Rape, Violence and Terorism

[sweetnpetite]

This article is a little dated, but makes some very strong and very valid points. It is about stopping the war in Afganastan, which I actually think is a whole other subject. I am not posting it to discuss the war or oppinions on the war, but to discuss other points made in the article.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Rape and Violence Against Women Have Always Been Terrorism:
Are We So Keen To Go to War for All Women?

Stop the presses, the feminist revolution is finally happening! Some liberal and moderate American feminists are actually calling for war to end women's oppression. In light of the crimes committed against Afghan women by the Taliban, they say, decisive military action is the only recourse. Some are even chiding their more radical sisters (those, say, who are participating in peace marches and anti-militarism protests) for their lack of enthusiasm.
The newly militant liberal feminists say that under the circumstances, the radical feminists have misplaced their loyalty--their "pacifism" is incomprehensible and indefensible. It almost looks as if the radicals and the moderates have switched places: all of a sudden it's the mainstream feminists who are ready to defend women's lives, rights, and dignity with armed force.

Some feminist leaders are offering very public support for the U.S. government invasion of Afghanistan. On C-Span, I recently saw Feminist Majority president Ellie Smeal testify before Congress about the oppression of women in Afghanistan. She spoke eloquently of the need for women to have a role in the reconstructed post-war government. Mavis Leno, another Feminist Majority representative, reiterates that the Taliban must be "collapsed," that women must have a place at the table to form the new government. Neither of these women calls for an end to the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan. Nor in any of their frequent TV appearances have I heard either one even acknowledge that their government is terrorizing and dropping bombs on the heads of the same women they care so much about.1 Nor have I heard either one acknowledge the brutal rape and other terrorism against women practiced by the warlords in the Northern Alliance, the faction the US is currently backing.

Look who all else is talking about women's rights now! Newt Gingrich, a self-proclaimed "hawk," says that to win the military war, first the U.S. must win the "moral arguments"; among other things, he says, we must show that "we are against the side who would oppress women." 2 On the Fox evening news, Haron Amin, a spokesman for the Northern Alliance, accused the Taliban of practicing "misogyny," "gender apartheid," and the "feminization of poverty." The next day, a Fox talking head threw his arms up right in the middle of a broadcast and cried out in frustration, "Don't you see what they are doing to women?!" Later the same commentators, so concerned about women being excluded in Afghanistan, defended the overall invisibility of women in most discussions about the war; that it's only rich, white all male generals and militarists being showcased by the U.S. media. With the exception of token Condoleezza Rice, our government's recent global round-table meetings look as segregated at the Taliban's.

Then there’s George W. Bush's expressed concern. I never even knew his limited vocabulary included the word "oppression" until he used it several times last week when talking about the "evil-doers" oppressing women. But I don't trust him to have any real compassion for, or comprehension of, women's oppression in Afghanistan--or anywhere. When Bush said women in this country shouldn’t have to be afraid he was speaking against racism, against harassment of Muslim women. But when he added that women shouldn’t be afraid to be under the veil in this country, it sent a shudder down my spine. Among the millions of propaganda flyers the US is scattering over Afghanistan there is one that shows the Taliban hitting a woman with a stick. It reads, "Do you want your [emphasis mine] women to live this way?"

All this government and media hand-waving about 'women in Afghanistan' is a day late and a dollar short after such a conspicuous, and lengthy, lack of concern; the Taliban has been murdering, imprisoning and dispossessing, disenfranchising and dehumanizing Afghan women for almost a decade. It's also manipulatively, transparently selective: we're all upset about the oppression of women by the Taliban "bad guys," but similar restrictions and abuses are fine when it's the Saudi "good guys" who are doing it. In the propaganda carnival surrounding Mr. Bush's war, women are being used for a specific agenda, not defended in their own right and for their own sake.

