In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Publicizing the “Private”

This is what bravery looks like.

By the time she was in her early 20s, Rania al-Baz had become one of the best known and best loved faces in her home country of Saudi Arabia. As presenter of a program called “The Kingdom This Morning” on state-owned television, her hair was always covered by a hijab, as is required, but her face remained uncovered, and she would choose head scarves of defiantly flamboyant colors to cover her immaculately styled hair. She became, for hundreds of thousands of Saudi women, admirable, enviable and challenging — and, thus, an implicit threat to a society in which women are forced to cover themselves, are not allowed to drive, cannot vote or participate in political life, cannot leave home unless accompanied by a chaperone or travel without authorization from a father or husband, and cannot establish a business without a male sponsor.

Then, suddenly, on April 13, 2004, Baz disappeared from the airwaves. When she emerged two weeks later, her face was all over the newspapers, but it was barely recognizable. Her husband had savagely assaulted her, slamming her face against the marble-tiled floor of their home until it suffered 13 fractures. He was disposing of what he assumed to be her dead body when she showed signs of life and, panicking, he took her to the hospital, where doctors gave her only a 70 percent chance of survival.

During the days in which Baz was in a coma, fighting for her life, her father took photographs of her grotesquely disfigured face. And after she recovered, she decided to permit the photographs to be published, thus doing what no woman in the kingdom had ever done. Of course, there was nothing particularly unusual about her bruises: Baz was a victim of one of the world’s most common, and least punished, crimes. But in Saudi Arabia especially, Baz had shattered a wall of silence about domestic violence. The images of her grotesquely bruised and swollen face sent shockwaves through her country and around the world, casting an unwelcome but glaring spotlight on the abuse of women that thrives behind the mask of Saudi religious dogmatism. Baz would also go on to divorce her husband — almost unheard of in Saudi Arabia, where divorce is invariably the other way around — and win custody of her children, again in defiance of precedent.

Read the whole article. One of the many things that it brings up is the power of the visual in social movements — Baz publishing pictures of her face after being beaten up by her husband, Donna Ferrato’s Living With the Enemy, Ms. Magazine publishing police photos of Gerri Santoro dead on the floor after an illegal abortion (warning: graphic). The visual is effective because it’s one more way to tell those stories; honestly representing the experience of the people living oppression is far more poignant than simply political sloganeering.

Baz’s story is particularly interesting because it’s clear that it would have been much easier for her to shut up and go back to the man who tried to kill her. Even after pressing charges, her husband was sentenced to 300 lashes and six months in jail — and that was eventually halved (not that I’m advocating lashing people; just pointing out that three months in jail for attempting to murder someone is pretty light).

“The crucial thing,” says Baz, “is that the structure of society — the fact that a woman cannot drive or travel without authorization, for example — gives a special sense of strength to the man. And this strength is directly connected to the violence. It creates a sense of immunity, that he can do whatever he wants, without sanction. The core issue is not the violence itself, it is this immunity for men, the idea that men can do what they like. It is the society of which the violence is an expression.”

Sounds like grade-A patriarchy-blaming. And she’d be right.

It’s too easy to read a story like this and respond, “Wow, they sure are backwards over there in Saudi Arabia,” thus exoticising domestic crimes and excusing yourself (ourselves) from any ownership over this society, which also tacitly excuses violence against women. Yes, women in the United States have far more resources than Saudi women when trying to escape abusive situations, and the cult of silence around such violence has had holes poked in it here. For that, we can all thank feminism. But to claim that the cultural ills which promote and allow intimate partner violence exist there and not here is delusional to the point of being dangerous.


173 thoughts on Publicizing the “Private”

  1. wow… just, wow.

    and now, I’m wondering when we hear the other shoe has dropped, that radical clerics, or her ex husband, or SOMEONE up and murdered her, painfully and brutally, for speaking out like a human being.

    the fact that such a thing seems so automatic, so cliche, depresses the hell out of me.

  2. This is not a lot different from our own history. There was a time in this country when the scandals of the segregated south were pretty much a local secret. But then pictures of people getting hosed, beaten, and savaged were transmitted into the living rooms of middle class white people in the north. All of a sudden the civil rights movement was born.

    Sunlight is the best disinfectant, I wonder how that lawsuit to get at the documents from Chaney’s energy task force is going?

  3. Jill, I agree with 95% of what you said, but I found it unfortunate that you had to throw in the bit of cultural and moral relativism at the end. You know what? I have no problem saying “they sure are backwards over there in Saudi Arabia,” because when it comes to women’s rights, that is the truth. Whatever America’s faults may be, it is a place where women are not prohibited by law from driving motor vehicles. America is not a place where “the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Suppression of Vice” (read: the secret police, and yes, that’s really what it’s called) controls what people can and can’t do, and stands ready to exercise swift judgment against even the most minor perceived infraction. America isn’t a place where a husband can discard his wife by saying “I divorce you” three times.

    This is a horrific and amazing story. But it’s horrific and amazing precisely because it’s illustrative of a typical side of Saudi life that we in the west don’t get to see all that often. America is not free from the problems of domestic violence, but by framing the issue in the way you did, you almost make it sound as if we shouldn’t be too quick to prejudge the Saudis because hey, after all, we’re not perfect either. I know that’s not what you meant, but that’s how it comes off.

  4. … you almost make it sound as if we shouldn’t be too quick to prejudge the Saudis…

    Strike “prejudge” and substitute “criticize”.

  5. Jon-

    I definitely hear what you’re saying. Yes, the law and the culture in Saudi Arabia are incredibly misogynist. I agree that they are backwards when it comes to women’s rights. But where I get frustrated is with the Western view that says, “We’re fine on women’s rights issues because we’re so much better than them.” If you’ve read Reading Lolita in Tehran (kind of an Oprah book, I know, but excellent nonetheless), there’s a part in it where the characters discuss how much better off they are than women in other countries, like Afghanistan. They pretty much say what so many Americans do: Sure, our country isn’t perfect, but look at how much worse they have it over there. These are women in Iran who, at the time the story takes place, aren’t allowed to wear make-up or walk down the street unaccompanied without male permission. But the argument, “We’re ok because someone else is worse off” is still used to excuse and even justify oppression.

    Just look at what’s happened in New York in the past two weeks: The four-year-old girl who was found wandering around Queens crying for her mother has been on the front page of every tabloid paper. After not being able to track down her mom, police finally believe they’ve discovered her body in a Pennsylvania landfill — and her live-in boyfriend has admitted to killing her by suffocating her and then slitting her throat (and he had the audacity to claim that he suffocated her in self-defense, and then slit her throat to “open an airway”). That’s domestic violence, and it’s happening here. Our culture breeds it too. To turn a blind eye to it and say that these are isolated incidents uninfluenced by a misogynist culture does a huge disservice to women everywhere — and certainly to the 1,000+ women in New York City alone who call 911 and domestic violence helplines every day.

    I agree that when it comes to women’s rights (and freedom in general) Saudi Arabia is, by any standard, “worse off” than America. But that doesn’t make our downfalls any less excusable, and it seems too easy to tell women here, “quit complaining, life could be worse.”

    I’m not saying that to free Saudi Arabia of any judgment. The culture there which produces these kinds of incidents must be judged harshly; that’s why I pointed this incident out. The misogyny in Saudi Arabia is much more entrenched in every aspect of their society — it’s legally mandated. That makes it, by any standard, worse and more systematic. But we’ve got to look at our own culture too, with the same level of scrutiny. Doing so isn’t anti-American; at the heart of self-criticism is a desire for improvement and a need to actually be the best, not just “better” because so many other places are worse off.

  6. Strike “prejudge” and substitute “criticize”.

    it doesn’t matter, that’s not what she was doing anyway. I read it as “we shouldn’t just tut tut it, and pretend we’re so much better. there are still real problems here too. so sitting on our hands and thinking “those backwards saudis” isn’t an option”

  7. and of course, once I post a response, the author has the audacity to both finish her statement sooner and be more eloquent about it.

    phooey.

  8. Thanks for your response, Jill. I think we are both pretty well in agreement that domestic violence is a serious problem in the US and it’s not something anyone should try to minimize, particularly by pointing to worse problems elsewhere. My feeling is: let’s own up to our shortcomings, but let’s not sweep our progress under the rug either. The same way you’re worried about American men minimizing domestic violence, a Saudi could just as easily take the moral relativist tack and say “Hey, you have all this democracy and freedom of religion, and you still have domestic violence, so what makes you any better? Why should we change?” I think we can both see the problems with that.

  9. Our culture breeds it too.

    Strike “culture” and replace with “species”.

    Which isn’t intended to excuse the behavior, or to cast it as inevitable, or to ignore the role of culture in the expression of this violence and how we handle its aftermath.

    In fact, culture is pretty much the only tool we have to handle this intrinsic tendency of violence – so our cultural values are really very important – life and death important.

    Feminism gets major props for accurately identifying culture as the locus where we can change things; major brickbats for holding that culture is the origin of the problem. We won’t make much progress while we deny that stark reality of our bestial natures.

    People are not intrinsically good.

  10. My feeling is: let’s own up to our shortcomings, but let’s not sweep our progress under the rug either. The same way you’re worried about American men minimizing domestic violence, a Saudi could just as easily take the moral relativist tack and say “Hey, you have all this democracy and freedom of religion, and you still have domestic violence, so what makes you any better? Why should we change?” I think we can both see the problems with that.

    Yeah, that’s a great point, and an important one. We’re definitely on the same page with this one. Thanks for your response, Jon, you definitely targeted a lot of things I overlooked.

  11. They sure are backward over there in Saudi Arabia.

    Is America perfect? Yes, compared to the land of Saud, we are. You do a disservice to the battle against violence of women by even noting our problems in the same post as Saudi Arabia. America bashing is always fun, I’m sure, but it makes us take the problems of Saudi Arabia much less seriously when you draw a moral equivalence between what happens here and what happens there. It’s actually a classic liberal problem, to be unable to criticize anything without first criticizing America. It makes people tune you out and not to take you seriously and whatever point you were trying to make becomes muddled or irrelevant under that equivalence.

  12. Rox Populi asked the other day what it might take for moderate Republicans and independents to return to the Democratic Party.

    A lot of us said, quite seriously, that the first thing the Dems would have to do is nuke their base.

    Karol’s argument represents a legitimate opinion — and exposes a problem many people have with the progressive worldview that feels the need to establish its bona fides with knee jerk self-criticism before it can dare criticize others / Others. Comparing — even obliquely — the situation of women in Saudi Arabia to that of women here, causes many people in the center and right (and probably a few pragmatic Dems, too) to tune out. It’s the reason CNN lost so many viewers after 911. It’s the reason people have cancelled their subscriptions to major newspapers.

    We know our failings. We know our past. And we know that, at heart, we are a good country. And after 911, we surrendered much of the liberal guilt we had the luxury to feel when we thought we’d reached the end of history.

    But instead of addressing any of those feelings, which translate, I should add, into the current political reality so many on the left rail against in the most vile terms, people like Chris Clarke react by suggesting Karol is a sheep, that she hasn’t thought through her position at all.

    It is typical of the kind of discourse those on the left are treating us to these days. And yeah — blah blah Michael Savage Rush Limbaugh Ann Coulter blah blah blah. But go read the thread at Rox Populi, where moderate Repubs and independents explained what need happen to the Dem Party before they’d consider voting that way again, and note that, about midway through, the response from the leftist who showed up to hijack the thread is that all those purporting to be “moderates” are in fact “liars,” that they are evil, that they are sheep.

    Think about this the next time you rend your garments over your failure to move the culture in a “progressive” direction: the way many on left treat those whom they want to vote for them is closer to battered wife syndrome than it is to political discourse.

    Maybe you should direct some of your feminist critique that way.

  13. It’s actually a classic liberal problem, to be unable to criticize anything without first criticizing America.

    Switch “liberal” out for “America” and you have the classic conservative response to any issue.

    Hey, Karol–would you even be here discussing the state of women’s rights in Saudi Arabia if Jill hadn’t made that classic liberal mistake of mentioning America’s problems with wife-beating after several paragraphs about the much greater problem in Saudi Arabia?

  14. Karol’s argument represents a legitimate opinion — and exposes a problem many people have with the progressive worldview that feels the need to establish its bona fides with knee jerk self-criticism before it can dare criticize others / Others. Comparing — even obliquely — the situation of women in Saudi Arabia to that of women here, causes many people in the center and right (and probably a few pragmatic Dems, too) to tune out.

    I agree it’s a problem that they’re tuning out, but I suspect I find it problematic for different reasons. When conservatives respond to any criticism of this country with, “You’re anti-American,” they’re burying their heads in the sand. As I said before, my point wasn’t that misogyny in Saudi Arabia is identical to misogyny here. But I’ll be honest, I’m sick and tired of people on all sides of the political spectrum excusing local oppression simply because it’s not as bad as some forms of oppression we see elsewhere. It’s cheap, and it’s intellectually lazy. Yes, it’s very fun to be self-congratulatory, and as Jon pointed out, the United States has a lot of be proud of when it comes to women’s rights. But no, we aren’t perfect. I pointed out America’s problems not because I hate America, but because I love it — and as an American, I do want to see my own country live up to its potential to truly be the best place for all its people.

    So, yes, the Democratic party could certainly turn a blind eye to problems here, shout “USA” at the top of their lungs, and assure U.S. citizens that everything here is a-ok and we’re #1, and I’m sure they’d gain some votes. More power to ’em if that’s the route they go. I’m not a Democratic party strategist; the point of what I write here isn’t to get people to vote a particular party line; I’m not running for office or trying to get you to vote for me. So no, I’m not going to tailor my thoughts into a neat package that supposedly appeals to moderates and independents by trumpeting the perfection of a country that I’ve chosen to live in.

    I realize it’s largely a matter of perspective. I believe in criticizing the things we love in an effort to make them better. I believe that if you’re not trying to improve things, then you should get the hell out of the way.

    That said, I do agree that we need to take credit where credit is due, and recognize that yes, we have it pretty good here. But that didn’t come for free, and the fight’s not over. I make the connection back to the United States because I live here, and I feel a sense of ownership to this country. It’s not because I love America-bashing, and I refuse to accept the notion that it’s unpatriotic or at all unfair to look at a larger problem, like VAW, and evaluate how we’re doing here at home.

