Are women human?

[barb162]

Are women human?

In her new book, leading feminist Catharine MacKinnon argues that women are still treated more like "things" than people. She talks to Stuart Jeffries about her war on pornography - and whether men and women can ever really connect

Wednesday April 12, 2006
The Guardian


Of all the provocative passages in Catharine MacKinnon's new book Are Women Human? the following hit me hardest. She writes: "he fact that the law of rape protects rapists and is written from their point of view to guarantee impunity for most rapes is officially regarded as a violation of the law of sex equality, national or international, by virtually nobody."
Are you suggesting that rape law enshrines rapists' points of view, I ask MacKinnon? "Yes, in a couple of senses. The most obvious sense is that most rapists are men and most legislators are men and most judges are men and the law of rape was created when women weren't even allowed to vote. So that means not that all the people who wrote it were rapists, but that they are a member of the group who do and who do for reasons that they share in common even with those who don't, namely masculinity and their identification with masculine norms and in particular being the people who initiate sex and being the people who socially experience themselves as being affirmed by aggressive initiation of sexual interaction." She takes a well-earned breath.

Why does MacKinnon matter? She is undeniably one of feminism's most significant figures, a ferociously tough-minded lawyer and academic who has sought to use the law to clamp down on sexual harassment and pornography. She's a bracing woman, who calls her philosophy "feminism unmodified" and thinks wimpish guff such as post-feminism does women no good at all. Many hate her for this. Camille Paglia, for instance, charges that MacKinnon and her late collaborator Andrea Dworkin are responsible for "totalitarian excesses" in sexual harassment regulations and that their "nightmarish sexual delusions" have invaded American workplaces and schools and warped their views on pornography. Naomi Wolf branded her a "victim feminist". "Victim feminism," claims Wolf, "urges women to identify with powerlessness, even at the expense of taking responsibility for the power they do possess." In The Morning After, Katie Roiphe wrote that MacKinnon had an "image of woman as child" and attacked her for allegedly portraying all women as potential victims and all men as potential predators. Others have called her a fascist proponent of sexual correctness. Some have put words in her mouth - notably the claim that she thinks all heterosexual intercourse is rape: she does not. Some think she is right and that until sex inequality is tackled legally as MacKinnon proposes, women will continue to be raped, murdered and served up as masturbation fantasies for men. I couldn't wait to meet her.
snip



http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,,1752217,00.html

[oldtime dfl_er]

1. thanks for the post

I'll definitely be reading this. The watered down "feminism" that is currently fashionable is a disservice. You know, all those women who say "I'm not a feminist but I believe in equal rights". As if the word feminist is a baddie. As if they have to disclaim before they can pronounce. As if they're afraid other people won't like them if they call themselves feminists.

To be a thinking woman, in my opinion, is to be a feminist. It's pretty simple. I'm tired of the word being a perjorative (as the word liberal has also become perjorative). Time to reclaim these words!


http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/1097640

[E.R. Strooley]

84. I totally agree

I think it's very important to reclaim the word feminist!

[sui generis]

2. it would be too easy if it were just men who were sexists

I think there are plenty of women who are "self-loathing" (to use my least favorite gay term in context).

Why don't modern women fight more fiercely against the ideas of the southern baptist convention, and fight against the traditions of Islam and orthodox judaism and some forms of fundamentalist christianity?

Being rhetorical, not provocative, but there is definitely participation here, and by choice. What are your thoughts?

[xchrom]

7. because there would be a sexual paradox present in your scenario

{which i think you're aware of} if women were to aggressively confront your list.

both ms dworkin and her partner here are mistaken -- there is an equal sex drive in women that there is in men.

what we don't do -- and one of the things i argue for in abortion cases -- is argue for the e.r.a. any more.

if we legalize the notion that a woman OWNS her body -- well, katie bar the door.

you'll find that we raise girls to become women like we've never seen.

[WhiteTara]

9. Many women are self loathing

and have been taught to be that way for hundreds of generations. Hell, we don't even get to keep our names. We are traded, used, even sold and then told to "be nice". Up until the early 1900's, preachers urged men to "beat their wives for the good of their very moral soul". Sam Johnson on hearing of a woman preacher noted that "it not so much what the dog says, but that dog can speak at all."

Of course, mentioning these things will get me the label of "angry woman" or "dyke" and I may be shunned in this arena as well.

My theory on this is listed in my other post, basically during the time of the Goddess (about 60,000 BC to 5,000 BC) the arts, sciences flourished. Astronomy came into being because women used the moon cycles to chart their flow (which at one time was considered sacred and wise and holy - the blood that flows from no wound). Women invented language to connect with their children. Agriculture was invented because it was easier for pregnant women and mothers to stay in one place. Art was part of every day life as archeological sites show painted pots, jewelry, etc. Religion was originated and guided by women who venerated life and believed that the Earth was alive and giving us the blessings of her body. (By the way, women have always had abortions) Egyptian priests would cut their penis in order to simulate the flow of "wise blood". The oldest art found so far is about 30,000 years old and it is of a woman giving birth. The painting is on the mouth of a cave. (research from Marijia Gimbutus, renowned archeologist) Currently in Turkey, a pre-HIStorical city is being excavated where major statues are women and none, I repeat, NONE of the bodies found had any signs of death by violence.