Show me how bombing Afghanistan has thus far improved, or is likely to improve, the material conditions of life for any Afghan woman. Show me how Bush's closing of the country's borders helps women--it keeps them trapped in Afghanistan between American bombs and two armies of male thugs. Show me how the US, with its fundamentalist and patriarchal allies, is challenging "fundamentalism" in this campaign---particularly, how are we challenging the oldest fundamentalism of all?

 

[sweetnpetite]

Systematic male privilege is the first fundamentalism. Has anyone wondered where the women fire fighters and cops were in all that "brotherhood" in the aftermath of 9.11? Why were, according to the Red Cross, eighty percent of those killed in the World Trade Center men? Didn't Cantor Fitzgerald, and the other corporations in the upper echelons of those buildings, hire very many women? It's not just the burqa and the Taliban that can make women invisible.

The ill-treatment of women occurs not only in "radical Islamist" countries, but in most countries on Earth. Women are statistically about 50 percent of the world population, but they work 2/3 of all the world's working hours, receiving only 1/10 of world income, and owning less than one percent of all world property. When was the last time any US politician made changing these conditions a top national priority? Are we sending in the Marines to enforce land reform? To protect women's right to unionize? To bust the traffickers who betray refugee women's hopes of a better life, steal their passports, reduce them to indentured sexual servants?

Filipina and Bangladeshi migrant laborers work as "maids" under conditions described as "modern-day slavery" in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Lebanon and worldwide, 3 but we never hear about them on Fox news. The World Health Organization estimates 200,000 to 400,000 women die worldwide every year from illegal, incompetently-performed abortions. The women in Nigeria who are stoned to death in the streets weren’t mentioned by the press, or anyone else, during the recent visit there by George W. Bush. Female infanticide, rigorously suppressed by Mao's regime, has made a comeback in China. We don't notice U.S. politicians getting all bent out of shape about it.

Millions of women in Africa are infected with AIDS, not because they are promiscuous or careless, but because their husbands or boyfriends are promiscuous and refuse to use condoms, or because they are raped by male acquaintances or strangers who are infected. There are insurance companies in South Africa which sell "rape insurance" because the incidence of rape is so high. Rape in an AIDS-infected country is not just about pain and humiliation--it can be a death sentence. But we don't hear U.S. politicians railing about this, or demanding that South African women have representation in government.

Many women come to the U.S., the "land of freedom," only to be used as indentured, captive labor in sweatshops no different from the ones they worked in back home. You can find captive women in the U.S.--women afraid of a husband's fist or of the sweatshop boss, women who have to ask permission to go to the bathroom, who are threatened with violence if they complain about health hazards in their workplace, who can't get their passports back from the thugs who run the operation.

Even women born here might merit our attention. Our tens of thousands of prostituted women and girls -- in Des Moines IA, Los Angeles CA, Portland OR, Your Town USA--beaten and threatened by their pimps, abused by their "customers," what about them? Their deaths go uninvestigated, their lives undocumented--when did the US government last get all concerned about these oppressed and endangered women? In NYC, the cops traditionally don't even start to investigate until numerous prostitutes are killed in one month. We apply a different standard to ourselves and our allies, and not just the brute squad that calls itself the Northern Alliance. Women are not allowed to drive cars in Saudi Arabia, but we don't hear men lamenting about this discrimination on the news every night.

In 1987 the Turkish government enacted its so-called "Anti-Terror Laws." Amnesty International informs us that under these laws, women prisoners and detainees in Turkey have been subjected to genital electroshock, "virginity testing," rape (including rape with objects), and other forms of torture and sexual assault while in official custody. Now that Turkey is "with us" against the Taliban--are we likely to hear criticism of these atrocities against women any time soon? Don't hold your breath.

Bearing all this in mind, can anyone really believe the U.S. is invading and bombing yet another country, threatening millions of refugees with starvation and who knowns what else, 4 just because Afghan women are being subjected to patriarchal persecution and violence?

When our boys drop airline meals5 into mine fields, or intentionally target Red Cross hospitals, is it all in the service of our grand humanitarian mission to liberate the women of Afghanistan? To free the women of Afghanistan from those stifling garments so frighteningly similar to body bags? Of course it isn't.

