilities.

Have I ever forced a woman, in any manner listed in that stupid list, to have sex with me? Not hardly. In my mind it's her choice. If I'm rejected by her, oh well there is someone, somewhere out there that will have me. I'm never the aggressor, it's too much work and the payoff wouldn't be as enjoyable.

I have I ever paid for sex? That depends on the definition of pay? I have taken a date out for dinner and a movie and she has consented to have sex with me, does that make her a hooker? Definitely not! It was her choice to go out with me. It was her choice to participate in the act of sex.

Do I think of women as strictly objects of sex? Hardly. Having said that, sexuality is a part of life. It will always be a part of life. Are there men who think that women were put on the planet to assuage his feeling of loneliness and shortcomings, the answer will be yes. But, I think they are the exceptions, not the rule.

I don't know this woman(man?) but after reading her(his) about section I am of the opinion that she(he) is a total wackjob.

Are some of her(his) points valid? Some. Are some invalid? A lot.

 

[Stella_Omega]

My view: The article overstated the case to get a reaction.

It probably seems overstated to you, and to anyone who hasn't spent time thinking about this stuff. But the writer wasn't actually writing it for public reaction, as she says time and again in the comments. She's writing for a smallish discussion group.

The exaggeration for effect can alienate people who might otherwise think about their own attitudes.

Like they were actually going to think about their own attitudes, if only someone was more polite? In my experience that's very very rare. People who jump on an excuse as lame as "Boohoo you were mean to me and now I won't vote for equal rights" were never going to do so anyway. Honest.

Unfortunately that damages the argument and trivialises what should be genuine and legitimate concerns.

A very common argument when people start talking about the details of anything. But that's like saying we shouldn't wash the forks and spoons because the floor has to be mopped.

 

[lisa123414]

.......

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Quite interesting that an article published anonymously by some self-styled "eve's daughter" (I guess that means she - if she is a she - subscribes to the basic Judeo-Christian concept of the origin and nature of women), and that follows an article entitled "Do I Feel Like a Cow: Thoughts about Non-Human Female Mammals," should generate such serious and extensive discussion among ourselves. Such lists can be fabricated by anyone at any time to make any claims about anybody. Wait a second...are you a member of a website that features stories of non-consenual sex, even if it requires the woman enjoy it? ...are you a contributor to such a website? ...and do you hide yourself behind a nickname as a member of such a website?

...Then you must be a rape-supporter (or any other bad thing you want to throw in here).

Been there, done that...Yes, I remember when a colleague found I didn't think libraries should report on what their readers read: he declared me to be a "supporter of terrorism."

 

[Stella_Omega]

I wish "comment invited" could be assumed to mean: "Informed comment invited."

sadly, it means "Pop one out on the page, kids."

Maybe her mother's name is Eve. Maybe she does feel like a cow at times.

Maybe her premise is worth serious discussion.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Unfortunately, as Dilbert so often wails, we ". . . are surrounded by idiots!"

 

[Loring2]

[raising hand and furiously waving]Oh, me, me, me! http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/wave.gif I treat men like sex objects. And I'm always looking for new volunteers

Why now that's downright generous of ya' and shows a purity of heart seldom seen in women ... brava

 

[Tio_Narratore]

I wish "comment invited" could be assumed to mean: "Informed comment invited."

sadly, it means "Pop one out on the page, kids."

Maybe her mother's name is Eve. Maybe she does feel like a cow at times.

Maybe her premise is worth serious discussion.

It is informed comment; I did read the article, and I am familiar with the arguments. And I will still maintain that anyone is free to nail their 95 theses to a door and hope for discussion. But Martin Luther put his real name at the bottom, and didn't attempt to hide behind a pseudonym (even if, in the highly unlikely case, she is the daughter of someone named "Eve").

More importantly, her premises aren't even theses; they are merely assertions with no argument in their support. Whether they emanated from Eve's daughter, Adam's son, or even the hairy thunderer itself, as mere assertions, they merit no more than idle discourse. If you do find some of them salient, than, by all means, have some substantive discussion of them, but each on its own merits, not on an anonymous concantenation of opinion.

 

[mynameisben]

The YouTube said it was HATE week.