But all that changed. The old testament is filled with the murder of the Goddess and the people who lived in her harmony. The big finale of course was the burning times that lasted for 400 years and millions of women were killed as being witches. In part, the problems were that property was passed through the mother line. But that has all changed. Today, we can't even pass on our names, and only recently have we been able to vote, own property, and even today, we are not allowed into the highest places of power. So, yep, it's true. Truth is always shocking when you are intent on it being something else. Okay, this was my very long rant for the day.

[barb162]

13. keep ranting!

[Orrex]

14. A minor question about the Johnson quote

Sam Johnson on hearing of a woman preacher noted that "it not so much what the dog says, but that dog can speak at all."

Here's the wording as I've always seen it:

"Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."

I find it to have a somewhat different urgency from the phrasing that you cited. Specifically, women are not likened to dogs per se; instead, an "unlikely" action by a woman is likened to an "unlikely" action by a dog. Still not a flattering assessment, I grant!

But is there another quote that matches to your citation more closely than the one I linked? I admit that it's entirely possible!

on edit: I don't disagree with or dispute your overall post at all! I just wondered about the quote.

[WhiteTara]

23. thanks for the exact quote

I pulled that from my mind. I heard this when I was 15 and I have slept many times since.
:hi:

[Orrex]

24. Good memory!

I didn't know the exact wording until I found the quote online. So it was a good exercise for both of us!

:hug:

[WhiteTara]

26. right back at you

:hug:

[sui generis]

19. I follow you

and agree for the most part but here are the fallacies as I see them:

1. "goddess" religions did not exist exclusive to others, they collaborated in polytheistic societies, in fact the "goddess" ideas were more closely related to "astarte" ideals and facilitators of birth and harvest (among many female deities) than to a single überdeity of any sex.

2. There WERE large successful cultures that were primarily matrilineal and where women held great social and political power; if I recall in nearly 800 years of dynastic and predynastic egyptian history.

3. There ARE currently matrilineal cultures - although not usually associated with the developed world.

The truth is where you find it. Historically in peace time women are more prone to die in childbirth, men more prone to die by violence and accident, all other natural illnesses subtracted. Women have weaker upper bodies compared to men, can be even more disadvantaged for longer during pregnancy, and so set their survival values on gathering and storing for the future, while men are more acquisitional, and it could be said that women have selected for men who can protect them with greater strength, including violence, in a darwinian cycle. It might be said that if not for women gathering wheat, men would still be living in caves gathering mastodons. I'm being a little tongue in cheek here but ultimately I believe we're in this together. In the bigger social picture men have taken advantage of the social situation, but in smaller social settings, women rule with means other than violence. We are by no means done evolving either, and that will take our combined knowledge and patience, and desire to do so.

It is important to address the past and social evolution fairly - men today are no more to blame for the sins of their fathers than you are. What we are all to blame for is not articulating the need (and a plan) for change more effectively and in terms that everybody can understand and buy into.

Finally, nothing happens overnight or without a struggle. It's a fight - but we should direct our energy at the problems we face, not one entire sex or the other.

[WhiteTara]

30. thanks. I hear your arguements about "goddess" religion

I didn't meean that men need to sit down and shut up and let us take over. I believe that cooperative society (not communal society)as opposed to competitive society is the where we will find the way.

I hear your arguements about "goddess" religion. But I am talking of a much older time. Astarte is Jewish, but the city of Chatal Hyuck (Sorry, spelling is off) in Turkey was much older by about 30,000BC, with 3 successive "burn down and start again layers".

Also, don't forget the Amazon women known for strength. Then there was Bodicea, the Celtic Queen led her army in battle, swinging a battle axe with all her might defeating a much larger army. (She was later defeated and she and her daughters were raped and murdered). The only reason for upper body weakness is not working out. At least we don't have to wear corsets anymore that are so tight that if you move you pass out. But being an office worker doesn't build many muscles. Even house cleaning and cooking don't require those muscles. But you should see my sister. She lives in the country and works very hard and has the muscles of a horse (Okay small exageration). I would not want her to take a wap at me! Not to say that all women could be stronger than men, but that not all men could be stronger than all women throughout all time.

A friend told me the death of the Goddess began with banishing. I would imagine that then as now, the most agressive members of society are young men, so I'm sure they were the banished ones (hence the stories of the cavemen stealing women). Many survived, they became the "thundering hordes" and the generations of anger at being sent away probably didn't engender much mercy. Also, I think the ritual practice of "killing the king" may have left some bad tastes in men's mouths.

We could debate the fine points of both our thoughts, but I think that ultimately the paths are many and the way is one. We are just all trying to be human here and learn to live in the mystery without going mad. Enter the fundies...they are examples of the madness.

I want you to also know that I love women and they are my best friends, but men have always been my lovers and I certainly wouldn't want to live life without my wonderful sweetie. As you say, ultimately we are all in this together.

I also think that enlightenment comes from living in relationships. It is easy to sit in a cave and not interact with others and stay balanced and centered (in of course the right circumstances). To stay centered and express your needs in a way that your partner can hear, takes great self reflection and introspection. These are probably things we could be teaching in our schools; how to listen and how to ask for our needs to be met without acting out.