Our national leaders, the ones aching to be the policemen of the world and most recently the great protectors of womankind, won’t be the ones to liberate the women of Afghanistan. They aren't the "good guys." In war (and peace) these gentlemen will rape and plunder women as their war booty, strip them in "gentlemen’s clubs," and buy and sell them in prostitution. A goodly number of them beat their girlfriends and wives. They write sexist, misogynist messages on the heads of their bombs. Eight percent of female Persian Gulf War veterans in one survey reported being sexually abused during Desert Shield and Desert Storm. That's how much U.S. soldier-boys care about women. They beat, rape and sexually harass even their wives, their lovers, and their sisters in arms; consider what Afghan women have to look forward to, under U.S. occupation. Ask the women and girls of Okinawa, if you can't figure it out for yourself.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Let's get real here. Women don't matter now any more than they did when the Northern Alliance was raping them. The U.S. media paid no attention to the abuse of women then. Along came the Taliban, our "freedom fighters" against the Godless Commies, and what they did to women still didn't matter much--except in the frantic email petitions feminists were spamming each other with on the Internet. Now the U.S. is buying the rapists guns, dropping them ammo, feeding them, training them to be even more effective killers and helping them to regain control of 'their country'--does anyone imagine this won't include regaining control of 'their women'?

The human rights of the women in Afghanistan don't matter any more now than they did when CNN showed, for the first time in the beginning of September, the extraordinary documentary "Beneath the Veil." It appeared briefly and sank without a trace; only outraged feminists reviewed it, made videotape copies, and mentioned it in their petitions and letters to editors. It's one of the most brave and important documentaries I've ever seen in my life, but it made the very tiniest splash on the slick surface of U.S. media culture.

It wasn't until we needed some wartime propaganda that 'Beneath the Veil' suddenly started being aired multiple times per day on CNN, over several weekends. All of a sudden, in October, it re-emerged and it became terribly important that everyone in America see this essential documentary--if not on CNN, then excerpted on all their affiliates many times over. One article referred to it as "heavy rotation".

Though they may be temporarily first in the soundbites, women are the very last item on the agenda. If the U.S. could still 'make the Taliban obey' like a kept woman or an obedient wife, we would still be funding the Taliban. If the U.S. could "own" the Taliban, their treatment of women would have remained irrelevant, as it has been for the last several years; as it has been for every other dictator, king, shah, sheik, geek, tyrant or tinhorn terrorist we’ve ever backed.

But the Taliban is biting the hand that fed it for so long, and now its misdeeds are suddenly all hand-wringingly shocking and dreadful, where before they were mere boyish pranks or temporary rough spots in the transition away from Godless Communist rule. In fact, Afghani women will be fortunate if they get any say in the new government at all. By the time the war is over and the Great Powers once again sit down to impose a government on the defeated party, a focus on women's rights will no longer be strategically advantageous to the U.S.

No nation on earth has ever gone to war for women's rights. We are not likely to be the first.

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/terrorism/terrorism1.html

 

[neonlyte]

This the latest position on rape in UK.

Government figures show 5.6% of rapes reported to the police end in conviction. Since figures support that only 25% of rapes are reported to police, a UK rapist can rape 50 women, statistically, before risking conviction.

In a recent poll, 34% agreed a woman was 'partially or totally responsible' for her rape if she 'behaved in a flirtatious manner'.

26% in the same poll blame her for 'wearing revealing clothing.'

Judges have recently stopped rape trials where the woman was drunk at the time of the rape - on the basis that she cannot 'be absolutely certain' the attack happened. As one journalist said (using nicer language) 'if the judge had had a hairy prick shoved up him after drinking a bottle of Port, he'd certainly remember it in the morning.

In answer to your question, don't expect any immediate help from the UK.

Nice to see you sweets.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

What's wrong with prostitution or strip clubs? Where did this outrage against our servicemen come from, anyway?