No, no. YouTube said it was Hat week. I'm wearing a replica of the one Beatrice wore to the Royal wedding. And nothing else.

 

[Stella_Omega]

We've been having salient discussion.

Some of the most civil in years, in fact.

Why is there a problem with this?

 

[Tio_Narratore]

We've been having salient discussion.

Some of the most civil in years, in fact.

Why is there a problem with this?

I'll stand partially corrected and partially chastised. I really don't have a problem with the discussions we've been having, including my own comments. My error was in apparently implying we shouldn't have a serious discussion of the issue raised; I had meant the comment to be directed at discussion of the article itself.
The question of what is or is not respectful of a woman's right to her own sexuality is an important and worthwhile exploration. The attempt to villify anyone who doesn't share one's conclusion, even if well-thought out, however, is not part of such a meaningful discussion. The assertion by "Eve's daughter" that not subscribing to her views establishes one as "pro-rape" is just such a villification; that's why I compared it to my colleague's villification of myself for objecting to the idea of librarians spying for the government.
There may be some merit in the notion that "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem," but there is no merit in the idea that "if you're not part of MY solution, you're part of the problem."

 

[Stella_Omega]

Are you saying that YOU have a solution? And it's better than the one she has?

I think that the biggest problem with Handley's request for comments is that the post itself is written in jargon. it's a language usage that is specific to a group of people who are accustomed to talk about certain things. In no way, shape or form does she say, anywhere, that holding these attitudes means someone is pro rape. You read "Pro rape" out of her jargon phrase "rape supporter." You figure you know what she means-- don't we all. You figured, actually, wrong.

It's a bit like asking for comments on a post listing medical symptoms of something only more pernicious because we all assume we know what she's talking about (and also because feminist studies are held in such low regard I say again), and that we have a handle on things. If it were a medical site, people would be more aware that they may not understand the subtleties of language usage.

My suggestion if you really care to understand-- go back, read her responses to comments one more time. Or not, of course.

And seriously, putting her down for pseudonimity is truly unreasonable. I'll tell you a little secret-- my name is not actually Stella Omega. Do you have anything you'd like to share with us?

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Are you saying that YOU have a solution? And it's better than the one she has?

I think that the biggest problem with Handley's request for comments is that the post itself is written in jargon. it's a language usage that is specific to a group of people who are accustomed to talk about certain things. In no way, shape or form does she say, anywhere, that holding these attitudes means someone is pro rape. You read "Pro rape" out of her jargon phrase "rape supporter." You figure you know what she means-- don't we all. You figured, actually, wrong.

It's a bit like asking for comments on a post listing medical symptoms of something only more pernicious because we all assume we know what she's talking about (and also because feminist studies are held in such low regard I say again), and that we have a handle on things. If it were a medical site, people would be more aware that they may not understand the subtleties of language usage.

My suggestion if you really care to understand-- go back, read her responses to comments one more time. Or not, of course.

And seriously, putting her down for pseudonimity is truly unreasonable. I'll tell you a little secret-- my name is not actually Stella Omega. Do you have anything you'd like to share with us?

I'm sorry, I thought it was just a translation of your real name, Last Star, mixing Latin and Greek to confuse us all. Sorry, again Stella; I already adressed that. I fear (well, maybe fear is too strong a word) that you're leaping to conclusions without really reading what I've written. You seem to have decided I was wrong, and nothing I write will change that leap of confusion.
But I will attempt to point out at least one thing. Please read my last sentence more carefully; I said that there was no merit in the notion that "If you're not part of MY solution, you're part of the problem." That isn't a proposal that I have a solution, or that my not-solution is better than hers. It is saying, quite clearly and appropriately, that "Eve's daughter" is claiming that "if you're not part of HER solution, you're part of the problem," and that is what I object to. It is nothing less than malicious villification on purely personal grounds.
I fear, Stella, that your own anti-heterohegemony perspective has left you entirely mis-interpreting my comments merely because you perceived that they were at variance with yours. You may have sympathy with the writer because of your position, but that doesn't validate her holier-than-all collection of pseudotests. We were asked for comments on that article, and that's what I have done: comments on her article, not comments on the nature of male-female relations in the world throughout time.