Well, thanks for the great exchange. I'm off to take care of some political work.
:hug:

[TAPat]

20. Thank you, thank you, thank you

and thanks to the OP for starting this discussion... :hi:
I have a whole lot more I'd like to say, but I have to tend to dinner!!!
I guess even hard-core, reality-based women (and their daughters) have to eat... :)

Rest assured I'll have my say, on another day, when I don't have so many things to do!

[Branjor]

31. It's worse even than that.

"Hell, we don't even get to keep our names."

Hell, it's worse even than that. We don't even HAVE names. "Our" names are our FATHER'S names, and even if you take your mothers "maiden" name, that is only HER father's name.

[sui generis]

32. one of the saddest things - gravestones and markers

both here in the U.S. and in Europe, So and So Smith . . . and Wife. Herr Jurgen Dinkelmeister und Weib.

People just erased from time . . .

But, to be fair, as you know that's not common. Most women, mothers, daughters, sisters are honored, and many markers even show their "maiden" names.

Things are changing too, albeit slowly. We're all numbers now. I'm surprised they don't just stamp our social security number, client number, policy number, plot number, drivers license, credit score and LDL cholesterol on our gravestones now.

Bastards!

[Branjor]

35. I'm not talking about grave markers saying

"John Doe and Wife". I'm talking about grave markers saying "Jane Smith" or "Jane Smith Jones". Both the "Smith" and the "Jones" are either husbands' or fathers' names, not "our" names. We don't have any names of our own except for our first/middle names.

[sui generis]

36. well technically neither do men

we only have our own name and our father's names. I'm not sure I understand your point as either way subsequent generations would have to either invent their own names or carry the names of BOTH parents (and their parents).

I am really not my name. It's just a convenient way to address me while I'm alive, but the real me is much richer than some traditional combination of letters somebody else gave me. I wouldn't dwell on it overmuch, or, change it if it please you.

We all write our own playscript and if you're asking someone else permission to have a name you will suffer the same fate you describe.

[Branjor]

38. Men have names

proudly passed through the male line. Women do not have names passed down through the female line. "Smith" is just the name of the male, husband or father, who owns her. The male "Smith" is not so much owned by his father as he is his father's successor.

And I am not asking anyone's "permission" to have a name. I am just pointing out that by the usual naming conventions in this society women do not have names. And no way would I want to carry the name of "both" parents as you put it, I would only like to have one either passed from my mother alone or made up by me.

[sui generis]

39. change starts with you

one of my ex's changed his name at 17 - it was neither of his parents' surnames. It was a big idea but not a big deal.

You come across as a little hostile to men - I don't know if I'm just being cagey myself though, but it seems like if women don't think they have a choice, neither do men any moreso. Why do you blame men for something they don't think about any more than women do? I also notice you call women women, and men males in another post, which is "matronizing" (hah, I made up a word!).

And if a woman chooses the name of her father for herself, is that really somehow diminishing if you agree that she should choose any name she wants? I'm supportive of any choice, freely made, and would be so with my kiddos too.

[Branjor]

40. A "little hostile to men?"

Oh, what a terrible fate, I'm going to die! :rofl:

I call women "women" and men "males"? Too bad!

[sui generis]

41. yup - you're sure going to build a lot of consensus that way

anyway now you're just weird.

Not every MALE is your enemy. No you're not going to die, you're just going to end up looking stupid and bigoted, and that IS a terrible fate here.

[Branjor]

42. I don't give a d*mn

about "building a consensus" with males or about how I look to anybody. I give a d*mn about saying what feels right TO ME and I don't think using the word "males" is beyond the pale of "humanity".

[sui generis]

44. well women can't do it alone

and neither can men who support equality for women and men. So if you don't give a damn, and you feel like pissing off your potential friends and allies of either sex because it feels right TO YOU, then whatever your goals are here are not going to be met.

We all have crabby days - I'm probably one of the top offenders at offending people unintentionally or otherwise, but I do get that we are all mostly here posting on DU together because we're all mostly on the same side on most issues, and especially issues of equality.

The important thing is that we DO give a damn, or else what's the point of wearing out your keyboard. I sure don't need the exercise. I don't think you're a nameless "female" and that the rest of us are paternalistic manly men who know what's best for you. I think you're a person or I wouldn't even bother typing to tell you that I do give a damn, and I'm not alone.

We're in this together - we should NOT be shooting each other.

[Morgana LaFey]

85. Well, here's yet another male who wanders into the forum here

and when he doesn't get QUITE the tone he thinks is due him, wants to tell this woman (and all of us) how to behave in order to curry favor. And yes, I realize this is months old -- but I simply couldn't not comment here. So often, reading a thread all of a piece instead of piecemeal really, really reveals a texture and content that isn't so easily seen otherwise. THIS was obvious enough, but it sticks out like the sorest of thumbs as I've read it, and the real bigot looks like sui generis, not the woman he's made his antagonist because she won't conform to his expectations.

It's all so damned PREDICTABLE. It's all so wearying. It's all so utterly disgusting.

[bobbieinok]

79. don't Scandinavian names have women taking mother's name +

sons taking father's name.......eg, Tom Johnsson and his sister Ann Marysdaughter (at least up until 75-100 years ago).........this drives genealogists crazy!