  15. Yeah, because me making crass comments here and some guy that busted up Roxanne’s comment thread are so much more destructive to discourse than the people you dismiss with a wave of the hand, with their multiply-syndicated radio shows and millions of listeners.

    the way many on left treat those whom they want to vote for them is closer to battered wife syndrome than it is to political discourse.

    You mean that we keep expecting you to change, despite the years of evidence that you never will?

    Here’s a little hint: “A few leftists finally reacted intemperately to our continually insulting them, and therefore we were forced to vote for the guy who’s in favor of torture and illegal war ” is a really stupid position.

  16. If I say that women are light-years better off here in the USA than in Saudi Arabia am I turning a “blind eye to problems here” and “shouting USA at the top of my lungs”? Or do I have to point out that comparing the problems here to the problem in The Magic Kingdom is ludicrous?

    Is the good (and improving) really the enemy of the perfect?

  17. If I say that women are light-years better off here in the USA than in Saudi Arabia am I turning a “blind eye to problems here” and “shouting USA at the top of my lungs”?

    No, you’d just be a more hyperbolic Jill:

    Yes, women in the United States have far more resources than Saudi women when trying to escape abusive situations, and the cult of silence around such violence has had holes poked in it here. For that, we can all thank feminism.

    Please let the strawman stay down this time, okay? She did not say that it’s just as bad here. She did not say that it’s worse here. She did not say that it’s not much worse in Saudi Arabia. She said that there are problems here, and that one of them is a tendency to use “worse” to excuse bad. For exhibit 1, we can look at Karol, who used a valuable discussion about one woman’s strength and courage as a springboard into her pet topic: accusing liberals of being anti-American.

  18. On Victor Hanson’s site, there is a first-person account of a visitor to Saudi Arabia witnessing a woman being bound and thrown into the trunk by a man, prepratory to being buried alive out in the desert. This happened on a major highway, in a city. No one even got out of their car to protest. Several men snickered.

    Women in Saudi Arabia have fewer rights than domestic pets in the Unites States. To compare the two demonstrates an appalling lack of perspective.

  19. “But to claim that the cultural ills which promote and allow intimate partner violence exist there and not here is delusional to the point of being dangerous.”

    To claim those kind of cultural ills exist here is not only delusional, it insults the real plight of Saudi Arabian women. It’s like someone with a scraped knee saying to someone in Intensive Care “but I’m hurt too.”

  20. “But to claim that the cultural ills which promote and allow intimate partner violence exist there and not here is delusional to the point of being dangerous.”

    Which cultural ills? The cultural ills that promote and allow intimate partner violence. Not legally and socially sanctioned wife-murder, nor a venal and sexist police force, but violent misogyny and an unwillingness to make “family problems” public. Those are American problems, too, just as intimate partner violence is an American problem. She didn’t say anything about the relative scope or severity of the resultant violence, except to mention briefly that women here are much better off. She simply pointed out that the problem exists here–and pointed out as well that Saudi Arabia is used to delegitimize the concerns of anti-violence feminist activists in this country.

  21. To claim those kind of cultural ills exist here is not only delusional, it insults the real plight of Saudi Arabian women. It’s like someone with a scraped knee saying to someone in Intensive Care “but I’m hurt too.”

    non sequitur much?

    seriously, for the last fucking time. Mao killing 50 million doesn’t let Hitler off the hook for 10 million, or even Jeffery Dahmer off for a handful for that matter. if there’s even one victim being screwed by the power structure, that’s one too many.

    this isn’t someone with a scraped knee complaining to someone with 4 slugs in them. this is the loved ones of a corpse angry about a murder. and that several thousand more died in a similar circumstance doesn’t make one or another more valuable.

    it’s more like someone who’s loved one died in a car jacking complaining to the cliche “family of the victim of 9/11” that their life is just as ruined, and their suffering is just as profound.

    and it is.

  22. You know, I prefer the medeieval sexists to the ones who claim that women should just shut up now because we’re equal. The Saudis are just more honest about it. The feelings for women aren’t that different. Look at all the anti-abortion wingers who claim that they just want to reduce abortions—but not by increasing birth control useage, but by making it impossible for women to have sex. The Sauds may kill women but too many of the wingnuts here hate women enough to wish to. Both groups are in total agreement: the only good woman is one who’s barefoot, pregnant, and ‘knows’ her place—and what’ll happen if she ventures out of it. The difference is just pretense.

  23. When conservatives respond to any criticism of this country with, “You’re anti-American,” they’re burying their heads in the sand. As I said before, my point wasn’t that misogyny in Saudi Arabia is identical to misogyny here. But I’ll be honest, I’m sick and tired of people on all sides of the political spectrum excusing local oppression simply because it’s not as bad as some forms of oppression we see elsewhere. It’s cheap, and it’s intellectually lazy.

    No. Perhaps you could have just mentioned the story in Saudi Arabia without the de rigeur America-bashing and left it at that.

    What does domestic violence in America, where it’s illegal and regularly prosecuted and where wife-beating men are considered disgusting, have to do with Saudi Arabia, where beating wives and worse is common and women are treated worse than domestic animals?
    In America it’s a problem with which we are contending, in Saudi Arabia it’s legislatively condoned and the only thing that’s considered a problem is, “How big a stick should I use to beat my wife and how often in a week is considered excessive?”

    Speaking for this conservative, I don’t get reflexively defensive at all America-bashing, just the gratuitous type.

  24. Oh, and you’ll notice those figures are going down. Do you suppose that improvement was caused by:

    1) People like Jill pointing out the problem and encouraging us all to do something about it, or

    2) people finding examples of countries with worse problems and slamming liberals for insulting America first?

  25. Do you suppose that improvement was caused by:

    Great! The improvement SHOULD have been caused by something – chalk one up for feminism. I, as a conservative, applaud the gains here, and hope they continue.

    Now that the improvement happened – when is it time to pull up stakes and say, “We’ve done all we can – our work is done here”? Never. And therein lies the problem.

    In EVERY society, women are beaten by their men. And that’s never going to change (until all women are armed, which I would have no problem with). Using the logic of this post and most of the commenters here, since that’s not going to change, the women of Saudi Arabia will never get their chance. Why? Because American feminists think that since we have problems here (which will never go away), we shouldn’t do anything about problems elsewhere.

    It’s become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    TV (Harry)

  26. karpad,

    Think much? This is like comparing the Holocaust to the time when you were in first grade and you got beat up by a 4th-grader. They were both violence of the strong against the weak, right? So they must be part of the same “cultural ills.” And to ignore that is not only dangerous, but delusional!

    Hey, guess what — it’s not just women who suffer from violence. Men get abused in America too. So do kids. So do blacks and Asians and whites. It’s always wrong. And when it happens, our society makes every effort to punish those responsible.. That is the night-and-day difference that this kind of moral relativism obscures.

  27. Chris: Thanks for the link. I notice that, although the figures are down for both men and women, the decresase for men is much larger than for women: The number of male homicide victims decreased by over 3 fold, whereas the number of women victims decreased by only about 25%. In 1976 women were only a bit more likely to be killed by an intimate partner than men, whereas in 2002 they were over 3X as likely. Interestingly, it looks like the number of victims of intimate homicide have not decreased at all for white women, whereas they have for black men and women and white men. The data separated by race is here. I have no idea what all this means. Anyone else have a theory?

  28. “Men get abused in America too”

    True. And it is just as wrong to abuse a man as to abuse a woman. But women are murdered by their intimate partners over 3X as often as men in the US. Doesn’t that suggest that there might be some slight inequality in the relative amount of power men and women have in the US?

  29. One stat deserves another.

    Males were 3.4 times more likely than females to be murdered in 2002

    In 2000 rates for females reached their lowest point in more than two decades and stablized through 2002;

    Both male and female offenders are more likely to target male victims than female victims

  30. Great. Now multiply that by about a hundred for the women, and you have some idea what life in Saudi Arabia is like.

    Yes, Dave, I get that it’s worse there.

    I was just talking with a neighbor the other day – a gentleman who’s a lieutenant with a local police department – and he told me that his mother was killed by an ex-boyfriend who had stalked her for some time.

    Now tell me which alleged faux pas is worse: My not prefacing every mention of crimes in the US with acknowledgement that it is worse somewhere else, or you comparing my neighbor’s mother’s murder to a “skinned knee”?

  31. To reiterate my basic point:

    There is no culture of allowing women to be killed in the U.S. It happens, and that’s unfortunate, but the response here is not “well, she’s the property of her husband/father/brothers anyway, so there’s no crime here.” The response is to find the criminals responsible and punish them.

    In Saudi Arabia, you get in less trouble for killing a woman than you would in the U.S. for killing your dog.

    There is not the slightest cultural similarity in these responses. To imply there is one is ridiculous.

  32. Chris Clarke,

    You’re missing the point. What happened to the stalker/murdere ex-boyfriend? Did the police say “Well, she was asking for it, disobeying him like that” and refuse to charge him with a crime?

  33. Think much? This is like comparing the Holocaust to the time when you were in first grade and you got beat up by a 4th-grader. They were both violence of the strong against the weak, right? So they must be part of the same “cultural ills.” And to ignore that is not only dangerous, but delusional!

    So the millions of incidents of intimate partner violence in this country are so many skinned knees? No, it’s like comparing the situation of South African black people under apartheid with racism in this country, or the lynchings that occurred prior to the Civil Rights Era with the hate-crimes murders of black people that still happen today. Wife beating in this country is caused by the same larger problem–violent misogyny–as wife beating in Saudi Arabia. They both constitute violence against women as a direct result of cultural hatred of women.

  34. No, Dave, they arrested him and he’s locked up for a long time, because the police, unlike some people I could mention, did not think of her murder as an offense akin to skinned knees.

  35. I don’t see anything wrong with trying to keep our own house in order while helping another with theirs. What’s the issue? Feminism?

  36. There is no culture of allowing women to be killed in the U.S. It happens, and that’s unfortunate, but the response here is not “well, she’s the property of her husband/father/brothers anyway, so there’s no crime here.” The response is to find the criminals responsible and punish them.

    Males were 3.4 times more likely than females to be murdered in 2002

    How many of them were killed by their wives and girlfriends? You don’t do much for your argument that there’s no permissiveness towards intimate partner violence against women when you fold that specific problem into a larger and different one.

  37. TallDave –

    You are on fucking fire, my man.

    True. And it is just as wrong to abuse a man as to abuse a woman. But women are murdered by their intimate partners over 3X as often as men in the US. Doesn’t that suggest that there might be some slight inequality in the relative amount of power men and women have in the US?

    By their intimate partners. Because their intimate partners tend to be men, more often than not. And men are violent.

    As Dave said –

    Males were 3.4 times more likely than females to be murdered in 2002

    Why? Is it a culture that specifically promotes the murder of males over others?

    Or does it have something to do with human nature, as Robert suggests, a facet of our nature that is actually ameliorated by our culture (including the efforts of feminists)?

    Let me ask you, Dianne (not just picking on you), and all of the other women on this thread – how many times have you, personally, been punched in the face? By how many men? How many times have you fought another person, you know, traded punches? had a male push you or attack you in a bar? Had a larger male compete with you for something, and resort to violence to get it. Very possibly, some of you.

    But if you poll a similar sample of men, odds are the rate of violence (experienced and certainly dealt out) is much higher. Why? Because men are much more physically violent than women. And as reprehensible and truly problematic as domestic abuse is – because in addition to the violence itself, it’s physically controlling and unfair – men tend to attack and beat the shit out of other men with more frequency and severity.

    So we can all cherrypick scenarios that buttress our points. The serious question I would have for feminists that bemoan something about our “culture and society” that somehow encourages men to committ violence against women is, “what?” Specifically “what?” The closest answer that I can imagine is economic, because cultural attitudes swing in the opposite direction.

    Because institutionally and culturally, violence against women is strongly discouraged. It’s a specific taboo. Random men on the street will step in to stop another man roughing up a woman. And just because the violence takes place does not mean it is encouraged (directly or indirectly) by our society. And therein lies the difference with Saudi Arabia and strident Islamic cultrure, which does encourage such treatment.

  38. The bottom line is, violent people prey on perceived weakness, and women are the physically weaker gender.

    This is not a function of a “cultural hatred of women,” anymore than a bully beating the shit out of a small male for his lunch money is the result of a “cultural hatred of small men.” It is far more socially acceptable for a man to attack and fight another man that is physically smaller, than it is for a man to attack a woman. Both happen, and domestic abuse happens in private, but I believe society actually functions to lessen violent behavior towards women, in the form of very strong cultural taboos and laws.

  39. Pingback: Quantum Catfish
  40. Because institutionally and culturally, violence against women is strongly discouraged. It’s a specific taboo. Random men on the street will step in to stop another man roughing up a woman. And just because the violence takes place does not mean it is encouraged (directly or indirectly) by our society. And therein lies the difference with Saudi Arabia and strident Islamic cultrure, which does encourage such treatment.

    It’s a specific taboo that one quarter of the women in this country will suffer at some point in their lives.

  41. Let me ask you, Dianne (not just picking on you), and all of the other women on this thread – how many times have you, personally, been punched in the face? By how many men? How many times have you fought another person, you know, traded punches? had a male push you or attack you in a bar? Had a larger male compete with you for something, and resort to violence to get it. Very possibly, some of you.

    How many times have you been goosed? Groped? Had some guy prevent you from leaving a confined space? Been sexually assaulted? Molested? Raped? How many times has some guy used his size to intimidate you? How many times have you been threatened or verbally abused?

  42. There is no culture of allowing women to be killed in the U.S. It happens, and that’s unfortunate, but the response here is not “well, she’s the property of her husband/father/brothers anyway, so there’s no crime here.” The response is to find the criminals responsible and punish them.

    It doesn’t just happen. Men do it to women and then they make it disappear by saying that ‘it happens’ and that ‘men get hurt, too!’

    Men getting hurt by other men is just a case of chickens coming home to roost. DV is so uncomfortable to people that tis victims–mostly women—still don’t report it. So cry me a river if you get hoist by your own petard.

    Telling American women we should be grateful that we don’t live in SA doesn’t do shit about sexism in the US. It enables sexists to go, “Oh, look, honey, you don’t have that bad.”