 

[Stella_Omega]

This is odd, you and I don't usually have this much trouble understanding each other...

i see where I missed a couple of very important words, though:
My suggestion if you really care to understand what she is talking about-- go back, read her responses to comments one more time.

By which I mean: What she is saying is not what you seem to be hearing. Or:
The topic of her discourse is not the topic you seem to be responding to.
Or:
it's true that Handley asked for comments, but he probably should not have done so, since so very few people here have any basis for reasonable comment. That's not me putting anyone down, please note. I'm just saying that her area of enquiry is not common around here.

here's a rather similar post:
http://www.lymediseaseblog.com/lyme-disease-symptoms/

Comments?

(mine is: eeew! YUCK! And ohshit my eyeballs feel dry and sandy...)

 

[SydneyBlake]

No, no. YouTube said it was Hat week. I'm wearing a replica of the one Beatrice wore to the Royal wedding. And nothing else.

Maybe you've hijacked the thread, but I am LMAOing!!!

 

[Tio_Narratore]

This is odd, you and I don't usually have this much trouble understanding each other...

i see where I missed a couple of very important words, though:
My suggestion if you really care to understand what she is talking about-- go back, read her responses to comments one more time.

By which I mean: What she is saying is not what you seem to be hearing. Or:
The topic of her discourse is not the topic you seem to be responding to.
Or:
it's true that Handley asked for comments, but he probably should not have done so, since so very few people here have any basis for reasonable comment. That's not me putting anyone down, please note. I'm just saying that her area of enquiry is not common around here.

here's a rather similar post:
http://www.lymediseaseblog.com/lyme-disease-symptoms/

Comments?

(mine is: eeew! YUCK! And ohshit my eyeballs feel dry and sandy...)

Yes, usually we do, Stella, and I did read and reread the article. My comments, as I said, were not about the issue, but about the article. I have reread it again, and it still is the same: it is a concantenation of "tests" to see if, in her opinion, one is "pro-rape."

I think we agree that the socio-cultural control of women's sexuality is largely driven by a male-biased heteronormality, and that women (and men) should have the right to decide on their own sexuality. I would hope that we would also agree that anyone who sets themselves up as the final and ultimate arbiter of other peoples' sexuality is in deep hubris. I'm simply maintaing that this is what Eve'sdaughter has attempted to do with her test.

As to the comparison with Lyme Disease (and those poor citizens of Lyme, CT, to be stuck as the eponym of a disease that existed long before it was identified ), the symptoms of any disease, no matter how "yucky," should not be subject to moral evaluation, and are, therefore, very different from what Eve'sdaughter's list aims to do. I'm sure we wouldn't claim that someone who had one or more of those symptoms should be labeled "pro-Lyme Disease." In addition, those are observed and agreed-on factors that have been shown to be consequences of the infection. If Eve'sdaughter had offered any replicable basis to assess the relationship between the statements in her list and a sociopolitical position actually in support of rape (even unconsciously and/or indirectly), then I would have assessed the article differently. I am pleased to see that our discussion of the issue (not the article) here in the AH actually has been pretty much an effort to examine and assess such attitudes.

(And, since you raise the concern, I do consider that I have a reasonable basis for comment, having been an anthropologist for 40 years with extensive research and teaching in the Anthropology of Sex. I am quite familiar with varied cultural constructs of sexuality, including those in western societies.)

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yes, usually we do, Stella, and I did read and reread the article. My comments, as I said, were not about the issue, but about the article. I have reread it again, and it still is the same: it is a concantenation of "tests" to see if, in her opinion, one is "pro-rape."

Not "pro rape."
Supports rape culture.

Again, you mistake the meaning of the words because you aren't reading them as jargon.

And it isn't only in her opinion. Ths is a list compiled from conversations all over the world, and distilled from other lists.

I think we agree that the socio-cultural control of women's sexuality is largely driven by a male-biased heteronormality, and that women (and men) should have the right to decide on their own sexuality. I would hope that we would also agree that anyone who sets themselves up as the final and ultimate arbiter of other peoples' sexuality is in deep hubris. I'm simply maintaing that this is what Eve'sdaughter has attempted to do with her test.