 

[sweetnpetite]

This the latest position on rape in UK.

Government figures show 5.6% of rapes reported to the police end in conviction. Since figures support that only 25% of rapes are reported to police, a UK rapist can rape 50 women, statistically, before risking conviction.

In a recent poll, 34% agreed a woman was 'partially or totally responsible' for her rape if she 'behaved in a flirtatious manner'.

26% in the same poll blame her for 'wearing revealing clothing.'

Judges have recently stopped rape trials where the woman was drunk at the time of the rape - on the basis that she cannot 'be absolutely certain' the attack happened. As one journalist said (using nicer language) 'if the judge had had a hairy prick shoved up him after drinking a bottle of Port, he'd certainly remember it in the morning.

In answer to your question, don't expect any immediate help from the UK.

Nice to see you sweets.

Thanks neo-

I guess those women can't help feeling that way, they've never been taught any other way to think about it. Somehow women always seem to bear the brunt of responsibility for both our own *and* men's sexual behavior. We are considered the 'gate keeper.' It is our job to anticipate when a man 'won't be able to control himself' and avoid those type of situations.

There are always 'good rape victims' and 'bad rape victims.' A good victim is one that let's the threat of rape control her evey move. She dresses so as not to excite the boys. She stays home after dark. She is not too independent- she would never go *anywhere* alone, but always accompanied and best if accompanied by a male. Even then, if she's not a virgin, and under the age of 10 or over the age of 90, she will likely be cast in the light of doubt over her 'part' in the rape.

People need to be tought that RAPE IS TERRORISM. And in the US after 9-11 what did we hear over and over again- 'if we let them change our way of life, they have already won.' Letting the fear of being raped limit our activies limits our lives, keeps us in our place- afraid, at home and never out without a chaperone- no better than children, hardly better than if our laws required such behavior.

 

[sweetnpetite]

What's wrong with prostitution or strip clubs? Where did this outrage against our servicemen come from, anyway?

Well, I admit, it was a bit over the top in some areas. However as far as prostitution and stip clubs go- the article is talking about the many instances where women are forced into these situations and mistreated and can expect no help from the law. The point isn't that prostitutes and strippers are bad- it's that they are ignored and unprotected by lawmakers, polititions and police.

When servicemen commit crimes against women (rape, abuse, sexual harrasment, ect.) there *should* be outrage. Not that every serviceman is a rapist- but neither should he be exempt from outrage if he behaves in the manner of 'the enemy.'

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Well, I admit, it was a bit over the top in some areas. However as far as prostitution and stip clubs go- the article is talking about the many instances where women are forced into these situations and mistreated and can expect no help from the law. The point isn't that prostitutes and strippers are bad- it's that they are ignored and unprotected by lawmakers, polititions and police.

When servicemen commit crimes against women (rape, abuse, sexual harrasment, ect.) there *should* be outrage. Not that every serviceman is a rapist- but neither should he be exempt from outrage if he behaves in the manner of 'the enemy.'

Ah, it was primarily the reporter's sentiments....hmmm...in any case, I am opposed to violent crime (or crime, period) against anyone. Men, women, or children. There shouldn't be a distinction. Murder is murder. Rape is rape. Burglary is burglary. Abuse is abuse. Harassment is harassment. Stalking is stalking. It shouldn't matter what the victim's age or gender is.

 

[sweetnpetite]

If 'crimes against women' are considered somehow less important than 'crimes against men' then how can we claim that women are not second class citizens?

IF I must behave in a special way- different from men- in order to prevent not only being raped, but being blamed for it- how can we claim that I am not a second class citizen.

RAPE IS TERRORISM.

Many seem to think that it's a woman's responsibilty to 'prevent rape' by dressing modestly and behaving in a 'ladylike' manner. In other words, we are pushed into gender rolls by fear and that is terrorism.