  43. It seems that “progressives” believe that it is not appropriate to criticize other countries until the U.S. has reached a state of sinlessless

    Oh, tell me that’s not for real? Could anyone’s basic reading comprehension really be so poor that they’d think Jill’s post was an argument for *not* criticising Saudi treatment of women?

  44. Telling American women we should be grateful that we don’t live in SA doesn’t do shit about sexism in the US. It enables sexists to go, “Oh, look, honey, you don’t have that bad.”

    And equating America’s “cultural ills” with Saudi Arabia’s doesn’t do shit about institutionalized misogyny in S.A. It enables pathological Saudi woman-haters to go, “Oh, look, Rania, you don’t have it that bad.” See how that works?

    Also, nice job accusing TallDave of bad faith. Here I thought he was making a simple point about the incommensurability of American and Saudi attitudes towards domestic violence, but no, in fact, he’s just trying to provide cover for wife-beaters here at home. Fucking right-wingers and their ulterior motives!

  45. Pingback: The Debate Link
  46. And equating America’s “cultural ills” with Saudi Arabia’s doesn’t do shit about institutionalized misogyny in S.A. It enables pathological Saudi woman-haters to go, “Oh, look, Rania, you don’t have it that bad.” See how that works?

    Jill did not equate the situation in Saudi Arabia with the situation here. She did not equate the social response in Saudi Arabia with the social response here. She did not equate the legal resources for women in Saudi Arabia with the legal resources for women here. She did not equate the number of women who suffer intimate partner violence in Saudi Arabia with the number of women who suffer intimate partner violence here. She compared violence caused by misogyny with violence caused by misogyny, and came to the conclusion that violence against women results from misogyny when it happens to American women, too.

    It enables pathological Saudi woman-haters to go, “Oh, look, Rania, you don’t have it that bad.”

    I can only echo Eleanor. Did you read Jill’s post? The several paragraphs about the horrible abuse that Rania al-Baz suffered, followed by praise for her courage and for her description of the root cause of her own attacker’s impunity? She made a brief comment after all that about how wrong it is to use violence over there to downplay violence at home–within which was a brief apologia to the effect that of course the situation isn’t as bad for women here.

    If anything makes it easier for Saudi men to beat their wives, it’s bashing feminists like Jill who attempt to place a larger context on misogynistic violence. Not to mention hijacking a discussion about violence against Saudi women with yet another PHMT.

  47. How many times have you been goosed? Groped? Had some guy prevent you from leaving a confined space? Been sexually assaulted? Molested? Raped?

    None. The reason for that, of course, is that men who engage in sexual violence, like men who engage in non-sexual violence, generally prefer to seek out victims who are smaller and/or weaker than they are. That victim is generally a woman, or a child, God forgive us.

    Violent men who are deprived of access to women and children do indeed grope, threaten, assault, and rape other men.

    And we do these awful things because it is in our nature to do them, not because our culture hates women and urges us on. You can observe this directly, by looking at the difference between (say) the US and (say) Saudi Arabia – men with a culture that DOES hate women and DOES urge them on.

    Culture will never change our basic natures, and we will have to teach the same lessons to every new generation, world without end. To mistake our culture for our nature, or to think that our culture will change our nature, is delusion.

    Culture can ameliorate our basic nature. It can soften the edges of it, put structures in place that channel that negative energy into more positive directions. We can learn philosophies that seek the root of the anger and learn to defuse it. Religion can put a face on the despised other and develop more humane hearts. There are lots of things that we can do to make things better; we do some of them, and ought to do more.

  48. Men getting hurt by other men is just a case of chickens coming home to roost.

    Careful with those barnyard animal metaphors there, ginmar. Drives the wingnuts crazy.

  49. I’m with Talldave. The plight of the women is Saudi Arabia is made light of when compared to the plight of victims of domestic violence in this country whose aggresors are routinely prosecuted and punished. At the very least, the post loses it’s punch, -sorry Jill- a horrific story becomes a preachy point about how much there is yet to be done here at home. Wouldn’t it be better to encourage Americans to show solidarity for Saudi women by doing the things they can’t like donate or volunteer for a shelter, vote, report sexual assaults, leave abusive husbands, drive, visit a library, travel without permission, wear comfortable clothing, play sports, marry whomever you want.

    I don’t think it’s easy for Americans to comprehend how awful it is for women in SA or in other parts of the world, where it sometimes appears that the worst thing that can happen to a person is to be born female. How does acknowledging our good fortune and hard work do anything but strengthen us? Isn’t it good if Americans think of themselves as fair to women? Don’t people respond to praise better than criticism? Can’t I just feel lucky and proud to be an American woman without criticizing “society” for “letting” a man kill his girlfriend?

  50. Of course women have it better in America than they do in SA. Hell, it’s better for women here than it is in Japan, IMHO. But, I didn’t think Jill was making an either or argument in her post.

  51. I would just re-type it, but I think it’s easier to direct you all here. I’ve responded already to most of the issues you’ve brought up. Nowhere did I say that Saudi treatment of women is on par with treatment of women in the U.S. I was simply saying, as Lauren more eloquently put it, “I don’t see anything wrong with trying to keep our own house in order while helping another with theirs.”

    I wrote:

    I agree that when it comes to women’s rights (and freedom in general) Saudi Arabia is, by any standard, “worse off” than America. But that doesn’t make our downfalls any less excusable, and it seems too easy to tell women here, “quit complaining, life could be worse.”

    I’m not saying that to free Saudi Arabia of any judgment. The culture there which produces these kinds of incidents must be judged harshly; that’s why I pointed this incident out. The misogyny in Saudi Arabia is much more entrenched in every aspect of their society — it’s legally mandated. That makes it, by any standard, worse and more systematic.

    I’m not sure how I could be any more clear here. I’m happy to discuss the post further, but purposely misrepresenting what I said is getting old.

  52. Careful with those barnyard animal metaphors there, ginmar. Drives the wingnuts crazy.

    They’re already there. Why should I worry?

    Allah, you’re stupid if you think bashing feminists is going to do anything about sexism but perpetuate it. If you’re from SA, clean up your own house and stop bitching at feminists to do it. SAme goes for all these wingnuts whining on a feminist blog about male-on-male violence. Bad enough we have to try and solve male-on-female violence with active male opposition. Why aren’t these guys out there tending to their own self-inflicted wounds? Could it possibly be they’re trying to get women to do their dirty work for them?

    Violent men who are deprived of access to women and children do indeed grope, threaten, assault, and rape other men.

    Bullshit. This is the starving man model of rape that imagines sex as residing in a woman’s body—or in this case, revoltingly enough, in a child’s—-and access to it as a need. Well, that isn’t true. Men who need sex can masturbate. Men who think they’re entilted to other people’s bodies are rapists. And anybody who makes that excuse for rape doesn’t belong on a feminist blog.

  53. Gerri Santoro’s story doesn’t make the best case for “choice.”

    Santoro had the abortion out of fear that her violent, abusive husband would track her down and kill her and her two daughters because she was pregnant by her new boyfriend. (The boyfriend performed the botched abortion). Sounds like a forced abortion to me, not a choice. What is the evidence that the child was unwanted?

    Many women have had abortions because the father was of a different race, and they’re afraid their bigoted parents will kill them. Who, exactly, is making the “choice” in such situations? I don’t see how pandering to other people’s violence or racism makes the case.

  54. Jill did not equate the situation in Saudi Arabia with the situation here.

    She didn’t? Here’s Jill:

    It’s too easy to read a story like this and respond, “Wow, they sure are backwards over there in Saudi Arabia,” thus exoticising domestic crimes and excusing yourself (ourselves) from any ownership over this society, which also tacitly excuses violence against women…. [T]o claim that the cultural ills which promote and allow intimate partner violence exist there and not here is delusional to the point of being dangerous.

    What she’s saying, rather explicitly, is that the difference between the United States and Saudi Arabia is one of degree, not of kind. She directly equates the two when she says both “tacitly excuse” and “promote and allow” domestic violence against women. Permit me to join Bill in calling bullshit on that entire formulation. I want someone to explain to both of us how, precisely, it is that American culture “tacitly excuses” violence against women. And then I want them to explain to us how Saudi Arabia “tacitly excuses” the same thing. Because from where I’m sitting, there’s nothing “tacit” about it. Click here and scroll down for the lovely vidcaps. As Bill notes, Islamic culture openly encourages this sort of thing.

    As for this:

    If anything makes it easier for Saudi men to beat their wives, it’s bashing feminists like Jill who attempt to place a larger context on misogynistic violence.

    I.e., “if you criticize Jill, then the terrorists have already won.” What idiocy. The only “bashing” Jill’s received here is for not being outraged enough by how women are treated in the Middle East. As I tried to explain in my previous comment, comparing domestic violence in the U.S. with institutional misogyny in Saudi Arabia doesn’t raise consciousness of American wife-beating; it lowers consciousness of what happens overseas. Because people who don’t have all the facts read this stuff and assume, “Hmm, well, I guess every country has its share of rednecks.” Not quite; you don’t have rednecks on state-run TV here at home showing men what size stick they should use to smack their wives’ faces with. Perspective, please.

  55. Jill, I think your position and your written statement are intrinsically entirely reasonable. I apologize if anything I’ve written undermines or misrepresents what you’re trying to express.

    That said, there seems to be a definite strain of mea-culpaism in any liberal criticism of something bad being done overseas; “look, the Ruritanians are killing infants…of course, who are we to judge, when we still don’t have single payer health care and sometimes poor people have to go to the emergency room!” That sort of thing. It’s entrenched in the liberal political view: America must not be held blameless. And your post went there, when you ended with a reminder that women get hurt in America too. Yeah, they do, and it’s awful that they do. But everyone knows that they do, and anyone who doesn’t isn’t going to listen to you – so why bring it up, other than to reflexively breast-beat and distance yourself from any hint of pro-American viewpoint? If it was every one hundredth criticism by a liberal, it would be a tiny undercurrent; instead, it’s like a de rigeur posture that must be adopted before any critique of another nation can be decently voiced.

    JeffG expresses the view of an awful lot of former liberals (like me); the “they are awful but we aren’t saints” trope is a one-way ticket to going unread, these days. A little self-reflection is a good thing; drowning in it has gotten old.

  56. The response is to find the criminals responsible and punish them.

    Is it?

    Have you ever been talked into bailing out the man who’s in jail for beating you – by the very officers who arrested him?

    Have you ever been begged to bail him out by his mother, who’s worried that “jail will ruin his life?”

    Have you ever been told by a male relative, “Maybe if you’d put on a little lipstick once in awhile and do something about your appearance,” he might not beat you so often?

    These things didn’t happen to me in 1961. They didn’t happen in 1981. They happened in 1991. I see no evidence that similar things aren’t happening to other women now, in 2005.

    Especially considering that every time the subject comes up, right-wing men can be counted upon to dismiss it entirely. There’s that reknowned conservative logic at work: Say it doesn’t happen, and it won’t!

    You have some nerve denying a problem you’ll never experience.

    As numerous other commenters have said plainly, Jill isn’t equating the U.S. with Saudi Arabia. She is stating that we ignore our own problems with the issue at our peril. It’s a fair thing to say, particularly given that your take on women murdered in incidents of domestic violence is that it’s “unfortunate.”

  57. It’s too easy to read a story like this and respond, “Wow, they sure are backwards over there in Saudi Arabia,” thus exoticising domestic crimes and excusing yourself (ourselves) from any ownership over this society, which also tacitly excuses violence against women…. [T]o claim that the cultural ills which promote and allow intimate partner violence exist there and not here is delusional to the point of being dangerous.

    No, she’s saying that the difference between misogynistic violence against women here and misogynistic violence against women in Saudi Arabia is one of degree, not kind. She’s saying that it’s wrong to pretend the misogyny doesn’t exist here and is not a contributing factor to violence against women. This is true.

    So far on this thread we have:

    1) Violence against women is not caused by misogyny. Men just like hitting other people. Mostly men, in fact.

    2) There’s no difference between a man getting into a fight with another man and going home to beat his girlfriend.

    3) It happens here, sure, but it’s not like it’s a significant phenomenon or anything. It certainly doesn’t have anything to do with cultural attitudes.

    4) Sexual violence against women is a crime of atavistic greed, not misogyny.

    This is how! One-quarter of the women in this country will at some point in their lives be the victim of domestic violence. Twice as likely as rape. More than twice as likely as breast cancer. And when American men say stuff like this–Because institutionally and culturally, violence against women is strongly discouraged. It’s a specific taboo. Random men on the street will step in to stop another man roughing up a woman. And just because the violence takes place does not mean it is encouraged (directly or indirectly) by our society–they promulgate a level of wilfull ignorance towards domestic violence that can only be explained by an inability to value the lives of American women.

  58. That said, there seems to be a definite strain of mea-culpaism in any liberal criticism of something bad being done overseas; “look, the Ruritanians are killing infants…of course, who are we to judge, when we still don’t have single payer health care and sometimes poor people have to go to the emergency room!” That sort of thing. It’s entrenched in the liberal political view

    This is one place in which feminism and liberalism diverge: feminism and multiculturalism cannot coexist. We cannot be willing to say that “those crazy SA men kill their wives, but that’s how they do it over there” any more than we can be willing to accept that “some Americans” think violence is a great way to solve conflicts. The fact is that there are shared strains in our cultures that allow for the subjugation of this group or that with dire consequences. It is a matter of degree.

    At least in America women have the opportunity for legal recourse against violence. Unfortunately the sad truth remains that many abusers often get little more than a slap on the wrist. Look at, for one thing, the inability for Americans to get spousal rape laws passed in the U.S.

    And I just realized I wasn’t even addressing your comment. But fuck it, I’ll post this anyway.

  59. Bill from INDC: If I answered yours and Piny’s questions with total honesty (above), you’d probably be disgusted. I’m willing to bet that many of the women all of us know could answer similarly.

  60. Violent men who are deprived of access to women and children do indeed grope, threaten, assault, and rape other men.

    Bullshit. This is the starving man model of rape that imagines sex as residing in a woman’s body—or in this case, revoltingly enough, in a child’s—-and access to it as a need. Well, that isn’t true. Men who need sex can masturbate. Men who think they’re entilted to other people’s bodies are rapists. And anybody who makes that excuse for rape doesn’t belong on a feminist blog.