It isn't her "test". it's a compilation of many such "tests."
The list doesn't arbitrate other people's sexuality. It describes a slew of attitudes, many of which many people hold, and which (according to the results of many conversations held in many other places at many times but were deemed unnecessary to reference within the context of the post itself) impact our rights-- women's and men's alike, but hugely more impact upon women-- to our own sexual decisions.

As to the comparison with Lyme Disease (and those poor citizens of Lyme, CT, to be stuck as the eponym of a disease that existed long before it was identified ), the symptoms of any disease, no matter how "yucky," should not be subject to moral evaluation, and are, therefore, very different from what Eve'sdaughter's list aims to do. I'm sure we wouldn't claim that someone who had one or more of those symptoms should be labeled "pro-Lyme Disease." In addition, those are observed and agreed-on factors that have been shown to be consequences of the infection. If Eve'sdaughter had offered any replicable basis to assess the relationship between the statements in her list and a sociopolitical position actually in support of rape (even unconsciously and/or indirectly), then I would have assessed the article differently. I am pleased to see that our discussion of the issue (not the article) here in the AH actually has been pretty much an effort to examine and assess such attitudes.

The post was not intended to address each single item in exhaustive detail because, as she has said, and as I have said, those examinations are available. It's simply a list. Handley discovered the middle of a conversation. I don't know if he understands that. It's very obvious that many of the "accidental tourists" that have found it don't understand that.

Sufferers of lyme disease suffer greatly, and not least from the medical community's ignorance of the disease. You might not feel any moral judgement has been passed upon you by the list of symptoms. But I'll betcha that some doctors might.

You could indeed be said to "support lyme disease" (e.g. supporting the proliferation of) if you ignored the symptoms or claimed that the person who complained of them was worried about trivial things and should concern themselves with what's important. Again, "supporting lyme disease" is in no way the same thing as being "pro lyme disease."

And also, not every lyme disease sufferer shows the same symptoms, and not everyone is bothered by the symptoms they do have. Also, it's more widespread then people think. I'm quite impressed with myself, I think I found a very good metaphor!

(And, since you raise the concern, I do consider that I have a reasonable basis for comment, having been an anthropologist for 40 years with extensive research and teaching in the Anthropology of Sex. I am quite familiar with varied cultural constructs of sexuality, including those in western societies.)

No kidding? i am delighted to make your acquaintance! I had the enormous pleasure of working for someone in the field for four years as secretary and personal assistant-- and caregiver until his recent death. I was the recipient of a certain amount of instruction in research methods and some history of Anthro.

And I'm going to apply my small anthropological knowledge of anthropologists and academics and say that explains SO much of your reaction.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Not "pro rape."
Supports rape culture.

Again, you mistake the meaning of the words because you aren't reading them as jargon.

And it isn't only in her opinion. Ths is a list compiled from conversations all over the world, and distilled from other lists. It isn't her "test". it's a compilation of many such "tests."
The list doesn't arbitrate other people's sexuality. It describes a slew of attitudes, many of which many people hold, and which (according to the results of many conversations held in many other places at many times but were deemed unnecessary to reference within the context of the post itself) impact our rights-- women's and men's alike, but hugely more impact upon women-- to our own sexual decisions.

The post was not intended to address each single item in exhaustive detail because, as she has said, and as I have said, those examinations are available. It's simply a list. Handley discovered the middle of a conversation. I don't know if he understands that. It's very obvious that many of the "accidental tourists" that have found it don't understand that.

Sufferers of lyme disease suffer greatly, and not least from the medical community's ignorance of the disease. You might not feel any moral judgement has been passed upon you by the list of symptoms. But I'll betcha that some doctors might.

You could indeed be said to "support lyme disease" (e.g. supporting the proliferation of) if you ignored the symptoms or claimed that the person who complained of them was worried about trivial things and should concern themselves with what's important. Again, "supporting lyme disease" is in no way the same thing as being "pro lyme disease."

And also, not every lyme disease sufferer shows the same symptoms, and not everyone is bothered by the symptoms they do have. Also, it's more widespread then people think. I'm quite impressed with myself, I think I found a very good metaphor! No kidding? i am delighted to make your acquaintance! I had the enormous pleasure of working for someone in the field for four years as secretary and personal assistant-- and caregiver until his recent death. I was the recipient of a certain amount of instruction in research methods and some history of Anthro.