Should we allow ourselves to be terrorized into behaving in only approved 'safe' and 'good' ways. To limit our mobility, our ambitions and our independence?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

If 'crimes against women' are considered somehow less important than 'crimes against men' then how can we claim that women are not second class citizens?

IF I must behave in a special way- different from men- in order to prevent not only being raped, but being blamed for it- how can we claim that I am not a second class citizen.

RAPE IS TERRORISM.

Many seem to think that it's a woman's responsibilty to 'prevent rape' by dressing modestly and behaving in a 'ladylike' manner. In other words, we are pushed into gender rolls by fear and that is terrorism.

Should we allow ourselves to be terrorized into behaving in only approved 'safe' and 'good' ways. To limit our mobility, our ambitions and our independence?

I understand that. But on the other hand, if crimes against men are less important, than men are 2nd class citizens. Neither should be the case.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Ah, it was primarily the reporter's sentiments....hmmm...in any case, I am opposed to violent crime (or crime, period) against anyone. Men, women, or children. There shouldn't be a distinction. Murder is murder. Rape is rape. Burglary is burglary. Abuse is abuse. Harassment is harassment. Stalking is stalking. It shouldn't matter what the victim's age or gender is.

But the point is- rape is not treated like other crimes. Rape is treated differently- by law enforcement, politicians (mainly ignored), lawyers, victims and non-victims. Rape needs to be adressed specifically because it is terrorims that is not named as such. Instead, the terrorims is encouraged by warning women that they must be responsible for preventing the crime against themselves. that they are not safe and can not be expected to be kept safe.

Violent crime that is meant to threaten and intimidate is different from violent crime that is an end into itself. that is why hatecrime is different from simple crime. simple crime is against the victim while hatecrime and terrrorism serves as a warning against a whole group of people. RAPE is a hatecrime against women. All women are victimised when we are forced to order our lives around the fear of being raped and to have to follow a different unwritten code just becuase we are women.

 

[Pure]

Good points, Sweet

A friend of mine many years ago wrote this classic item, and it's in many anthologies: I can't find it (full text) on the 'net. It's very rewarding, since the police and courts are, they say, 'protecting' the victim.

One sees the contradiction in stories, I'm sure you've read them, of the cops being called and finding _a cop abusing his wife_. what to do....(leave)


Susan Rae Peterson, "Coercion and Rape: The State as a Male Protection Racket."

 

[sweetnpetite]

I understand that. But on the other hand, if crimes against men are less important, than men are 2nd class citizens. Neither should be the case.

Crimes against men are not less important. They are taken rather seriously. Men aren't told that they were asking to be mugged becuase they were dressed provocatively. Men aren't told that they need to be accompained by a member of the opposite sex to feel safe. Men aren't told that it is unsafe for them to be (alone) in the company of a large number of the opposite sex. Men aren't told that they shouldn't be allowed serve in the front lines in wartime because they could be raped. Men's activies aren't limited simply because they are men- in fact, men are generally encouraged to take risks to be independent ect.

The only reason that rape needs special attention is because rape victims are so underserved and underprotected.

 

[sweetnpetite]

When Golda Meir was elected Prime Minister of Isreal, there was an increase in woman being raped. Does anyone think that this was just a coincidence? Women were being scared back into their homes- afriad to be independent, afraid to go places unchaperoned- this is very limiting. Women were being not so subtly told that they were less, that women achieving authority was a punishable offense. Stay home, stay meek and stay 'good little girls.'

The suggestion was made that girls should have a curfew 'for their own saftely.'- but Prime Minister Meir said- why should women have curfews- if the men want to rape, let the men have a curfew.

Of course, someone will complain- why punish all men for what some men do? Yet, it seems ok to punish all women for what no woman has done. If all men are punished for the acts of some men, then all men will feel it is there responsibility NOT TO TOLLERATE it. See- all women are already punished when we are forced to live in fear of being raped (and blamed). Men do not live with a general knowlege that rape effects them- unless they personally know of it happening to someone close to them. Yet putting men under curfew allows for men to know that rape effects them too- it is not just a 'woman problem." Perhaps then they will feel that it is something they need to seriously adress as a comunity, as humans as politicians ect.