    Ginmar, I am making a factual assertion about observed behavior, not excusing anyone’s sexual pathology. Rapists who have access to women and children do not generally rape other men. Rapists who do not have access to women and children do generally rape other men. That is not “bullshit”, it is empirical, objective truth undisputed by anyone with a functioning cognitive system.

    If you disagree with my interpretation of this indisputable set of facts please feel free to do so, but don’t waste my time with your usual incoherence, calling of “bullshit” on readily observable reality, and imputation of the most disgusting possible motivations (“excusing rape”) to everyone who doesn’t share your profoundly retarded worldview.

  61. piny –

    It’s a specific taboo that one quarter of the women in this country will suffer at some point in their lives.

    Sure. But the fact that it takes place at that rate does not prove your point that the culture promotes it. You haven’t established causality. I say causality is poor socialization within certain odd ducks and subcultures, as well as mental illness and testosterone.

    In fact, I’d again argue that modern American culture on the whole – via laws, the media, and predominant cultural taboos – discourages it. That’s not to make the argument that feminists like Jill can’t encourage people to do MORE to discourage it – all to the good – but what would the rate be if we had a culture that was apathetic or approved (and of course we did have a culture more like this at points in our history)?

    Higher, I’d say. Again, this does not equate to an argument by me that it’s “good enough so stop complaining, ladies.” Not at all. Just don’t minimize the institutionalized Hell that women in Saudi Arabia have to put up with by drawing anything approaching relative equivalence.

    How many times have you been goosed? Groped?

    More than you might think (as I live in Dupont Circle :-), but in all seriousness, point taken.

    Had some guy prevent you from leaving a confined space?

    Plenty of times, usually followed by a fight.

    Been sexually assaulted? Molested? Raped?

    Never, but many boys have, and Robert’s post establishes why. Again, the thought of a woman being raped is repellent – I’ve been socialized to believe this. Other cultures have less firm socialization in this regard, and I welcome more attempts to socialize people against rape in our culture. Again, go for it. I support those efforts wholeheartedly, of course.

    How many times has some guy used his size to intimidate you? How many times have you been threatened or verbally abused?

    I’m 5’6″, 150 – plenty. This is NOT a point of pride, just fact, but I’ve been in many, many violent confrontations, over everything from refusing to take intimidation, to having a neanderthal target me because he’s drunk and I’m with a pretty girl that he “wants,” to violent robbery, to defending a woman from intimidation, to guys simply out for a fight, to getting in a verbal argument that accelerated to violence.

    To be sure, not all men have broad experience with violence, but I’ve never initiated a single confrontation (though when I was younger, I certainly didn’t walk away from all of the ones that I should have) And if I was 6’3″ and 220lbs., I would have been confronted with a Hell of a lot less of this shit over my youth and young adulthood. It just is. People target those that they perceive as weak.

    Just last week, some bully at CVS started whispering threats in my ear because I (politely) busted him for butting a line of 6 people. Would he have started if I had 4 or 5 inches on him? Probably not. people pick on those that they perceive as easy targets. With men this more often manifest as violence. I’m told it has something to do with testosterone.

    Unfortunately, this puts women at a constant disadvantage. I’m not making light of it, I just think we need to honestly analyze the extent to which it’s specifically the fault of our culture.

  62. But fuck it, I’ll post this anyway

    It’s your blog. Go nuts.

    I think there’s an element of truth in what you’re saying. It’s just that such a high level of self-criticism is turning out to not be such a hot survival strategy. Smart and right, yes; keeps us alive, not so much.

  63. Ginmar, I am making a factual assertion about observed behavior, not excusing anyone’s sexual pathology. Rapists who have access to women and children do not generally rape other men. Rapists who do not have access to women and children do generally rape other men. That is not “bullshit”, it is empirical, objective truth undisputed by anyone with a functioning cognitive system.

    I don’t think this was the part she was complaining about, but in fact your interpretation of prison rape. Why don’t rapists who have access to women and children ever rape other men? There are plenty of relatively indefensible men out there. Do your petite male friends fear rape?

  64. Bill from INDC: If I answered yours and Piny’s questions with total honesty (above), you’d probably be disgusted. I’m willing to bet that many of the women all of us know could answer similarly.

    Um, they were rhetorical, just so we’re clear. I didn’t want anyone to feel intruded upon.

  65. If I answered yours and Piny’s questions with total honesty (above), you’d probably be disgusted. I’m willing to bet that many of the women all of us know could answer similarly.

    I acknowledged as much (the incidence among women) and it saddens me to hear that. I know plenty, plenty of women (often it seems like most) that have dealt with some form of frightening sexual assault. Less than that have been punched in the face, but still some. I really don’t mean to minimize it at all. I’m just saying that there is a lot of violence and pain to go around, and it’s not all or necessarily primarily rooted in culturally-promoted hatred for a specific gender – it’s the powerful abusing the weak.

  66. Just as a reminder to all sensible people:

    Calling “hypocrite” stopped winning arguments when you became old enough to drive. You really shouldn’t fear some semblance of hypocrisy by saying “Oh, we’re bad too.”

    Here’s another newsflash, NOT saying “Oh, we’re bad too.” is NOT the same thing as ignoring every problem of violence against women in America. Because, as Robert so eloquently stated, WE ALL ALREADY KNOW WOMEN GET HURT! EVERYONE GETS HURT AT SOME POINT! The weaker among us, unfortunately, more often than others. So, yes, there is no unpardonable crime of Protein Wisdom-ian HYPOCRISY if you should leave that off. You are not being derelict in your duty for taking off for one post. Anyone reading this site already knows women are getting hurt, and not a single one of them approves of it. Not a single human being I KNOW wouldn’t jump in swinging if a guy was attacking a woman. I simply don’t see how you can speak of “the cultural ills which promote and allow intimate partner violence” as though they were commonplace in America with a straight face, to say that we “tacitly [excuse] violence against women,” to me, is ridiculous. We, as a society, do NOT condone that crap, and I don’t think it is possible to say otherwise. Ask a thousand people on the street if they would or would not interfere to stop a man from beating a woman. If we could, you know, flip a switch and turn the entire misogyny thing off, I’d suspect that the entire country would jump aboard with that idea. The problem with the post is that, as was previously stated, the jab at America’s imperfections cheapens the sickening tale of Rania, likening it to a level of “everyone has their violent, sociopathic goons.”

    Or, even worse, you could be implying that the statement “they sure are backwards over there in Saudi Arabia” is false, but, of course, that is, at worst, a ridiculous perversion of your meaning.

  67. Bill, I used to be quite a fight-starter, especially with boys since the girls were, for the most part, uninterested in trading punches. I (sort of) outgrew that.

  68. Oh, and –

    This is one place in which feminism and liberalism diverge: feminism and multiculturalism cannot coexist. We cannot be willing to say that “those crazy SA men kill their wives, but that’s how they do it over there” any more than we can be willing to accept that “some Americans” think violence is a great way to solve conflicts.

    A-freaking-men!

  69. I don’t think this was the part she was complaining about, but in fact your interpretation of prison rape. Why don’t rapists who have access to women and children ever rape other men? There are plenty of relatively indefensible men out there. Do your petite male friends fear rape?

    Because women and children are easier targets than even “relatively indefensible men”. The urge to violence is, usually, an evil urge. Evil is generally weak and fearful. The weak and fearful seek the most powerless they can find. A man – whether relatively undefended or not – is perceived as being stronger than a woman, generally – whether that is really true or not.

    There is certainly some cultural mediation going on there, but it’s coming into play in the target selection arena, not the shall-I-do-violence-today arena.

  70. That is, of course, not to say I don’t WANT you to crusade on behalf of women, Jill, or anything stupid like that. Quite the contrary, perfection is always an admirable goal, and, as has been stated, women get the short end of the stick more often than they should in this society, but, dangit, we’re not inhuman monsters who think “Hrm, yes, women getting beaten. I don’t care.”

  71. Never, but many boys have, and Robert’s post establishes why. Again, the thought of a woman being raped is repellent – I’ve been socialized to believe this. Other cultures have less firm socialization in this regard, and I welcome more attempts to socialize people against rape in our culture. Again, go for it. I support those efforts wholeheartedly, of course.

    And as Jill pointed out, you’ve also been socialized to believe that a rate of intimate partner violence lifelong of twenty-five percent has nothing to do with cultural misogyny.

    Girls are sexually molested and raped, too. And why doesn’t this happen as often to men, even small men? They exist, after all. You’re 5’6″. Are you afraid of sexual violence? Do you worry about stranger rape when you walk to your car at night, or acquaintance rape when you’re in a bar? Has any man ever gotten sexually possessive towards you, or attempted sexual assault?

    I’m 5′6″, 150 – plenty. This is NOT a point of pride, just fact, but I’ve been in many, many violent confrontations, over everything from refusing to take intimidation, to having a neanderthal target me because he’s drunk and I’m with a pretty girl that he “wants,” to violent robbery, to defending a woman from intimidation, to guys simply out for a fight, to getting in a verbal argument that accelerated to violence.

    To be sure, not all men have broad experience with violence, but I’ve never initiated a single confrontation (though when I was younger, I certainly didn’t walk away from all of the ones that I should have) And if I was 6′3″ and 220lbs., I would have been confronted with a Hell of a lot less of this shit over my youth and young adulthood. It just is. People target those that they perceive as weak.

    Just last week, some bully at CVS started whispering threats in my ear because I (politely) busted him for butting a line of 6 people. Would he have started if I had 4 or 5 inches on him? Probably not. people pick on those that they perceive as easy targets. With men this more often manifest as violence. I’m told it has something to do with testosterone.

    Unfortunately, this puts women at a constant disadvantage. I’m not making light of it, I just think we need to honestly analyze the extent to which it’s specifically the fault of our culture.

    I have four inches on you and several inches on men who have in past done all of these things to me–and to my sister and to all of the big, tall women in my family. It’s happened to Kameron Hurley the krav maga hobbyist and to Sars Bunting the Brooklyn amazon. My height and stature did not change in transition–the extent to which I suffer harassment and humiliation immediately did. The belief that women are easy targets doesn’t have to do with women’s stature or strength. It has to do with the place women occupy in this culture.

  72. Because women and children are easier targets than even “relatively indefensible men”. The urge to violence is, usually, an evil urge. Evil is generally weak and fearful. The weak and fearful seek the most powerless they can find. A man – whether relatively undefended or not – is perceived as being stronger than a woman, generally – whether that is really true or not.

    That perception you’re referring to is misogyny.

  73. Oh, wow, that was stupid. Standard male defense: oh, violence is human. Let’s ignore that they pound women becuase they’re women. Let’s ignore the fact t hat men have loved to ignore this forever. Let’s ignore the fact that if so many men find wife beating so appalling, we sure have a hell of a lot of it going on, don’t we?

    Oh, wait. The men aren’t aware of this, so it doesn’t exist. And when women say it exists, men disagree or say they suffer worse because it’s so horrible to not face being blamed for the crimes committed against one.

    Looking at America and SA together serves one purpose: it shows the similarities, and some men just can’t handle that, can they?

    And Robert, blaming prison rape on lack of women is bullshit. Go read against our will by brownmiller. It’s not my job to bring you up to speed.

  74. Robert, your “readily observable reality” is a construction of your imagination. The only sample you can point to of male-on-male rape is in prison and jail populations — populations of criminals! Those results are not replicated among POWs or among military personnel, that I know of. Nor do you have a control group inthe civilian population, because nobody trusts rape reporting among women, let alone men. So, you have no idea if men without women rape men, or is men who rape men are concentrated and presented with easy targets in prison populations.

    Anybody can justify their hunches, guesses and pet theories by saying “it’s just reality, and everyone knows it.”

    Piny has it right, these stories keep popping up:

    1) Violence against women is not caused by misogyny. Men just like hitting other people. Mostly men, in fact.

    2) There’s no difference between a man getting into a fight with another man and going home to beat his girlfriend.

    3) It happens here, sure, but it’s not like it’s a significant phenomenon or anything. It certainly doesn’t have anything to do with cultural attitudes.

    4) Sexual violence against women is a crime of atavistic greed, not misogyny.

    These claims are how men refuse to deal with the problems of men, right here in the culture we share.

    I do not take the view that we’re equivalent to Saudi Arabia, and if some folks are offended, they can fuck themselves. But getting on Jill’s case for pointing out that we have a long way to go ourselves is so defensive that it says something about the speaker. Why do some guys insist so hard that we enlightened citizens of the Western democracies do not have a systemic problem with violence against women?

    Let’s look at the public reactions to Kobe Bryant, or to the Haidl case in Orange County, California. Do we have a society that discourages violence against women, or one that is revolted by it but finds denial easier than reform? Every time women bring up violence against women, on feminist blogs, there’s a torrent of men-defending: all sorts of stories designed to convince the speaker that violence against women is aberrant, part of a regional or subcultural problem, or the victim’s fault, or the act of a madman. But rape and spousal killing and abuse are too common to admit of those explanations.

  75. From Robert:

    JeffG expresses the view of an awful lot of former liberals (like me); the “they are awful but we aren’t saints” trope is a one-way ticket to going unread, these days. A little self-reflection is a good thing; drowning in it has gotten old.

    The problem with Goldstein is that he seems to hold that no self-reflection is necessary until we conquer the world and force them to repent. Indeed, that is a meme that predominates from the conservative side of the aisle. Just as the liberal side of the aisle is constantly railing about how bad “we” are, even if the rest of the world is worse. Both engage in hyperbole, neither are very good at it.

  76. Let me ask you, Dianne (not just picking on you), and all of the other women on this thread – how many times have you, personally, been punched in the face?

    By strangers, never. By a man I thought loved me-2 or 3 times, once to the point blood poured down my face and I couldn’t fucking believe it.

    By how many men?

    I’ve been hit by one man, thrown to the ground and held down with my mouth covered to stop me from screaming by another, raped by another, and groped and otherwise been intimidated by countless others.

    How many times have you fought another person, you know, traded punches?

    Countless times. I, like most women, am conditioned to accept male violence, at least sexual violence, without complaint. However, I got really tired of it really fast and started responding to men who scare me in public by grabbing my body by punching or slapping. Always get called a bitch for it, since apparently violent, cowardly men think they get to intimidate and threaten women without getting it right back.

    had a male push you or attack you in a bar?