[CrispyQ]

93. And for women, they will put our measurements on the gravestone, as well.

Or possibly just our bust measurement. ;)

[barb162]

10. I think once there was a certain amount of progress made

back in the 60s through 80s, then the progress just sort of fizzled. I think the same thing happened with the civil rights movement in roughly the same period. People just seemed to be satisfied with what was accomplished. And there is no doubt there were great accomplishments in those days for both women's rights and rights for black people. Maybe as more doors opened, people saw less sense of urgency for continuing the struggle to complete equality

[Demeter]

76. It's Still An Uphill Road to Be A Woman In This Society

especially if one hasn't any "protectors": family, father, husband, money, or even boyfriend.

That's why I cannot fathom what transexuals think they will get by switching.

[WhiteTara]

3. "all women as potential victims and all men as potential predators."

annoying but true. Has been the case for about 7,000 when the first killings began to change the word "Goddess" to "God". At least six million women died so we can say God. The Stockholm Syndrome is a good way to look at this. :rant:

[Triana]

4. A male answer to this question that I heard recently..

"Who cares?"

The hambone is lucky I was not a direct participant in that conversation. He'd have had a new hole and a missing appendage all in one fell verbal swoop from me. As it was, I got up and left.

[barb162]

12. I bet thirty years ago he would have been afraid to say that

as the women's movement was so strong back then. I wonder if he would have answered that way if he were asked the question: are black people human? His answer just shows how backwater and backburner the women's issues have become. hmmmm

[Triana]

15. True...

...I still talk to men who think the whole women's issues, discrimination, sexism, abuse, rape, women-as-things-not-human, oppression, etc is just 'urban legend'. They don't even believe it exists. They think it all went away during the 'women's movement' back then. *Poof* All gone.

It must be nice to be so utterly privileged that you're ultimately unaware of just how privileged you are - even to the point of being unable to realize that everyone else isn't. It must be nice to be unable to even grok what it's like when you're not. This is beyond any 'victim mentality' or glass ceilings. It's like being sealed inside of a tincan you can't get out of because you're not male. It's a whole other world. It must be nice to be able to be a guy and be oblivious to it. That is ultimate privilege.

I've come to the conclusion that women and men are not from two different planets. They're ON (in?) two different planets. And there's little in the way of a bridge or pathway between them.

At my age, and with the current meathead, knuckle-dragging, vacuum-packed regime running things and enabling and encouraging male superiority and simultaneous regression in the area of women's rights, I just gave up.

[WhiteTara]

25. exactly why I haven't given up

"At my age, and with the current meathead, knuckle-dragging, vacuum-packed regime running things and enabling and encouraging male superiority and simultaneous regression in the area of women's rights, I just gave up."

I believe that the world can only survive if we come to understand the DIVINE FEMININE and that is not as in form. And like George Sands, I am an eternal optimist. It may be my only quality.

I find it interesting that so many boys are being born in my immediate sphere. These boys are being born to women of great strength who are teaching these boys to honor the feminine. The teaching is not through fear and suppression, but through living their lives. I was hoping for girls (I love little witch girls as all these young mothers are); but, I see the need for enlightened boys.

I have heard that the Hindu say, "If you want to know your father, you must ask your mother". It is time to focus on our mother.

Pagan chant:
We all come from the Goddess
and to Her we shall return
Like a drop of rain
flowing to the ocean.

[Triana]

27. It is time....

...and the only way probably is to educate and bring along the future generations - the children. Because the current generation of men AND women (not all of them but far too many of them) have no clue and as soon as you speak, they tune out the voice, if it's female. And so much of this is ingrained in society that it's just auto-accepted - without question by anyone. Trying to change that is like trying to stop a huge centrifuge from spinning or a boulder from rolling downhill and crushing you. It's insidious and very pervasive.

[barb162]

46. Yes it is insidious and pervasive.

Have you ever noticed when a woman says something that often men and women don't pay too much attention. An hour later a male says the same thing and the same people in that room are awe-stricken by his brilliance? I have seen this happen too many times to just assume it was the better delivery of the male in the room.

[Triana]

47. On an almost daily basis...

...it's happened too many times in too many situations for me to think it's coincidence, or just his delivery or voice. People (even some women) just don't listen to women. They and anything they have to say are considered less (or un)important.

[barb162]

48. Thanks for the reality check

It's like living in the 1950s with that decade never quite rolling over. It just sort of keeps hanging on in a surreal way.

[Orrex]

17. Delete--replied to wrong post. Sorry!

[Branjor]

29. the awful thing is that...

some woman probably married that male, giving him a home and family. I do not blame women for the way men are, but women really need to take the matter into our own hands. Women need to get together and bond as a group and render any even slightly sexist man UNMARRIAGEABLE by simply refusing to marry them. In order to do this, the bonds with other women have to be more important than any bond with a man, including marriage. And teaching boys to "honor the feminine" won't do any good either if it's not backed up by ACTION.

[sui generis]

37. that's just as sexist as what you're protesting

could you imagine a post on a progressive website where men said such a thing about women?

We're in this together. There are ugly personas and mean little people out there of both sexes, and the village doesn't need to do anything but reinforce the positive.

It's not our job to go stick pitchforks in monsters at someone else's behest.

[donsu]

5. kicking - I never thought Paglia or Wolf were real feminists

haven't read Roiphe.

[Orrex]

8. What's a "real feminist?"

That's a sincere question--I don't know a succint definition or even an easy way to articulate the term.

Your thoughs are appreciated!