When MEN bear the consequences of rape, MEN will no longer be able to look on rape as something that they do not have to worry about- as something they can ignore as long as it is not their own wife or girlfriend. As something that IS A WOMAN'S JOB TO PREVENT. Because when they suffer the consequences, they will want to make it their own job to prevent it.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I can't agree strongly enough with both Marge Piercy and
Ruth Ginzberg. I don't encourage dangerous behavior
for anybody, but why should a woman be more responsible
for a bad outcome than a man if she drinks, or walks alone,
or talks to strangers, or goes to the library at night? The thing
that bothers me most about this discussion is the language that
suggests that women need to be protected more than men. I
don't want to have to ask for help to do basic things like
commuting after dark, or going to the library, and it is
patronizing to expect anyone to do so. Our male students
would certainly not put up with this expectation and our
female students shouldn't either. I have always, and
will always, go wherever I want whenever I want. The
minute I am too scared to leave the house for fear of
being raped or attacked, I have lost. The problem lies not
in women's behavior, but in men's attitudes, and until all
men are able to deal with women as real equals (not just
tolerate us in the workplace but still expect to control us in
the home) the problem of rape will exist.

When you lived outside of the United States for a long period of
time, in societies where rape is much less common and much less tolerated,
you come to realize that what women have given up is no less than freedom.
I find it ironic that, in the country which supposedly stands for the
greatest expression of individual freedom 'on earth', women's tangible
freedom is so drastically curtailed. Being able to walk the streets of most
European countries throughout the wee hours of the morning, go to the
library, enter public bathrooms and elevators, etc. without giving much
thought to possible danger is what I consider to be freedom, and I
experience it on a daily basis. I have heard of little research that
compares the incidence of rape in the U.S. and other advanced capitalist
countries, or discourses that frame the problem in terms of human liberty.
It seems this discussion is about, as Beneria and Sen once said, 'putting
bandaids on a cancer'; teaching women to adapt to a situation that is
intolerable in order to survive is necessary, but also tends to divert
attention from more a fundamental analysis of why rape, crime (including
against male children), racism, sexism, violence and social disintegration
seem to go converge in the U.S. The impression that girls must perceive is
that what they experience in the U.S. is simply 'life as usual'. The answer
is to put more bars on your house (and on your mind), police on your
streets, or guns in your purse?

I have read that actually, media articles about rape often stress
stranger rape in order to make it seem as though women changing their
"unsafe" behavior will give them some control . (I imagine we all know
this already) The interesting question is whether or not this is
deliberate manipulation to control women's behavior and access to
(various things, events, etc) -rather than fgocusing on male behavior. If
acquaintance rape and incest rape is the norm for sexual violence, than
women's behavior is probably pretty irrelevant to rape (and thus rape
statistics). Thus, also, all it may mean that women can walk the streets
safely in various countries that aren't the US is that acquaintance rape
and incest are still not being discussed publicly. Nothing to back this
up, it's just an idea to ponder.

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/rape_teachabt.html

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Crimes against men are not less important. They are taken rather seriously. Men aren't told that they were asking to be mugged becuase they were dressed provocatively. Men aren't told that they need to be accompained by a member of the opposite sex to feel safe. Men aren't told that it is unsafe for them to be (alone) in the company of a large number of the opposite sex. Men aren't told that they shouldn't be allowed serve in the front lines in wartime because they could be raped. Men's activies aren't limited simply because they are men- in fact, men are generally encouraged to take risks to be independent ect.

The only reason that rape needs special attention is because rape victims are so underserved and underprotected.