    Counting of course your everyday sexual assault and of course the fact that many men seem to think that women are to be shoved out of the way and of course counting the creeps who hump you in public, dozens.

    Had a larger male compete with you for something, and resort to violence to get it. Very possibly, some of you.

    Most men are larger than me, but they aren’t “other” males but in fact someone who has physical, social and psychological power to abuse me and many, many, many think that’s just fine. And because people like you subtly discount sexual violence as “real” violence, they get away with it.

    I think that answers your question. I know lots of men who have never been punched, but I don’t know a single woman who’s never been cornered, groped (in a menacing way, yes, for those about to protest, not a your-good-friend-got-drunk-and-tried-to-kiss-you-and-felt-bad-way), followed or otherwise put in a situation where she was in serious physical danger.

  77. And here’s the answer to the question you didn’t ask, which is, “How many of your assailants got punished?”

    Two misdemeanor assault charges.

  78. Well, I’m sorry to hear about that, Amanda. My questions were intended to be rhetorical, but since you’re open about sharing that info, I have to say that the severity and frequency of your experience is a bit worse than most. Violence is mostly perpetrated by men, and men and women are its recipients. This violence is not strictly a function of misogyny, nor of a culture that endorses it.

  79. Girls are sexually molested and raped, too. And why doesn’t this happen as often to men, even small men? They exist, after all. You’re 5′6″. Are you afraid of sexual violence? Do you worry about stranger rape when you walk to your car at night, or acquaintance rape when you’re in a bar? Has any man ever gotten sexually possessive towards you, or attempted sexual assault?

    No. But the answers to your questions are fairly obvious.

    1. Rape is often expressed in accordance with sexuality, and most violent heterosexual men rape women (when available).
    2. I’m a man, and short or no, I’m perceived as much more of a defensive threat than a woman.

    The belief that women are easy targets doesn’t have to do with women’s stature or strength. It has to do with the place women occupy in this culture.

    I strongly disagree with your sweeping opinion on this matter. Our culture frowns upon sexual assault. It does. You have suggested no specific example of how our culture promotes and encourages rape and domestic violence, except “it just does.”

  80. When a phenomenon is found universally in human cultures, the presumption is that it is a human universal. When a phenomenon is found in some cultures but not others, the presumption is that it is something carried culturally.

    When feminists can show a culture where there is not violence against women, where there is no rape, where there is no abuse of children, then the case for the misogynistic patriarchal culture as the root cause of violence and rape and abuse becomes a case that can be taken seriously. (Oh, but of course – all the cultures are mean ol’ patriarchies. If only we had a Goddess, we’d be able to point to such a femtopia. If only there weren’t war. If only if it weren’t for the wicked Christ penis religions. If only…)

    Misogynistic patriarchal cultures certainly exist, and their levels of existence are indeed questions of degree, not of kind. There are MPC elements in Saudi culture, and in American culture. That can’t be disputed by a reasonable person, although the relative pervasiveness of those elements certainly can be. But as an explanatory factor for universally-observed behaviors, specific cultural elements fall flat.

    Feminists are so focused on claiming the evil culture as the root cause of the evil problem that they are foregoing their opportunity to contribute to what culture can do – ameliorate the effects of human nature – because most folks know deep down that human nature is a nasty beast, and won’t listen to people who persist in maintaining that the right upbringing will make it go away. We’re not idiots out here.

  81. All that said, I don’t want to downplay excuses made for male-on-male violence. Men who get assaulted are considered emasculated and therefore they get treated like women and are blamed for violence done onto them. But it is interesting that in order to excuse violence away, we make the target of it female in our minds. Prison rapists, for instance, call their victims “bitches”, in case you don’t remember. You know, they mentally make the victim female so that he can be a safe target for assault.

  82. I have to say that the severity and frequency of your experience is a bit worse than most.

    Probably not. I’m just way more open about it, as you stated, than most women who are ashamed and hide it. A friend of mine scoffed at the notion that only 1 in 4 or 5 woman is a rape victim, since, as she pointed out, about half of her female friends are. And this is a woman who won’t call herself a “feminist”, for the record.

  83. No. But the answers to your questions are fairly obvious.

    1. Rape is often expressed in accordance with sexuality, and most violent heterosexual men rape women (when available).
    2. I’m a man, and short or no, I’m perceived as much more of a defensive threat than a woman.

    Sexualized threats of violence are not about getting a woman into bed with you. But why is that? Why are you considered less of a threat? Why are you subject to less sexualized humiliation than a woman of your height, or indeed a woman a head taller than you?

    I strongly disagree with your sweeping opinion on this matter. Our culture frowns upon sexual assault. It does. You have suggested no specific example of how our culture promotes and encourages rape and domestic violence, except “it just does.”

    See the link in my earlier posts. And see Comment 83.

  84. I assure you that most men who grope and otherwise sexually assault women have zero intention of trying to go to bed with that woman. If that was the case, they’d at least hit on you first. Most of the humpers and the ones who corner you do it quickly and laugh at the look of terror on your face and then run off.

  85. Why are you subject to less sexualized humiliation than a woman of your height, or indeed a woman a head taller than you?

    Because I am proportionally much stronger and capable of inflicting violence, for one. And less attractive as a sexual target. I do NOT buy your idea that rape is ALL about violence and not about sex. Some rape (date rape) is quite sexual. Some is more violent (like a man that does hate women for whatever fucked up reason). But the idea that it’s all one way and not the other is simply ridiculous. A gander at the animal kingdom should disabuse you of that notion, and your generalization is silly.

    As to comment #83, how many of MY violent assailants were punished, arrested? None. “Boys will be boys.” or “sorry, but there’s nothing we can do.” My family is full of cops, and no, this is not primarily a function of wink and nod misogyny.

    As for the rest of your comments, they are all general assertions about it being caused by culture. No objective support. And this one …

    And when American men say stuff like this–Because institutionally and culturally, violence against women is strongly discouraged. It’s a specific taboo. Random men on the street will step in to stop another man roughing up a woman. And just because the violence takes place does not mean it is encouraged (directly or indirectly) by our society–they promulgate a level of wilfull ignorance towards domestic violence that can only be explained by an inability to value the lives of American women.

    .. is just fucking insulting. Seriously. If we are speaking honestly, then yes, rape and assault on women is a taboo in our society. This is a FACT. Truly, you are simply in love with your chosen narrative – which does battered women a disservice by diminishing otherwise important arguments about domestic abuse with UNREALITY – if you find this simple statement of fact objectionable and somehow encouraging of domestic violence and sexual assault. I find your assertion very offensive.

  86. Re: America bashing

    Isn’t a lot of politics criticizing the current state of the country? If everything were perfect then no one would have a platform of improvement to campaign on. Liberals may criticize the US for its hawkish foreign policy, lack of universal health care, stance on the environment etc. but conservatives (alright maybe I should learn my lesson from yesterday and admit I’m generalizing) also criticize the US for being too secular, having taxes that are too high, too many gun control laws, activist judges, legal abortion, gays, raunch culture etc.

  87. Amanda, I’m not sure how strictly you’re defining “sexual assault” for the purposes of this discussion, but in the Bay Area we just lost a local hero who interceded in an assault and was shot for it.

  88. Do random men stop sexual assault?

    I have stopped my car on a Seattle street to aid a woman who was being yelled, hit, and dragged to a car by (what turned out to be) her ex-boyfriend. (At her request I took her to a nearby bar where she had friends working.)

    I am not particularly physically intimidating. Yet when I arrived on the scene the thug in question decided that de-escalation to yelling abuse at her (“fine! go fuck HIM then!”) was preferable to enacting his violence with a male partner, rather than a female partner. A coward, in other words, as most (but by no means all) of the violent are.

  89. No rape is sexual. Do you honestly think that acquaintance rape is sexual? You might ask, sexual for whom? And why?

    If you can conceive of a circumstance in which forcing a penis, finger, tongue, or foreign object into the body of another human being against her (or his) will is an act of sex, rather than an act of violence and control, then I begin to see where the problem is. And I would say that this is a prime example of the way in which our society, while it may not say “All right! Violence against women is a-ok with me – let’s go have a beer!”, is complicit in a culture that legitimizes the idea that women are objects for men to do with what they will. If society disapproved as strongly of violence against women as you do, then there would be no question about funding for domestic violence or rape programs. And there are always questions about those programs. Look at VAWA.

    And please note: I’m not saying that you’re looking to be a date rapist. I’m saying that, if there are reasonable people who make reasoned arguments, but who are still capable of classifying any form of rape as “quite sexual”, then we have a long way to go yet.

  90. I’m sorry – the above comment was directed at Bill, whose characterization of date rape as “quite sexual” struck a chord with me, coming as it was from someone whose arguments I had found interesting and reasonable, if not persuasive.

  91. I know lots of men who have never been punched, but I don’t know a single woman who’s never been cornered, groped (in a menacing way, yes, for those about to protest, not a your-good-friend-got-drunk-and-tried-to-kiss-you-and-felt-bad-way), followed or otherwise put in a situation where she was in serious physical danger.

    :::raises hand:::: never happened to me and I have NOT lived a ‘sheltered’ life.

    BTW….maybe it’s because I’m in So. Cal, but the idea that “the system” ignores domestic violence is crap. The biggest obstacle that prosecuters have when bringing these cases to trial is the victims…who recant, get hostile, get ‘lost’ and otherwise don’t want to prosecute. Since the cops are trained to get immediate pics at the scene, transport to hospitals and arrest the batterer right away we usually have the evidence to proceed even if the victim doesn’t want, too.

    And we prosecute ALL perps, men or women, gay or straight.

  92. Lucky you. I have lived a “sheltered” life, which might be why I make a nice walking target. That and I’m probably not a very threatening looking person.

  93. Well, I’ve definitely never seen a random man stop a standard issue groping, but I’ve also seen random men ignore some pretty ugly situations. I’ve never seen a man intercede on behalf of a woman getting hit or molested without being her friend or somehow summoned to help. Well, and bouncers tend to keep an eye out, though often you have to go fetch them.

    With domestic violence, to be fair, a lot of men avoid helping for fear that the woman will get angry with them, which does happen a lot.

  94. The worst is when one does intercede in what appears to be a groping in progress, only to be informed that said groping is, in fact, quite welcome. In an annoyed tone by the intended savee. I’m not suggesting this is the norm or even common, but it has happened to me.

    To be overly analytical, it was probably some sort of paternalistic/wannabe alpha-male instinct kicking in, causing a skewed interpretation of the situation.

  95. Well, gee, Darlene, that’s interesting because we’ll all just accept what you say. After all, you blame victims so well. They have no good reasons for being frightened of law enforcement, which has such a good record on prosecuting domestic violence charges amongst their own, after all.

    Anyone who wants to know how our society condones rape and domestic violence need only look up any discussion on ‘sexual power’ over at Alas. You’ll find guys repeatedly telling women that no, their experience isn’t good enough.

  96. That’s problematic, Auguste. It’s a sticky situation because if you do get rescued–and again, I’ve only been rescued by friends–it puts weirdness between you. Like you “owe” him something.

    That said, I find that the only times I’m willing to violently lash out at gropers is when I know for a fact a male friend or boyfriend is nearby, which disturbs me to no end.

  97. A friend of mine scoffed at the notion that only 1 in 4 or 5 woman is a rape victim, since, as she pointed out, about half of her female friends are

    I realized recently that I know exactly zero women who haven’t been sexually assaulted in some way or another. Not all of those assaults were rapes, of course. I’ve encountered very little actual physical violence, sexual or non-sexual in my adult life. However, even I’ve been mashed, had a random male stranger grab my breast, and been verbally harassed. You might say that these are all “skinned knee” incidents, and certainly none of them are as serious as rape or domestic violence. However, I wonder how many men out there would just take it in stride and not be the least bit angry and frightened if a strange woman suddenly reached out and grabbed their balls.

    I haven’t reported any of these incidents. partly because I expect that nothing would happen if I did report them, partly because I’m a crappy witness and I’m a little afraid that if the police did take the report seriously they might arrest an innocent person.

    As far as punishment for domestic violence goes, I know a number of women who have been victims of domestic violence. Some of them have pressed charges against their abusers, others not. Of those who did press charges, I know no one whose abuser spent as much as a night in jail. Not even those whose victims spent more than one night in the hospital. However, I don’t know the statistics. Anyone know how often domestic violence is prosecuted versus how often assault on a stranger or acquaintance is prosecuted?

  98. I think that women have a number of reasons not to prosecute. In my case, I refrained because of an honest (if possibly foolhardy) belief that he really was acting out of character. But on top of it, the cops really make you suffer if you actually try to press charges–it’s stressful and humiliating, you’re likely to get arrested yourself if you fought back at all, and generally speaking, it’s sort of pointless.

  99. SECTION 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
    SEC. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
    SEC. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

    The Equal Rights Amendment.
    It’s a pretty simple idea – you can’t discriminate against half of the population merely because of their gender.

    It’s the kind of thing you would think would be a given in a place that likes to call itself the “freest nation on earth.” It’s so obvious it couldn’t possibly be considered controversial. So obvious you would think the only way we wouldn’t have it would be due to a simple oversight, “gee, we didn’t think we had to spell that out!”
    So obvious that clearly no rational person could oppose it, right?

    But we don’t have it. It wasn’t ratified. It was opposed.
    Equality would be too costly. Fairness would dangerously shift the balance of power. Justice would be too inconvenient.

    It is worse in Saudi Arabia, much worse. Here we don’t have laws permitting the murder of women (aside from capital punishment), but we absolutely are a nation with its misogyny codified in law. We don’t need to talk about violence to show it – we have representatives that rejected the ERA, we have countless conservative pundits that ridiculed the idea.

    Forget enforcement of such a law – we’re not even willing to pass a law. As a nation we’re not even willing to give lip service to the idea that women are fully human. The ERA is dead and there wasn’t even a funeral – even democrats won’t touch it, to suggest that women be considered fully equal is instant political death these days. Might as well suggest you believe in UFOs.

    When there is an equal rights amendment to the constitution, THEN perhaps people like some of the above commentors can assert that there is no institutionalized misogyny – THEN they can make the claim that mistreatment of women, violent or otherwise, is a problem we are aware of and are already grappling with.