[donsu]

11. I could have said 'complete' feminists

these women have connected some of the dots but not all of them. they still need consciousness raising.

way back we used to say "click" when the dots connected. (wondering what 'feminist click' would bring up on google)

an example: a complete feminist doesn't believe in gods

but back to Paglia, etc. there seems to be a mean streak in their writing.

[Orrex]

16. Ah--thanks for the clarification.

an example: a complete feminist doesn't believe in gods

Hey, I like that! For what it's worth, I've completely embraced at least that part of feminism.


Thanks again!

[valerief]

6. Uh-oh, the Women Aren't Human meme will spark among

the fundies soon. Just wait. They love to hate themselves.

[Orrex]

18. Now a question about class

I hate using the dialectic of the "power structure" because it too easily lapses into postmodernist mantras, but sometimes the idea fits the bill very neatly.

I see some parallel between the way that men have historically treated women and the way the "haves" have historically treated the "have nots," even extending into metaphors of sex-dominance e.g. "The weathy are screwing the middle class again."

That's not to say that either framework of inequality need exclude the other--sexual inequality certainly exists even between two people of equal "class."

Is there a lesson to be learned in either struggle (class or sex) that can readily be applied to the other?

I confess that I'm not very well informed in matters of sexual inequality, but I'm very conscious of class-based inequality.

Your insights are much appreciated!

[donsu]

21. here's one view

the blackest skinned black woman is on the bottom of the pile

and the richest, white man is on the top of the pile

[Orrex]

22. That's what I get for hijacking a thread. Oops.

[barb162]

49. Statistically I think that can be easily backed up too

When one looks at the top corporate people in our country and compare it to 50 years ago, it is not much different than it was 50 years ago. White males are still the huge majority at the top. Women have made very little progress to getting those very top jobs.

[DELUSIONAL]

28. Good discussion -- Women seem to be fighting the old battles again

Most important -- the E.R.A. -- needs to be passed.

When each state was voting on the E.R.A. -- my husband's cousin who had 3 daughters voted against the E.R.A. (New York State) -- because the G.O.P. was opposed to the E.R.A.

I've had nothing to do with that jerk. And I still feel as strongly that the E.R.A. must be passed. The US is a third world nation -- yes the is the ruler of the world military (male domination) -- but as far as the social welfare component of First World Nations, is concerned, the US is a third world Nation.

The religious right's foundation belief is that women are not human. The Catholic church still doesn't believe that women are human. I believe that many women are convince that they are somehow not complete. And yes there is the self loathing by many women -- notably the "conservative" women in both the religious right and the political extreme right. Many women feel they need to become less than human in order to become part of a group, or be accepted by males. Most often these women will say, "I don't like women."

And then culturally men and women are very different -- female children interact in female groups very differently than male children interact in male only groups. There is also massive research on "female speech" and "male speech". Some women have so successfully pandered to the male concept of "femaleness" that they are unable to communicate with other women.

The hunter gatherer description of human development came about when FEMALE Anthropologists entered the then male field of Anthropology and began to evaluate Anthro theory. The women pointed out that "gathering" was done by women who formed a base camp while the males went off to "hunt". And very often the gathering was more important to the survival of the band than the hunting.

The worst thing to happen to women is the Christian religion.

[barb162]

50. I cannot remember the last time I have seen those three letters

E.R.A. in any mainstream publication. Heck, even a left publication. It's just off the radar screen. It's gone from people's minds. Non-issue. Thanks for mentioning that. It was a law that sorely needed ( and still needs) passing.

[Triana]

52. "The worst thing to happen to women is the Christian religion."

I've never heard that said, but thanks for saying it. I agree. Patriarchal religions subjugate women and Christianity is definitely one of those.

The only religion I know of that seems to treat them even remotely as equals is Paganism. I wish religion could be separated from the sexes somehow but as a prerequisite, it first has to be completely separated from the state. We're so damn far from that I know it won't be achieved in my lifetime. So all my own life, I'll know I'll continue to live within oppressive social structures that consider fully half the population less than human - second class humans at best. Not to mention dogs to be conveniently kicked when someone needs to be blamed for the failures of those governing this country and society -- who bytheway are mostly NOT women.

Another comment I get from male aquaintances: "Well, it could be worse. You could be living in Afghanistan."

Exuse Moi? WHAT is the point of such a comment? "Shut up and settle and consider yourself lucky you're not treated worse?" That makes it all hunky-dory? What a flippant, smug remark. I don't think so. The attempt is to delegitamize the issue and it doesn't work with me.

Another thing I hear a lot is "women have a victim mentality". I guess the point of that comment is that there is NO valid reason any woman would or should ever feel victimized in this all-to patriarchal and all-too mysogenist society. The point of such a comment is again to render illegimate the fact that women today are STILL victims of an oppressive, male-dominated government and social system. It didn't go away after the 60s and 70s. There are studies and stats that show some of this. It's fact.

And regarding women as victims, I do agree that women really have to take more control and responsibility for breaking out of this stranglehold that a fundamentalist society and gov't has on them, but men have to get on board too. Men in general won't listen to women as much as they will listen to other men and the entire thing has to be a tidal wave of consistently conscious non-acceptance of the current status quo -- from everyone, male and female. It has to be a solid wall. We need nothing less than a tsunami of change from both government and society.