But they are told by society that women can slap them with impunity because they are weaker. Which to me is a form of passive aggression, using weakness as a cover for special privilege. Not that I recommend slapping back. I just recommend leaving the relationship and men having the same right to evict abusive wives that women have to evict abusive husbands.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I lived in the Central African Republic for two years (Peace Corps), and
all the nice young white women (including myself) were told by the embassy
staff that we could walk anywhere any time and be safe. None of the men I
dated or met ever attempted to coerce me and indicated it as a possibility.
In addition, several years later I interpreted in a court proceeding
involving a Central African family in the Washington, D.C., area. At one
point, the questions I was interpreting from the court staff surprised and
confused the parents, who were concerned about their daughter's health.
They became alarmed because I was asking if the child had fallen or played
with something that could have broken her hymen. They assumed that the
child had a serious injury or had come to some harm because of the
questions I kept interpreting for the court staff. I had to inform them
that we ask these questions in the United States because the child might
have been abused by a family member or acquaintance, not because the
ruptured hymen is a serious injury. The idea of sexually abusing a child
was outside their understanding. (There was absolutely no indication of
any abusive behavior in this case, which was clearly the result of
ethnocentrism on a few people's part.)

This experience with another culture opened my eyes on U.S. assumptions
about "the way the world is" with regard to rape and sexual abuse. These
violent behaviors are not something that should be tolerated or accepted as
a given in a society, but something we learn and learn to accept. That
also means, of course, that the behaviors can be unlearned and not
accepted.

You can't achieve something until you at least believe it is possible. I
must add that I came home from the court proceeding and sobbed because I
had to explain to those parents that in my culture we are so cruel to our
young.

victims cannot stop rape

I also think we should refrain from "blame the victim" statements, even
ones that say things like "here is how you can be more empowered so that
you won't get raped." The truth is that victims cannot stop rape. So we
need to teach our students how to be safe & how not to be rapists.

 

[sweetnpetite]

But they are told by society that women can slap them with impunity because they are weaker. Which to me is a form of passive aggression, using weakness as a cover for special privilege. Not that I recommend slapping back. I just recommend leaving the relationship and men having the same right to evict abusive wives that women have to evict abusive husbands.

Well, I disagree that women should be allowed to slap men and men should just stand and take it. It is degrading to be slapped. That sort of behavior shouldn't be acceptable to *anyone*

However, that is really a seperate topic.

I also don't thinkt that women slapping men is any sort of terrorism. It certainly doesn't change a man's behavior or percieved level of saftely in being alone in a room filled with women.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Well, I disagree that women should be allowed to slap men and men should just stand and take it. It is degrading to be slapped. That sort of behavior shouldn't be acceptable to *anyone*

However, that is really a seperate topic.

I also don't thinkt that women slapping men is any sort of terrorism. It certainly doesn't change a man's behavior or percieved level of saftely in being alone in a room filled with women.

That's for sure. Never yet been scared of that, and I used to work in an office where I was one of 5 men compared to at least 25 women. The only time that a woman scared me was when I was 14 and she (16 at the time) followed me into the men's room at church, turned off the lights, and screamed "RAPE!" at the top of her lungs. Kinda creepy, if you ask me. But not terrorism. No. You're right about that. It hasn't made me afraid of women.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Should women be taught to 'be careful'?

Asking women to "be careful" and putting the onus on them for avoiding
being raped creates a substantive handicapping condition for women
(and I mean 'handicapping' in the way it is used when more weight is
added to the saddle of a race horse or when extra strokes are added to
a golfer's game, not as a slur against persons with disabilities, though
I know they have common etiologies, but I hope I can just SAY this somehow
without having attention turned toward my language rather than toward the
issue of who is responsible for preventing rape).

For example, if my students ALL have to go to the library (which is in
a moderately dark corner of the campus with no available parking nearby),
but SOME of them can use the library 24 hrs/day (as their schedules
allow and/or dictate) while OTHERS of them need to forgo using the library
during hours when it would be "foolish" for them to be walking back
and forth between the library and their cars or homes (a substantial
number of these hours are "after dark" in the middle latitudes during
the time when most universities are in full regular session) -- then
this alone makes the university more hospitable and more accessible to
one gender than it is to the other. EVEN if one says, well, take the
"rapemobile" (what some students call the van one may call during
certain hours if one wishes to own up to being afraid of being raped) or
well, study with friends, walk in groups -- these suggestions STILL
handicap women students who would prefer to be able to just stay at the
library for as long as they need (without waiting or rushing in order
to coordinate with others), or who don't have any friends, or who find
it embarrassing and/or humiliating to seem so vulnerable as to have to
call a rape-prevention van just to get to and from the library.