  100. Wow, they sure are backwards over there in Saudi Arabia,” thus exoticising domestic crimes and excusing yourself (ourselves) from any ownership over this society, which also tacitly excuses violence against women. Yes, women in the United States have far more resources than Saudi women when trying to escape abusive situations, and the cult of silence around such violence has had holes poked in it here.

    Under Saudi Sharia laws:

    A woman is only eligible to receive half the inheritance of a man;

    Marriage may be forced on virgins by their father or father’s father;

    A woman must seek permission from her husband to leave the house;

    A free Muslim man may marry up to four women;

    The penalty for fornication or sodomy is being stoned to death;

    A woman’s legal testimony is only given half the legal weight of a man’s (and is only acceptable in cases involving property); to legally prove fornication or sodomy requires 4 male witnesses who actually saw the act;

    Sodomites and Lesbians must be killed;

    Beating a rebellious wife is permissible

    Saudi laws are comparable to the laws that governed the Taliban. They are the laws that bin Laden and al Qaeda wish to impose on the world. These laws are enforced by the religious police, or the mutaween. If you don’t know who the mutaween are, you can read this article about mutaween who prevented schoolgirls from running out of a burning building because the girl’s heads weren’t properly covered.

    In America, murdering and mutilating women is against the law. In Saudi Arabia, these acts are often required by law.

    Saudi-style Sharia laws are primitive, brutal and Naziesque when compared to American laws – their laws are primitive when compared to France, Thailand, Russia, China, Palau, and the tribal areas of the Amazon.

    These Sharia laws are primtive and brutal when compared to the unwritten laws that govern the behavior of dogs, cats and hamsters. Saudi laws are an abomination. Comparing this abomination to anything that exists in America proves that you have no point here at all.

  101. ginmar

    Where the f*ck did I say I blame victims? I am telling you the reality of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE…something I dare say I have seen more of in the last 7 years that I’ve been at the DA office than you have in a whole lifetime.

    MEN are victims of women batterers, too. Violence against one’s partner is NOT a Patriarchal Conspiracy but as someone said above part of the HUMAN condition. Granted, I’m anecdotally recounting MY experience from the inside of one particular judicial jurisdiction, but it is far from the stereotype I see propogated here. The tired, kneejerk our patriarchal cultural ills are blame, shibboleths to be waved about like a “Let’s Go Yankees!” banner at a game, then abandoned as everyone goes home feeling they “did” something are a HIDERANCE to actual solutions and a slap in the face to those people who work in the trenches with this everyday.

    And with all due respect Erin, there IS a sexual component to rape, just as there is a sexual component to pedophilia and ephebophilia. To dismiss the connection between violence and arousal is to miss something very important in how to identify and divert rapists. Don’t equate the “sexual arousal” component of rape as something the VICTIM has any control over. YES it is about control, domination and VIOLENCE and all of it is part of the perp’s sexual arousal makeup.

    Amanda,

    I’m sorry about your bad luck, I’m sorry you don’t know any women unmarked by violence and I’m sorry you don’t know any men who would step in and stop indecency wherever they saw it. I’m sure it has colored your life to a degree. Decency and indecency know no color, gender, ethnicity or creed.

    My eldest daughter is a paramedic in one of the meanest sections of So. Cal outside of South Central. Because she wears a “uniform”, that she is trying to save lives makes no difference to some. She is harassed and threatened by the very people she serves. It’s a choice she has made and she rises to the occassion and hasn’t been a victim herself. I pray that it continues that way. She is small but fiesty, aware and prepared and so far has avoided any dicey situations. And remarkably, she is not bitter, either.

  102. BTW Amanda

    In CA cops have no say in charges, pressed or not. They take a report and forward it to the DA. They have ZERO say and are OBLIGATED to take a batterer or co-batterers TO JAIL. Immediately, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

    Granted, this is only CA, but that’s how we handle things here.

  103. Darleen, the men in my life are often some of the most upstanding men I know. I know men that I have to hide shit from in order to keep them from flipping shit on others. Please refrain from sneering at me. The violence in my life has no relation to some bad taste in men. I, well, blame the patriarchy.

  104. Jaysus on a pony Amanda

    Get the f*cking chip off your shoulder. I didn’t sneer at you but if you are perceiving anything at all said as an attack, I’d say you better well do a little self-reflection.

    the men in my life are often some of the most upstanding men I know

    Yet you went out of your way to say you know of NO “random” men helping women and that you FEEL WEIRD if someone you DO know helps out.

    That AIN’T because of the patriarchy, sister.

    The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
    But in ourselves that we are underlings — Julius Caesar

    I feel sorry for your FEELINGS, that you perceive that as a “sneer” has not a thing to do with me.

    I’m comfortable in my skin as a woman and I take each person as a human being on their own merits until they prove otherwise. I am the mother of four daughters and I have tried to impart that much of being a decent person to them.

  105. I didn’t sneer at you but if you are perceiving anything at all said as an attack, I’d say you better well do a little self-reflection.

    Italics aren’t sneering? Darleen, go check the mirror naked. In case you didn’t know, just becaues you call another woman hysterical doesn’t mean you get to be a man.

    The reason I feel weird is because our culture has a chivalry narrative and there’s a weird thing where even though my body shouldn’t be considered barter and it wasn’t my fault I was being harassed in the first place, after being rescued by a man, I feel I owe him….something. In movies and TV, that’s my body and fidelity. In real life, though, that’s really unfair.

    And of course, there’s an extra layer of weirdness because a man has helped you escape the uglier parts of the patriarchy and yet the only reason he could help you is due to male dominance, he has authority to save you that you don’t have yourself.

    Granted, you may not be out of range of male control/protection long enough to be assaulted, and I am all the time. That’s my life–I have a lot of friends and hobbies and shit to do and I can’t always be using a man for cover. Even when I go out with men, I wander out of their sight for good chunks of time, which leaves me vulnerable to harassment. Also, I’ve had jobs that put me in that sort of line, like waiting tables. But what are you gonna do? Needing a man around for protection like you’re a child leaning on his mother is stifling and miserable.

  106. You know what you owe a man who helps you?

    Gratitude.

    You know what you owe a woman who helps you?

    Gratitude.

    And if you feel WEIRD because you don’t LIKE being thankful to your male friends, then ask yourself why you treat them differently than if your female friends helped you.

    You think my daughter is “under male” protection when she goes out on a call? Usually not since her partner is another female.

    I have little problem being out on my own without thinking it makes me suddenly vulnerable to “harassment.” Hell, yeah, I encounter obnoxious, rude people all the time. But you know what, sometimes they are equal opportunity assholes.

    I had a friend once who finally went around the bend when her perception overcame reality.

    The only one saying you need a man for cover at all time is you. Then you want to beat up the man for your feelings of inadequacy.

    You know who I worry about? My identical twin grandsons who just turned 3. Boys are getting the friggin’ short end of the stick in public schools and too much of society keeps reinforcing that they are the problem — just shove ’em full of ritalin and stick ’em in a corner. Like hell I’ll let them grow up any less that the good decent men they can be.

  107. Or does it have something to do with human nature, as Robert suggests, a facet of our nature that is actually ameliorated by our culture (including the efforts of feminists)?

    Let me ask you, Dianne (not just picking on you), and all of the other women on this thread – how many times have you, personally, been punched in the face? By how many men? How many times have you fought another person, you know, traded punches? had a male push you or attack you in a bar? Had a larger male compete with you for something, and resort to violence to get it. Very possibly, some of you.

    But if you poll a similar sample of men, odds are the rate of violence (experienced and certainly dealt out) is much higher. Why? Because men are much more physically violent than women.

    You know, it is always intriguing to me that people will use this argument straight-faced. Your argument here is that because it currently happens that men tend to be more violent, that therefore it is intrinsic human nature rather than a product of culture. If you think about it, this is clearly ridiculous. It presumes that whatever is happening right now is exactly what is “natural”.

    The simple proof of this is to look back, say, 200 years ago and then apply the same logic. There, you might demonstrate that women are naturally less intellectual than men, by citing the rates of intellectual pursuit among men versus those of women.

    You cannot use conditions today as proof of what is natural. You are simply citing what the combination of nature and culture is. Within history, human culture is prone to use males for violence, because human males are more expendable to society. A village can lose three-quarters of its men and completely recover by the next generation, because one man can impregnate many women.

    Things are changing, but the only way that they can is by dropping our preconceptions that the way things are now is the “natural state” that things have to be.

  108. Your argument here is that because it currently happens that men tend to be more violent, that therefore it is intrinsic human nature rather than a product of culture

    The disproof of the thesis is trivially simple. Name a culture and a time in which men were intrinsically nonviolent.

  109. There are cultures in existence that do not experience anger as we know it — of course, they haven’t been touched by civilization. See Carol Tavris’ “Anger.”

  110. Has anyone noticed that Jeff’s post way back at the beginning of this did not attempt to deny that there was violence against women in the U.S., but simply tried to point out that when you are trying to persuade someone or make a specific point about a specific problem you will be more effective if you don’t water it down by suggesting that “Oh, but other countries have problems too.” That’s just persuasive writing 101, not some claim that the level of violence in our country is acceptable.

  111. The disproof of the thesis is trivially simple. Name a culture and a time in which men were intrinsically nonviolent.

    You’re right — citing a past culture would be a disproof. However, the converse is not true. i.e. Just because we haven’t seen a culture phenomenon yet doesn’t mean that it can’t possibly happen in the future. Again, look at how your argument would look just 200 years ago. There have been enormous changes and cultural happenings which were never seen before in history.

    I certainly wouldn’t push for a total lack of violence, which is clearly unrealistic. But conversely, I wouldn’t inherently write off the current level of domestic violence as just being the natural result of men’s inherent aggression and therefore not subject to improvement. I happen to believe that we can do better than what has gone before.

  112. Just because we haven’t seen a culture phenomenon yet doesn’t mean that it can’t possibly happen in the future. Again, look at how your argument would look just 200 years ago.

    Um, the same? “People are basically violent. Men are even more violent than women. Buy IBM.”

    OK, except for that last part, I’m not seeing the problem that John and Abigail Adams run into with the argument.

    There have been enormous changes and cultural happenings which were never seen before in history.

    Sure. And that changes human nature how, exactly?

    There has been some change in the genetic makeup of humanity over the last 200 or 2000 or 20.000 years, and it’s possible to make a coherent argument that those changes are meaningful in their impact on human nature. But such a change would of necessity be small – and when we read things like intimate personal histories of men from 2000 years ago, we are struck by how much like us they are, not by how bizarre and alien they are. We look at Caesar every morning while we brush our teeth.

    Unless evolution is wrong. If evolutionary theory is wrong, then you can make a much better case for malleable human natures. I’m not thinking there’s going to be a big groundswell for this particular trade .

    I wouldn’t inherently write off the current level of domestic violence as just being the natural result of men’s inherent aggression and therefore not subject to improvement. I happen to believe that we can do better than what has gone before.

    As do I. It is my contention that efforts to do better – to make our culture better able to mediate and moderate our natures – are best grounded in the view that people aren’t all that angelic off the starting line.

  113. ccc

    I don’t watch O’Reilly, he of the pompas ass variety. However, he was sloppy. The Irish were shipped to the New World (Carribean) as SLAVES by Cromwell. CHATTEL slaves. In the 19th century they escaped Ireland during the potato famine that the Brits were using as an excuse to exterminate the Irish.

    I would be nice if people actually knew the history of slavery..both bond and chattel.

  114. Darleen, you could be a fuckin’ pony for all I know, so your alleged experience means bullshit. You could be a guy. What comes across loud and clear is your attitude.

  115. Yeah, Robert, once again you ignore the fact that if men are more violent it has something to do with the way we expect them to be more violent. After all, it’s normal, right? Whereas women aren’t expected to be violent so when they are violent it’s cause for alarm.

    Yeah, Darlene, your comments about your daughter being sneered at by the people she’s helping brings to mind some of those fake emails talking about those uppity people in NOLA being disrespectful and ungrateful.

    Jeez, looks like Phyllis Schlafly decided to visit from her anti-feminist moutaintop.

    Basically, what we’ve learned is that violence is normal so, gee, we can’t really blame men for it. We’ve also learned that if someone with a female screen name says “But women do it, too!” and ‘those DV victims refuse to prosecute, it’s all their fault!” then it’s got to be true. Working in LE—assuming she does, that is—says nothing about whether or not they do right by their female clients. It ought to be apparent from Darlene’s attitude that if you’re ‘another’ female she’s the last person you want on your case. I notice Darlene didn’t address at all the overwhelming issue of whether or not DV victims have good reason to be fearful of pressing charges. Those silly DV victims. Silly Amanda, too, for having a ‘chip’ on her shoulder when Darlene smugly tells her that she just has bad taste in men. Why do I get the feeling that no matter how much you say to Darlene that contradicts her opinion, she’ll just find a new reason to dismiss instead of listening?

  116. Just because we haven’t seen a culture phenomenon yet doesn’t mean that it can’t possibly happen in the future. Again, look at how your argument would look just 200 years ago.

    Um, the same? “People are basically violent. Men are even more violent than women. Buy IBM.”

    OK, except for that last part, I’m not seeing the problem that John and Abigail Adams run into with the argument.

    You’re right, they wouldn’t have a problem with your argument. However, now think about what else they would say about the “inherent” differences between men and women. For example, what does the history of the sciences, and writing, and politics say? Clearly men are more naturally suited for intellectual pursuits such as writing and law — you can see it in all cultures, they would say. Similarly, they would say that history shows us that blacks are naturally more primitive than whites.

    I’m not saying that there are no intrinsic genetic differences between men and women, or blacks and whites. But you can’t just look at how history has been and say that whatever has been is pure genetics.

  117. Yeah, Robert, once again you ignore the fact that if men are more violent it has something to do with the way we expect them to be more violent. After all, it’s normal, right? Whereas women aren’t expected to be violent so when they are violent it’s cause for alarm.

    Where to begin? Let’s start at the end.

    Women are expected to be violent. They’re just not expected to be as violent as men. Women bad, men worse. K? Both men and women have violent innate natures. Men’s are worse. Why?

    Our cultural expectations of male violence doubtless have some function in terms of the gender roles that people adapt. However, we also know that this cannot be the entirety of the explanation for differential rates of male violence, because men are more violent than women across cultures.