I only hope future generations can evolve beyond this bassackwards, inhumane mindset. I hate to be a doomsayer and pessimist but I have little hope for current generations - the ones currently running things.

We truely do need to Move On.

[donsu]

62. kicking truth to power

nt

[lukasahero]

33. See my sig

I've been wondering the same thing lately...

[sui generis]

34. a wee bit o' humor

[Branjor]

43. That's a male supremacist

"wee bit of humor" if ever I've seen one, but subtly so. It appears to be sympathetic to women but it is really insulting.

[sui generis]

45. oy - now I'm a male supremacist!

:rofl:

Explain why it is really insulting instead of just proclaiming it so. Also, since I'm not sure what a male supremacist is, or what a day in the life of a male supremacist must be like, please share your knowledge so that I can judge for myself.

Anyway, an insult is something that is delivered by intent. Did you intend to be insulting with your accusation? I'm guessing yes. Just give it up. I am not the enemy.

If anyone else thinks I was intending to be offensive with that cartoon, really believes it, please say so, and why you think so. It is sardonic, it's mocking a point of view, and it's also at the same time mocking a stereotype, not using it out of malice. Oh yeah!

That was my level of judgement in electing to post it. I welcome anyone who disagrees with my rationale to tell me what it is I really think, since I obviously don't know myself. Male supremacist. Silliness.

[barb162]

51. Here, try this

The five male figures on top should be reversed. Those two hominid types on the left should be put over to the right side. The four women figures stay just like that...fairly accurate.

Do I seem sexist? Oh well....
mmmmmmm

[slybacon9]

53. Toooooooo Shay

says a male.

Good work Barb 162.

[sui generis]

60. wrong.

Barb162 didn't touche anything - but if you feel like dropping by with some original commentary and insight, please contribute so I can set you straight too.

But do me a favor and read through my other posts in this thread first, then decide.

[barb162]

78. thank you

[sui generis]

58. No, here try this.

1. What makes you think the cartoonist was a man?
2. It's saying women are already evolved.

Sorry if that's sexist but at this point fuck it. You want a war of the sexes, go find someone to have it with. It's not me.

If you just want a fight, I'm ready as always. I could give a crap what you have or don't have dangling between your legs or between your ears. That's not sexist, just fed up.

[sui generis]

61. and another thing

yes you seem sexist, now that your ill will has been established. If that's what you decry in "males", then you've become the thing you despise. If you think your son is responsible for what your father did to you (figuratively) then you are just perpetuating the problem - and disengaging future generations of both sexes from real solutions to real problems.

Nice hat you're wearing but it doesn't go with your stance on evolution. I think that some people who feel marginalized think it's okay to marginalize in return, and all you end up doing is pushing people away.

The point of addressing unfairness in our social dynamic is that it IS a partnership. Whether you like it or not and for whatever reasons it happens, women participate in these terrible alliances with men, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future no matter what fantasy utopia you wish we would be living in.

Relationships ARE partnerships between persons. When I'm talking here it is not as a man, to a woman, it is as a person, to another person. I'm sorry if that's not sexist enough for you, but that's the truth of it.

If you have low standards for the world, that's all the world will ever deliver.

[Morgana LaFey]

86. Whew! Hair trigger here

This one just can't stand being disagreed with -- certainly not by a woman. Remarkable.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[the other one]

55. Ooops Gotta Run! The "Men Rule the World" group is

meeting soon. We are going to plan some more anti-women rules. After that I have to go to my "Jews Control Everything" meeting.

[pecwae]

57. How should I dress today?

I just want to be sure I'm not "asking for trouble."

[sui generis]

59. don't ask me I'm too busy running around trying not to rape people

[NMMNG]

73. Ah sh*t

Now I have to go buy a bunch of burkas so I'm not "asking for trouble" when I go out in public. :eyes:

[Recursion]

77. Well..

Rape is not a SEX CRIME! Rape is a power crime committed by powerless men against physically weaker victims.

Well... you're acting like "sex" and "power" are so easily distinguished by all people.

It's a tough tightrope we're on: how do you work on reducing rape without falling into a "women as shrinking violets who need a big strong man like me to protect them" mentality? Is the right answer to teach girls to be more aggressive? To teach boys to be less aggressive? To "re-sacredize" sex? To completely trivialize it so that the psychological power of the rapist over the victim is decreased? Harsher criminal penalties? Harsher civil liabilities? What rights do the accused and the victim have? Are those rights different from other crimes, and if so why? What is it that makes sexual crimes different from other crimes? Is this difference justified or another medieval gender assumption we're making? Does it matter that I asking this question am male? Does it matter that I am a sexual abuse survivor? Do we need to earn the rights to opinions on this question?

We still, even progressives, have a LOT of stereotypes to unpack when it comes to sex. There's an insidious assumption still that men want sex all the time and that women never want it (or at least shouldn't). That sexual predation is one-way only. If a man and a woman are drunk past the point of legal consent and have sex, the man is liable for rape and the woman isn't. Is this just a sensible reaction to the lopsided number of predators who are male? Is that view of who is and isn't a predator a self-enforcing prophecy because we expect men to want sex and women not to? I'm not pulling an AWM schtick here, I just really think these are questions our society hasn't even begun to ask honestly.