What I wonder is: why is this still considered an INDIVIDUAL responsibility?

If we are ALL responsible for preventing rape, then why aren't the
sidewalks fully lit, why isn't parking nearby easily accessible, why
aren't there (if necessary) security personnel stationed around campus
on foot and in large enough numbers that no woman ever NEEDS to
be walking "alone, in the dark, and in remote areas" to get to and from
the library? Why should *individual women* still bear the brunt and
the expense and the hassle of preventing their own rapes if rape is
*everybody's* problem?

Most campuses can come up with plenty of security and lighting and
whatever it takes to provide parking for large (men's) althletic
events and security for the event. Why can they not provide equal
amounts of security and lighting (etc.) so that women can use the
libraries (and computing centers, etc.) on campus as freely as can
men? Who says that this should be *individual women's* responsibility
to bear personally and alone? And why?

This appals me. I don't want to bring up young ladies who are terrified to
do aything that might be fun -- and I'm sorry, but getting drunk when you're
[young] is fun. It's altered states, and [as] fascinating in adolescence as
it is boring when you're older. I took all kinds of chances when I was
youner and I don't regret the danger I got into. I learned much more about
people and the society than I ever would have if I had been a young lady.
Danger is not always sometime to be avoided, nor is being friendly or
curious the problem. The problem is male violenc,e not female curiosity. I
go along with Golda Meir's original suggestion: if men rape women, put a
curfew on men, not on women. I certainly think women's have to be aware of
risk,but not to be blamed for taking risks. If you don't take risks, you
will never learn anything and you will never encounter other peple who are
at all different from your family and yourself.

 

[sweetnpetite]

That's for sure. Never yet been scared of that, and I used to work in an office where I was one of 5 men compared to at least 25 women. The only time that a woman scared me was when I was 14 and she (16 at the time) followed me into the men's room at church, turned off the lights, and screamed "RAPE!" at the top of her lungs. Kinda creepy, if you ask me. But not terrorism. No. You're right about that. It hasn't made me afraid of women.

Since we are in agreement here, I just wanted to thank you for posting that. So many times in a discussion, poeple never respond unless it's to argue, and since you were kind enough to respond in agreement, I would just like to recipricate. Thank you for your post.

 

[Liar]

Men aren't told that they were asking to be mugged becuase they were dressed provocatively.

I have little to object about the rest of your post. But for the record: Yes they are.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Since we are in agreement here, I just wanted to thank you for posting that. So many times in a discussion, poeple never respond unless it's to argue, and since you were kind enough to respond in agreement, I would just like to recipricate. Thank you for your post.

You're welcum. I am leery of the term "hate crime", but I can see how in this case rape could be viewed as terrorism. There is some social and historical validity to it.

 

[sweetnpetite]

This is such a great example given by an educator on the topic of how the specter of rape is controllng and limiting to women that I just want to isolate and highlight it.


Asking women to "be careful" and putting the onus on them for avoiding
being raped creates a substantive handicapping condition for women.


For example, if my students ALL have to go to the library (which is in
a moderately dark corner of the campus with no available parking nearby),
but SOME of them can use the library 24 hrs/day (as their schedules
allow and/or dictate) while OTHERS of them need to forgo using the library
during hours when it would be "foolish" for them to be walking back
and forth between the library and their cars or homes (a substantial
number of these hours are "after dark" in the middle latitudes during
the time when most universities are in full regular session) -- then
this alone makes the university more hospitable and more accessible to
one gender than it is to the other.