    Human emotional systems are complex things, and are not completely understood. However, we do have a great deal of understanding of the role that hormones play in mediating our emotional responses to events. Testosterone, specifically, is well known to be linked, in sometimes complex but nonetheless discernable ways, to aggression and the expression of aggression. I don’t have more testosterone than you do because my mother gave me more attention than yours did, or because the boys in school roughhoused with me more, or because I saw war movies while they made you play with My Little Pony. I have more testosterone than you because I am a man, and its an intrinsic part of my biology.

    It’s not quite as simple as more testosterone = more aggression, but that is the general trendline, as study after study has shown.

    The observer without an ideological requirement for important gender distinctions to be cultural is forced to the conclusion that we expect men to be more violent because men are more violent, not the other way around. Do cultural expectations of male violence contribute to the disparity? Certainly. Can they explain it all, or even most of it? Certainly not.

    I don’t expect you to negotiate that linear reasoning chain, since I’ve never seen you successfully negotiate one, but hopefully somebody will.

  118. However, now think about what else they would say about the “inherent” differences between men and women.

    Lots of things, many of which would be wrong. So what? We know more than they do. We also know that they were right about some things.

  119. Has anyone here ever talked to any Saudi women? Or read their blogs? Or invited a Saudi woman to come over here and talk about her perspective and experiences and what she feels should be done?

    In my experience, the last thing Saudi women want are a bunch of Americans tsking over how shitty their country is. I think Karen Hughes learned that the hard way a couple of weeks ago, in fact. And as easy as it is to dismiss these women as rich women who have it better than the poor women in SA, the fact is that they are the ones in the best position to make a difference in their country. But when Americans go on and on about how horrible Saudi Arabia is, the common response of Saudi women is to circle the wagons and tell us that we barely have any women in our government (true), that we refuse to take women presidential candidates seriously (true), that we refuse to incorporate a national health care system that would benefit women and children (true), so they aren’t interested in our patronizing sympathy.

    You can compare domestic violence in the U.S. to skinned knees all you want, but failing to acknowledge our own problems with the status of women here when talking about problems their never fails to infuriate Saudi women and consistently shuts down any hope of dialogue and genuine efforts at problem solving, and the next things you start to hear are that they have drivers so they don’t need a license and they don’t need to vote because men just vote on stupid things anyway, so fuck America.

    I suppose the Reader’s Digest version of this post is that failing to acknowledge the flaws in our own system while discussing the flaws in Saudi Arabia’s is seen as extremely disrespectful to the women we claim to want to help.

  120. that we refuse to incorporate a national health care system that would benefit women and children

    In the same vein, we don’t simply take money from men and give it to women. That would benefit them. I mean, honestly, if we’re REALLY serious about helping women, then we should fire all male members of government.

    Until we do that, then there really is no way we can honestly claim that we are anywhere near close to an acceptable standard of women’s rights. *Sigh* That poor gender.

  121. Both men and women have violent innate natures. Men’s are worse. Why?

    Our cultural expectations of male violence doubtless have some function in terms of the gender roles that people adapt. However, we also know that this cannot be the entirety of the explanation for differential rates of male violence, because men are more violent than women across cultures.

    OK, here’s the fallacy I pointed out. Your assumption here is that the set of historical cultures is a neutral wash — i.e. anything which is generally true in history is the way that things naturally are. For example, we can see that across cultures, men dominate politics. Therefore, by your logic, there must be a genetic predisposition for men to be leaders and women followers.

    I don’t agree with this. The average of historical cultures doesn’t give us an unbiased view into pure genetics. I believe that people who grow up in different conditions than have been historically true will show different tendencies.

    Notably, as I mentioned earlier, societies will tend to use men for violence because they are more expendable. A village which loses three-quarters of its women will take many generations to recover — whereas a village which loses three-quarters of its men can bounce back in one generation. Thus, cultures will use men as their soldiers to compete. Cultures generate myths to justify this.

    Just to be clear — I’m not making any claims about men’s genetic tendency to violence. I’m not saying it’s not there. I am saying you can’t use the average history as a measure of it, because history gives you just as many myths as it does truths.

  122. Right on, Flea. I ran into this attitude in Japan–people tsked over the misogyny there, but refused to acknowledge the misogyny back in their home countries.

  123. Again:

    The culture of Saudi Arabia says that women are property and nothing you do to them is wrong as long as its women you own – your wives, sisters, or daughters. They’re your property as a matter of fact and law. If a man sees a woman being mistreated, he should either do nothing, or perhaps offer some tips on knot-tying and beating techniques.

    The US culture is that women should be protected and cherished and have all the same rights as men. If a man see a woman being mistreated by another man, he is obligated to step in and stop the abuse or be branded a coward or unethical.

    To say we have even a remotely similar patriarchal culture is an insult to America.

  124. I am saying you can’t use the average history as a measure of it, because history gives you just as many myths as it does truths.

    This is a counsel of perpetual ignorance. Of course we can’t take history as a stark measure – but it’s what we have to work with.

    Consider this counter-proposition. Most all societies of which we have historical records are patriarchial – male dominated, to one extent or another. And every one of those societies has demonstrated injustice and unfairness towards women, to one degree or another. Right?

    What would you think of the argument “well, we don’t KNOW that patriarchy always leads to unfairness to women…it could just be the historical circumstances of these particular patriarchal societies…maybe if we had different circumstances, patriarchy would lead to total justice for women.” ?

    Most folks – even most honest non-feminist folks – would say, no. Patriarchy is automatically unfair to women, and the argument between pro-patriarchy folks and anti-patriarchy folks is whether any of the viable alternatives are any better – not whether there’s some hypothetical matrix into which we could set a patriarchy and get utopia.

    We can learn from our history, but we do have to engage our critical faculties. One general principle of critical thought is that to explain a universally observed reality with a specifically contextual theory is a tricky proposition. We observe that patriarchies, on balance, are always and everywhere hard on women. We observe that men, on balance, are always and everywhere more violent than women. The burden of demonstrating that this is the result of some narrow cause, rather than a broad universal, is on the proponent of the narrow cause.

  125. And every one of those societies has demonstrated injustice and unfairness towards women, to one degree or another. Right?

    They’ve also almost all been rabidly xenophobic and treated the men almost as badly as the women. The strong nearly always oppress the weak. That’s more a statement on human nature in general.

    Thankfully, Western Civ has risen above that, at least at a societal level if not universally.

  126. In the same vein, we don’t simply take money from men and give it to women. That would benefit them. I mean, honestly, if we’re REALLY serious about helping women, then we should fire all male members of government.

    Until we do that, then there really is no way we can honestly claim that we are anywhere near close to an acceptable standard of women’s rights. *Sigh* That poor gender

    I’m not sure what the purpose of this comment is, unless it is to make it clear that you have no interest in listening to Saudi women when they express dissatisfaction in the way Americans are speaking to them. The expectation that Saudi women should be grateful for the bones we throw their way is insulting to them. Expecting them to follow our example without question or regard for the things in their culture that they value is also insulting. Mocking them for being insulted seems to be a common response, but I’m not sure how that’s effective in actually helping them achieve greater freedom. Unless, of course, you’re not really all that interested in the first place.

  127. The US culture is that women should be protected and cherished and have all the same rights as men. If a man see a woman being mistreated by another man, he is obligated to step in and stop the abuse or be branded a coward or unethical.

    Yeah, this explains why so many rape victims get treated so well. This also explains the backlash, MRAs, FRAs, the fact the abortion is in danger, the fact that any wingnut in a white coat can stick his nose in a woman’s BC prescription, the fact that sexism remains a plank of the ruling party here, the fact that most American women ahve been sexually harassed. This explains how I got mugged in front of a crowd of people and they said, “We thought it was your boyfriend.” This explains how come OJ got acquitted. This explains how rapes get videotaped and only feminists object when the sixteen-year-old unconscious victim gets called a slut and a dirty whore, sometimes in open court.

    To say we have even a remotely similar patriarchal culture is an insult to America.

    You don’t suffer this kind of shit, Talldave, so fuck off. You don’t get to tell women what culture we have, what we endure, and what we live through. If you want to find out, try shutting up and listening.

    Ten bucks says he doesn’t.

  128. If you can conceive of a circumstance in which forcing a penis, finger, tongue, or foreign object into the body of another human being against her (or his) will is an act of sex, rather than an act of violence and control, then I begin to see where the problem is. And I would say that this is a prime example of the way in which our society, while it may not say “All right! Violence against women is a-ok with me – let’s go have a beer!”, is complicit in a culture that legitimizes the idea that women are objects for men to do with what they will.

    Erin’s got it.

    As for the irony factor in watching some of the men here label every woman’s personal experience with assault (and this thread certainly contains a few examples thereof) an exception, an aberration, “worse than most,” “unfortunate,” and denying there might be a problem… it’s off the scale. I guess it’s inconceivable, then, that denying there’s a problem might be contributing to the problem?

  129. The US culture is that women should be protected and cherished and have all the same rights as men.

    Wow. TallDave must live in a bubble. From my experience the U.S. culture is that all women are good for is sex. For a good primer on what the U.S. Culture says women are good for see this link and watch the preview video

  130. Seeing how this discussion has already degenerated into personal attacks and arguments about details of previous arguments about details of previous arguments, I thought I might post this interesting piece of information:

    The information that comes into our lives is seldom received in an objective or neutral way. Instead, there are several biases which affect the degree of influence a given amount of information has on our knowledge, beliefs, and decision making. Here, briefly, are some of those biases.

    6. Sparkle. Lively, immediate, personal experience overwhelms theory and generalization. Many people base their personal behavior and values on generalizations formed by single personal experiences, even when those generalizations conflict with much better established facts based on thorough empirical investigation. Abstract truths, detailed statistics, even moral values–all can be ignored when a strong personal experience points to a different conclusion. It is no wonder so many people seem bent on giving us the “razzle dazzle” instead of cogent arguments or facts. Additionally, people who can be convinced that they have experienced a truth or something that they see as evidence toward a truth, will often not listen to any arguments to the contrary. The emotion attached to the experience, the reality of it all, and the feeling of being an eyewitness, are too much to confute. But if you have watch any magic acts, product demonstrations, or suave Romeos, you know that substance and style are not necessarily the same.

    More here:
    http://www.virtualsalt.com/infobias.htm

  131. In my experience, the last thing Saudi women want are a bunch of Americans tsking over how shitty their country is

    Most Saudi women don’t want to live like Americans; they would have to give up their Indonesian slave maids.

    http://www.cdhr.info/article05080503.asp

    One of the maids told the President that the family she worked for had sexually abused her. Another worker said that she did not receive her salary while several others said that they were beaten up by their employers.

    Recently, an Indonesian maid had suffered severe beatings by her employers in Saudi Arabia. Nur Miyati had to have her fingers amputated as a result.

    Despite the wounds and bruises to her body suggesting she was a victim of violence, she was forced to face court for “making false allegations which misled the inquiry”.

    She told the Saudi authorities that she had been tortured by her employers. However, the authorities concluded after an enquiry that she had been “beaten” but not tortured.”

    As with the story of Rania Al-Baz, the Saudi TV announcer who was brutally beaten and strangled by her husband, the maid’s story represents just a few of the hundreds of cases that never get into the media or receive any attention at all. Nour Miyati is not alone out there. There are thousands of other housemaids who are subjected to torture, violence and injustice in the Kingdom.

    If we look at the official figures from the Indonesian Embassy this year, over 800 cases of Indonesian maids being abused or harassed have been reported to the embassy. These of course are the cases that the embassy is aware of. One cannot imagine how large the number would be if it included all the maids who have been abused and mistreated.

    For some men in Saudi Arabia, sexual relations with a housemaid are not considered as rape, because they believe that such a practice is permitted by their beliefs.

    Employing women as maids/slaves is legal, and encouraged, under Shariah/Islamic law. The last thing Saudis want is a bunch of Americans tsking over how shitty slavery is.

  132. Pingback: The Debate Link
  133. ginmar

    I’m not anonymous, I post under my own name and if you don’t want to accept that fine. I just take it you have nothing of substance to argue about with me so you are emotionally backed into a corner of now attacking me as a person.

    I related my experience and my daughter’s experience as WOMEN who know the front lines of domestic violence and harassment. You want to play your little game of sticking your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes and singing “lalalalala – I don’t HEAR you! –lalalala” then I feel real sad for you. You only want information that confirms your own prejudice.

    I did not blame DV victims but was explaining the REALITY of how we handle it in my So Cal jurisdiction.

    You don’t think women or gays or lesbians can be DV aggressors?

    Tomorrow is my big incustody calendar after a 3 day weekend. We have 9 cases of booked PC273.5a charges (domestic violence). 4 of the suspects are…. TADA…women.

    Hey, anecdotal, like I said. But far and away more than your pathetic little rants indicate that you’ve seen.

    We work exceedingly hard to help DV victims… helping them find shelters (we work a lot with House of Ruth), transporting them and their families to and from court, helping cut through paperwork so they can get funds. Even getting them into safe houses away from abusive partners.

    And too many times, in court, the prosecuting DDA cannot count on a victim to testify truthfully because HE OR SHE decides for any number of reasons they don’t want their abuser in jail. Financial, emotional, what all.

    THAT is the reality of DV. People get violent with each other.

    You know, people shoplift, they hold up banks, they steal credit cards…does that mean American Society promotes and allows petty theft and robbery?

    You got a lot of issues, ginmar. Seek help.

  134. Shelby

    If American society is saying all women are good for is “sex” then why the hell are there more women in college than men? More women getting degrees than men?

    Oh..are you talking POP culture? And who is holding a gun to the heads of the females who appear in music videos, commerical advertising and on the covers of magazines like Cosmo?

    I do understand the disassociation going on. After decades of a type of feminism that claimed that men and women were THE SAME (not a synonym with equality).. the only way some women can demonstrate they are different from men is by showing off their bodies.

    So women have the freedom to be as libertine as they want, and if they still aren’t happy…..it’s because of The Patriarchy.

    sshhhhhh heaven forfend we might suggest we examine our OWN choices…

  135. This explains how rapes get videotaped and only feminists object when the sixteen-year-old unconscious victim gets called a slut and a dirty whore, sometimes in open court.

    Guess that makes the prosecuting team, local media and local male radio show hosts “feminists”, right? Cuz I know what case you’re talking about and the ONLY one(s) trying to discredit the victim was the defense. DOAH.

    you are a tool, ginmar.