[Cerridwen]

83. Definitely. Yep. Fetching firewood. Yeppers. Just askin' for it.

One woman from the organization—who is now in hospital—was looking for firewood when she was raped by sixteen men. She couldn't walk and was left for two days until she was discovered. This was in November 1994. . . She lives in BP1, one of the displaced camps in Baidoa. She is Hariin, as are most of the women in the displaced camps. Subclan fighting devastated the Hariin, especially at the hands of the Hadamo subclan of the Rahanweyne.34

The women's vulnerability to sexual assault is compounded by the long walks in isolated areas required by their struggle to survive. According to the women interviewed, each woman usually requires six trips a day to bring water for their family and to the market to sell. The firewood collection often requires a walk of up to fifteen kilometers out of the center of town. Rape is always a danger: "men wait for them to leave the camp."35

Oh, yep, don't forget, being a member of a "rival faction." Just askin' for it.

Throughout the Somali conflict, rape has been used as a weapon of war by all the factions to punish rival ethnic factions.

[Katherine Brengle]

90. Thank you for posting what I didn't have the time to. nt

[Katherine Brengle]

89. This post deserves an overdue F you.

"That said C'mon Woman Smarten Up! Okay date-rape is wrong and it is illegal as it should be. But that doesn't mean that the victims aren't asking for it. If a rich man wears his diamonds into the poorest part of town isn't he asking to be mugged. The mugging is still a crime, but the victim is an idiot. How many rape victims were inviting the attention through their dress and their behavior? Is it wrong to dress like a slut and get drunk No. Is it asking for trouble? Yes infuckindeedy!"

I suggest you read up on the history and sociology of the crime of rape before denouncing victims in this manner. Your response was both typical and disgusting.

[Quantess]

97. At first glance, I had the same reaction as you. But at a closer read,

"the other one" was being undeniably sarcastic. You find a lot of sarcasm at DU. :)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

92. I think this is contemptible in the extreme.

To say that a woman who doesn't act in the manner most unlikely to lead to being raped (sitting in a padded cell alone wearing a burka or some such) is "asking for it" or "inviting" rape is both offensive and ludicrous.

Many things people do increase the chance of something bad happening to them. But crossing a road is not "asking to be run over".

Describing dressing in a sexually appealing fashion, or whatever you are talking about, as "dressing like a slut" is vile.

Many women do do things which make their being raped less unlikely, because not doing so would make their lives insufferable. That doesn't make them "idiots".

I don't use the alert function, and you're not worth changing that habit for, but you should be absolutely ashamed of yourself.

[Quantess]

96. Why do you insist on being a smart ass every chance you get?

[LetsThink]

103. New Legal Standard: Fashion = Guilty Victim??

First, society expects, pushes women to dress & behave in ways men may consider attractive-- or the women are considered atypical, unfriendly or outcasts. Just look at the media portrayal of 'cool' dress/ 'hot' behavior, etc. Look at the multi-billion dollar fashion & cosmetics industry.

In Italy women invite plenty of attention but, there is little or, basically no rape. Italian men express the attitude that it's part of the enjoyable, artistic 'scenery'.

A murderer provides the explanation that ".... s/he just looked at me the wrong way." The car that cut you off this morning was the one asking to be let for the last 1/2 mile- in to not miss that next turn. Perception is unique to each individual.

What I'm saying is that we are each responsible for our own actions. Using the actions of another is a feeble excuse to evade responsibility. So is equating eye candy to self-defense. Particularly when eye candy is what society still demands of girls and women - particular U.S. society.

[raccoon]

104. I can't believe what I'm reading.

"But that doesn't mean that the victims aren't asking for it...How many rape victims were inviting the attention through their dress and their behavior? Is it wrong to dress like a slut and get drunk"

Let me tell you, guys that are the type that will commit date rape don't care a rat's ass if she's dressed like a slut or like Queen Elizabeth II. They make up their minds they want sex and they don't give a happy rat's ass whether she wants it or she doesn't.

[Jim Lane]

56. Rape laws and consent

From the Guardian article:

"MacKinnon thinks consent in rape cases should be irrelevant. Women are so unfree that even if a woman is shown to have given consent to sex, that should never be enough to secure an acquittal."

I'd be grateful if someone more familiar with MacKinnon's work would say whether that's an accurate paraphrase or a journalistic garbling. It seems to envision that any woman's decision to have sex should be subject to judicial second-guessing. In fact, it seems to assume that women are less than human -- her objection to current rape laws is that adult women are now treated as human beings who have both the ability and the right to make decisions for themselves.

[donsu]

63. Jim, you haven't a clue -

here's one

many american women are trained from birth not to say no, or frown, or get angry and show it, etc.

it's ingrained, it's subtle, it's constant. and many toddlers, girls, teens, women are punished one way or the other if they say no to a man for what ever reason, including sex.

what she wrote was correct and true.

[sui generis]

64. I think both positions are generalizing

anyway, there are many straight men who are actually intimidated by the women they love, by wanting to perform well, by wanting to please their partner, by all the hallmarks of actually caring for and about their partner, and believe it or not those feelings are mutual.

Everything in the OP presupposes that men are just stupid hairy aggressive apes and that love and respect for ones partner never enters into it or is even relevant. That's denial of reality. It also makes it sound like women are incapable of a sustaining a loving relationship with a "male" partner that isn't a variation of victim/aggressor, and that's not reality either.