And I'm going to apply my small anthropological knowledge of anthropologists and academics and say that explains SO much of your reaction.

I understand your comments and can see your point, even if I don't entirely agree with you. And I hope that your last comment refers to my field's propensity for cultural relativism, and not some stereotypical notion of "Anthropologist," given that you've worked with at leastone of my kind...

 

[Stella_Omega]

I understand your comments and can see your point, even if I don't entirely agree with you. And I hope that your last comment refers to my field's propensity for cultural relativism, and not some stereotypical notion of "Anthropologist," given that you've worked with at leastone of my kind...

As a sweeping generalisation, your kind are very... passionate about their theories, and protective of territory. I was truly shocked to discover how often professorial discussion included hurling the furniture!

 

[Tio_Narratore]

As a sweeping generalisation, your kind are very... passionate about their theories, and protective of territory. I was truly shocked to discover how often professorial discussion included hurling the furniture!

Only the furniture?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Only the furniture?

Well, reputations too, sometimes. Right through the window.

*nods*

 

[Handley_Page]

My sincere thanks to all participants. I even managed to learn a little.

However,

Stella: " You read "Pro rape" out of her jargon phrase "rape supporter." You figure you know what she means-- don't we all. You figured, actually, wrong. "

How can anyone support "rape", unless the word is somehow taken to mean something other than the sexual assault and penetration on a woman by a man ?

Oh, shut up, HP. Let those who know about these things discuss as they will.

 

[Stella_Omega]

My sincere thanks to all participants. I even managed to learn a little.

However,

Stella: " You read "Pro rape" out of her jargon phrase "rape supporter." You figure you know what she means-- don't we all. You figured, actually, wrong. "

How can anyone support "rape", unless the word is somehow taken to mean something other than the sexual assault and penetration on a woman by a man ?

Oh, shut up, HP. Let those who know about these things discuss as they will.

In the same way that one can "support child labor" even though one doesn't approve of it and would not countenance it happening right in their face.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=37866653&postcount=12

 

[Boxlicker101]

I believe she means just what she says. "Eve's Daughter" appears to be some kind of femininazi who thinks of every man as a rapist or a supporter of rape. Her list would include virtually every straight man in the US, so she is saying all men support rape. In this, she is much like Susan Brownmiller.

What I'm saying is that "Rape supporter" means a supporter of raping women, rather than some kind of psychological jargon.

That is strictly my opinion. Yes, I am a linear thinker. I strongly believe in Occam's razor.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I believe she means just what she says. "Eve's Daughter" appears to be some kind of femininazi who thinks of every man as a rapist or a supporter of rape. Her list would include virtually every straight man in the US, so she is saying all men support rape. In this, she is much like Susan Brownmiller.

What I'm saying is that "Rape supporter" means a sjupporter of raping women, rather than some kind of psychological jargon. eek:

That is strictly my opinion. Yes, I am a linear thinker. I strongly believe in Occam's razor.

I'm not surprised you would call her a "feminazi." Your razor is very single-edged and quite dull-- and held in your shaky hands cuts a ragged wavering line...

But you do have it right, she is saying that virtually every man and woman in the US supports the culture that supports the attitudes that facilitate rape.

They don't want to-- but they do.

It isn't malice.

It's just that we tend to judge other people only as they relate to ourselves, in so many ways, and not as they relate to themselves, and each and every one of the things on the list are examples of objectivising other people.

And we don't want to look at that. It takes us out of our comfort zone, so we call her a feminazi.

Nearly every man, woman and child here supports child labor in foreign countries.

We don't mean to, and none of us would want to see those children in our face-- but we want the sneakers and cheap pretty dresses and cool toys for our own kids, and we want them at a price we judge to be "cheap" and we don't want to have to care about where those things were made.

But because the practice of foreign goods is not so deeply entrenched into our society, we don't get all up on our hinders when someone points it out, and call them "nazis" for-- paradoxically-- agitating for compassion and better treatment for half of our population.