  136. Feminism, Multiculturalism and Domestic Violence

    Last week, I wrote:

    I think a significant portion of the left leans toward some form of moral equivalency or cultural relativism when it comes to gender issues in the West and in non-Western countries. Even feminists who are sharply critical of women’s oppression in Third World countries often feel the need to throw in annoying disclaimers about how we really aren’t much better.

    Well, this very issue is a topic of some heated debate right now over at Feministe, Protein Wisdom, and John Cole. …

    Read more

  137. You know, people shoplift, they hold up banks, they steal credit cards…does that mean American Society promotes and allows petty theft and robbery?

    This is so stupid it’s off the scale. It amazes me that you can be the age you are and have no knowledge of feminism at all. Then again, no, it doesn’t.

    I’ve read of a great many cases where victims of domestic violence have been arrested. Of course, cops don’t have really good records when it comes to committing domestic violence themselves. But I guess Darleen doesn’t see that. Or she doesn’t question how those women got arrested or, hell, read anything at all.

    Fascinating.

    I’ll get help when you stop spouting bullshit, Darlene. There is a connection between the crap you spew and the way people respond to you.

  138. Ginmar

    Am I reading you right? Are you trying to tell me the women on my incustody list are really victims?

    Damn, that’s some crystal ball you have!

    And I’m sure the WOMEN teachers we have prosecuted for molesting their students are victims, too.

    Because of the Patriarchy, of course.

    (btw, I’d like to see the link to the “cases” you’ve “read about”)

    I work in the system (obviously you don’t) and late yesterday we lost a fine officer so you’ll excuse me if I have only this to say to you in regards to your obvious disdain for everyone that “serves and protects”

    Get over yourself.

  139. your obvious disdain for everyone that “serves and protects”

    Oh, I’m sure that’s just what she has, Darleen. It’s not as though she’s a veteran.

    Keep a civil tongue in your head for our servicemen and women, huh?

  140. Oh, I’m sure that’s just what she has, Darleen. It’s not as though she’s a veteran.

    Look, risking shrapnel to the brain isn’t anywhere near as dangerous as dealing with all those sociopathic battered women, so you can just shut it.

    And I’m sure the WOMEN teachers we have prosecuted for molesting their students are victims, too.

    WDIT!

  141. Look, risking shrapnel to the brain isn’t anywhere near as dangerous as dealing with all those sociopathic battered women, so you can just shut it.

    Oh, yeah? Do you know that? Do you work in the very important legal system at a very important job typing very important casework for very important lawyer-mens, like I do? Is your pitiful anecdotal evidence anywhere near as compelling and convincing as mine’s is? I’ll bet it isn’t, missy, so how ’bout you sashay that brownskirted feminazi behind of yours out of my comments section right now!

    Oh, wait. This, uh, isn’t my blog? Oh, shoot.

  142. More like her insistence that domestic violence is such a problem because those damn women won’t just file charges already. And coming down so hard on Amanda when Amanda pointed out that it’s odd to have to feel grateful to a man for giving you something that should be yours to begin with–particularly given the obligations that can accompany that kind of gratitude in this culture’s most beloved stories. And her apparent belief that women become models/actresses/pornstars/Maxim fodder because feminists wore too many overalls. Oh, and, best of all, attacking the idea that DV is misogynistic by comparing a kind of crime that disproportionately affects women with a kind of crime that…doesn’t.

  143. But then, someone dares question THE PATRIARCHY’s total responsibility for all evil.

    Yes, that’s exactly what the problem is. How astute of you, Robert.

    I hate to drag us back 150-odd comments ago, but I believe this began because Protein Wisdom could not discern between placing the U.S. domestic violence problem on a continuum with the problem in Saudi Arabia . . . and “there go them libruls again, always blaming America first.” I eagerly await the next continuing series at Protein Wisdom: “How Dare You Imply -13 and 1736 Are Both Integers When One is So Much Less Than the Other, You Pinko Bastards (Why Do They Hate America So?)”

    Dumb blogs produce dumb readers, I guess. Though I don’t think it requires too much brainpower to see that no one in this thread has insisted upon “the patriarchy’s total responsibility for all evil.” Except you, of course, in a classic straman maneuver that I’m getting especially tired of.

  144. Jeff didn’t say “there go the liberals, blaming America first”. He said that the reflex of criticizing America in order to gain the moral standing to criticize someone else was tiresome, counterproductive, and predicated on a moral luxury which we no longer possess.

    “Blame America first”, by contrast, is the trope in which all the world’s problems derive from America; it’s the hard-left version of American exceptionalism.

    But of course, as a dumb person, I barely comprehend how to make the pretty pictures come on the screen; these distinctions are largely beyond my tiny, tiny brain.

  145. Jeff didn’t say “there go the liberals, blaming America first”. He said that the reflex of criticizing America in order to gain the moral standing to criticize someone else was tiresome, counterproductive, and predicated on a moral luxury which we no longer possess.

    Split that hair, Bubba! Yes–and as further evidence of the intellectual honesty which PW boasts in such abundance, he then proceeded to argue against TMV’s David Schraub by deliberately omitting the meat of Schraub’s argument–namely:

    One day later, Feministe had a post up criticizing draconian Colombian abortion laws (they prohibit abortion even when necessary to save the life of the mother). It did not criticize, draw a parallel to, or mention American abortion sentiments in any respect. In other words, it was exactly the approach the right says the left never takes.

    Jeff can’t refute Schraub’s point that the left often does not “reflexively” criticize America first (“to establish their bona fides,” as PW put it) because the entire point of “Sexing the Sharia” was to establish that knee-jerk America-hatin’:

    It is typical of the kind of discourse those on the left are treating us to these days.

    Now: Do I need to provide you the definition of typical, or can you take it from here?

    Incidentally, it’s news to me that the right and the right alone has been put in charge of determining which “moral luxuries” we do and do not possess any longer. And it’s telling that an attempt to discuss violence against women in our own country has been assigned that classification.

  146. I hate to drag us back 150-odd comments ago, but I believe this began because Protein Wisdom could not discern between placing the U.S. domestic violence problem on a continuum with the problem in Saudi Arabia . . . and “there go them libruls again, always blaming America first.” I eagerly await the next continuing series at Protein Wisdom: “How Dare You Imply -13 and 1736 Are Both Integers When One is So Much Less Than the Other, You Pinko Bastards (Why Do They Hate America So?)”

    See Karol’s comment, No. 13:

    It’s actually a classic liberal problem, to be unable to criticize anything without first criticizing America. It makes people tune you out and not to take you seriously and whatever point you were trying to make becomes muddled or irrelevant under that equivalence.

    Jeff didn’t say “there go the liberals, blaming America first”. He said that the reflex of criticizing America in order to gain the moral standing to criticize someone else was tiresome, counterproductive, and predicated on a moral luxury which we no longer possess.

    Jeff agreed wholeheartedly with Karol’s comment and said that this was a “typical” rhetorical tack of the left, similar to “liberal guilt,” characteristic of the Democratic base, and also apparent on CNN and in major newspapers. He was not making a general, nonpartisan comment. Nor was he talking about far-left progressives, or about alternet. He was talking about the liberal mainstream.

  147. “Blame America first”, by contrast, is the trope in which all the world’s problems derive from America; it’s the hard-left version of American exceptionalism.

    I fail to see how you can take Jill’s post to “all the world’s problems derive from America,” but it sure does explain the 160+ comments on here.

  148. Robert, you said something that wasn’t true. We cited chapter and verse. Suck it up.

    OK, you wanna dance? Let’s dance.

    Oh yeah, her:
    Split that hair, Bubba!

    Not splitting a hair – distinguishing between two concepts. OYH said Jeff had started this discussion by saying one thing. I note that he didn’t – he said something quite distinct. OYH then notes, and Piny chimes in to agree, that Jeff went on to do the second thing, which is arguably true. However, that’s not what was alleged. Temporality matters.

    More OYH:
    ncidentally, it’s news to me that the right and the right alone has been put in charge of determining which “moral luxuries” we do and do not possess any longer.

    News to you, not news to the country. You guys got your shot, and we got Bin Laden, sanctions against Iraq’s poor, and a nuclear North Korea. No mas, por favor.

    And it’s telling that an attempt to discuss violence against women in our own country has been assigned that classification.

    No it wasn’t. Read. The moral luxury we no longer have is that of wallowing in our own wickedness before we can criticize another. No specific connection to violence against women.

    Lauren:
    I fail to see how you can take Jill’s post to “all the world’s problems derive from America,”

    Yeah, I’d fail to see that too. Luckily, that isn’t what I’m doing. I’m distinguishing what Jeff said from the wrong label that was assigned to his statement.

    They’re such himbos sometimes

    Ah, we wouldn’t know we were arguing against feminists if the awesome rhetorical firepower of the 2nd grade playground insult hadn’t been called into action.

    You’re all a bunch of poopy pants!

  149. Not splitting a hair – distinguishing between two concepts. OYH said Jeff had started this discussion by saying one thing. I note that he didn’t – he said something quite distinct. OYH then notes, and Piny chimes in to agree, that Jeff went on to do the second thing, which is arguably true. However, that’s not what was alleged. Temporality matters.

    Robert, the post is right there for you to refer to. Roll tape:

    In response to [Jill’s] argument, which relies on the “yes, but” formulation so popular in progressive circles, Karol of Alarming News points out the rhetorical flaw that diminishes an otherwise strong post, while in the process making an important political point:

    “They sure are backward over there in Saudi Arabia.

    Is America perfect? Yes, compared to the land of Saud, we are. You do a disservice to the battle against violence of women by even noting our problems in the same post as Saudi Arabia. America bashing is always fun, I’m sure, but it makes us take the problems of Saudi Arabia much less seriously when you draw a moral equivalence between what happens here and what happens there. It’s actually a classic liberal problem, to be unable to criticize anything without first criticizing America. It makes people tune you out and not to take you seriously and whatever point you were trying to make becomes muddled or irrelevant under that equivalence.”

    You are right: Jeff did not say “there go those liberals again, always blaming America first.” He only noted that the “yes, but” formulation that “exposes a problem many people have with the progressive worldview that feels the need to establish its bona fides with knee jerk self-criticism before it can dare criticize others / Others” is “so popular in progressive circles.”

    Attempting to differentiate between my one-sentence paraphrase, which I used only to save me the bother of quoting the same old shit you’ve ostensibly read already all over again, and what Jeff actually wrote, which I have helpfully provided for you above because clearly I cannot rely on you to recall it accurately, is splitting hairs. “So popular” and “typical” do not constitute distinct concepts from “always.” They differ by degree (and it’s a small one). Kind of like domestic violence is a problem that differs by degree.

    You see how that works?

  150. Not splitting a hair – distinguishing between two concepts. OYH said Jeff had started this discussion by saying one thing. I note that he didn’t – he said something quite distinct. OYH then notes, and Piny chimes in to agree, that Jeff went on to do the second thing, which is arguably true. However, that’s not what was alleged. Temporality matters.

    This was his first note on the subject of alienation the electorate, via the comments thread at Rox Populi:

    But now, after 5 years of listening to Dems, there is absolutely nothing they can do to win me back short of purging their entire leadership and nuking their base from orbit.

    And these are his original comments at Protein Wisdom in response to Jill. Unless by “went on to,” you mean, “went on in the same post to,” the temporality you’re talking about isn’t worth much.

    From Sexing the Sharia:

    I

    n response to this argument, which relies on the “yes, but” formulation so popular in progressive circles, Karol of Alarming News points out the rhetorical flaw that diminishes an otherwise strong post, while in the process making an important political point:

    See? Agrees wholeheartedly with Karol’s argument, calls it “popular in progressive circles.”

    Later on, a reference to the RP comment:

    Rox Populi asked the other day what it might take for moderate Republicans and independents to return to the Democratic Party.

    To which I said, quite seriously, that the first thing the Dems would have to do is nuke their base.

    Still later:

    In fact, such mannered, rote, forced introspection is the reason CNN and the networks lost so many viewers after 911. It’s the reason people have cancelled their subscriptions to major newspapers.

    Still, still later:

    But after 911, the majority of us surrendered the liberal guilt we had the luxury to wallow in

    …Finally:

    It is typical of the kind of discourse those on the left are treating us to these days.

    Later on, he glosses his original post thusly:

    My post, you’ll recall, highlighted the problems certains readers have with a particular type of rhetorical presentation that “feels the need to establish its bona fides with knee jerk self-criticism before it can dare criticize others / Others.” Specifically, I noted that “comparing—even obliquely—the situation of women in Saudi Arabia to that of women here, causes many people in the center and on the right (and probably a few pragmatic Dems, too) to tune out.”

    …and fails to mention the references to liberals and the left that were in his original post.

    Still later, he complains that the last reference–“typical”–had nothing to do with kneejerk self-criticism, but…that’s one out of four clear indications that he was in fact talking about leftists and liberals when he complained about kneejerk self-criticism.

  151. Not splitting a hair – distinguishing between two concepts. OYH said Jeff had started this discussion by saying one thing. I note that he didn’t – he said something quite distinct. OYH then notes, and Piny chimes in to agree, that Jeff went on to do the second thing, which is arguably true. However, that’s not what was alleged. Temporality matters.

    This is what I understand you to be saying. I don’t understand this temporality point, given that the temporality you’re referring to involves the space of a few paragraphs. OYH’s admittedly caustic gloss of what he said–“’there go them libruls again, always blaming America first’”–is not an inaccurate reading of his post on the subject, in which he specifically, repeatedly mentions liberals and the left.

    This interpretation, OTOH:

    Jeff didn’t say “there go the liberals, blaming America first”. He said that the reflex of criticizing America in order to gain the moral standing to criticize someone else was tiresome, counterproductive, and predicated on a moral luxury which we no longer possess.

    is true, but incomplete. He was talking about liberals, leftists, and progressives, and how liberals, leftists and progressives engage in the reflex of criticizing America.

  152. engage in the reflex

    The reflex is an only child, he’s waiting in the park–oh I hate you for that, piny.

    And it’s so typical of a progressive to want to “engage in” an only child waiting in the park. Why do you hate America’s children so?

  153. Pingback: The Republic of T.

Comments are currently closed.