All heterosexual sex is rape? Why stop there? How about all sex not explicitly for the purpose of procreation is just mutual masturbation, it's true after a fashion, but also that's just crap, and it's so far on the fringes that even mainstream liberal and feminist arguments don't condone it.

When I read something like the OP's article link, I ask myself "what is the outcome that person is reaching for with that information". Is it really equality? Is that person really searching for a solution? I'm having a hard time believing that based on what I've read of her.

[Morgana LaFey]

87. Proof he hasn't even read the article

All heterosexual sex is rape? Why stop there?

But feels perfectly justified in pontificating nonetheless.

[mongo]

65. You have a pretty low view of adult women

if you think they aren't capable of saying no. Sort of sounds like all the "women are soft like flowers" arguments that were used to keep women down for Millennia.

And allowing a woman to declare that sex she consented to is rape after the fact is going to promote egalitarian relationships how?

[donsu]

67. my post was in ref. to post 56 not understanding the writer when she

said rape should be considered even when the female didn't say no etc..

I was giving 56 one reason why the writer was correct


I've never heard the 'women are soft like flowers' saying. men kept women down for millennia. by every means possible including violence.

stop making excuses. excuses are old and tired and have been used for millennia.

[mongo]

70. That's not what the author is saying

MacKinnon thinks consent in rape cases should be irrelevant. Women are so unfree that even if a woman is shown to have given consent to sex, that should never be enough to secure an acquittal. Why? "My view is that when there is force or substantially coercive circumstances between the parties, individual consent is beside the point; that if someone is forced into sex, that ought to be enough. The British common law approach has tended to be that you need both force and absence of consent.

And what exactly are "substantially coercive circumstances"? If a woman has a few drinks and consents to sex, if she regrets her decision the next day is that rape?

How far do we have to go before we need a signed contract to have consentual sex?

[Warpy]

88. Put out or get out

If you really loved me, you would.

If you won't do it, I'll find somebody else who will.

This is my house and these are my children and you will do as I say or be out on the street with nothing.

---------

Plus, there are still laws on the books that give a husband access to his wife's unwilling body, period.

This is coercive sex. I'm sorry to have to explain it to you.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

91. Are you seriously arguing that that should be criminalised?

Making continuing a relationship conditional on sex may be contemptible, but I think that suggesting that it should be criminalised is laughable, and calling it rape is insulting to rape victims.

Threatening to throw someone out of a house they have a legal right to be in unless they have sex with you *is* illegal, and threatening to throw someone out of a house they're legally in only at your sufferance shouldn't be, despicable as it is.

The notion that everything immoral should be illegal is, I think, a prevalent
but bad one.



P.S. I don't know about the US, but here in the UK it is certainly not the case that marriage gives you any right to sex, and hasn't been for some time.

[Katherine Brengle]

94. It's rape.

So yes, it should absolutely be illegal.

There are different kinds of rapes, but all are rape.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

98. You need to look up the definition of rape.

Telling someone that you will not continue a relationship with them unless they have sex with you is neither legally, morally or sematically rape.

Incidentally, "There are different kinds of rapes, but all are rapes" is technically true, but I think you've got the significance backwards: there are lots of different forms of crimes of a sexual nature referred to as rape. Having sex with someone without their consent, using illegal means to aquire consent to sex, and having sex with someone who is not able to give legal consent to sex are three different things, and that they're all referred to by the same word (as are several others) is a weakness of the language. They're all serious crimes, but they're not all the same crime (although obviously in many cases they'll overlap).

But making a relationship conditional on sex isn't any of them.

[Katherine Brengle]

100. I agree with that --

if there is no force and all that is used is verbal coercion, then I think there is something wrong there, but it would be hard to define. It may well be a kind of domestic abuse, but if in the end consent is given, then it's not precisely rape.

As far as the other three you listed, those, to me, are all rape. And I don't think any "weakness" in the language makes it so.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

101. Aye, in the catalogue they go for rape

as hounds and greyhounds, mongrels, spaniels, curs, shuffs, water-rugs and demi-wolves all by the name of "dogs" are clept.

I have severe issues with using the same word for someone who jumps out on women in alleyways as for a 19-year-old who has entirely consensual sex with a 17-year-old in the wrong state, though.

The first two things I listed certainly *are* rape in every sense of the word, the third usually is, but my point was that I think it would be better if there were different words for the different subsets of rape, which some of them but *not* all were.

[Jim Lane]

74. I think I understood the comment....

I just didn't know whether it fairly represented what MacKinnon actually said. Journalists (of both sexes) have been known to get things horribly wrong.

As to the substance of the comment, let me start with my biases. I'm an unmarried heterosexual male, so I naturally have an interest in what amounts to an accusation that I've been legally or morally guilty of rape. I'm also a lawyer, so one thing I consider about any proposed change in the law is what practical effect it would have in the day-to-day operation of the legal system.

I understand that a woman's individual decisions about sex will be influenced, to some extent, by her upbringing, social pressures, etc. These work both ways, though. Certainly what many women take from our culture is that a woman who enjoys sex is a tramp or a slut. Along with the women who feel guilty about saying no, there are some who feel guilty about saying yes. In the latter case, it would be clear to all of us that the legal system has to honor the woman's ''expressed'' decision. If she refused a sexual advance, and the man went ahead anyway, that was rape. It will be no defense for him to argue that she really wanted it but was guilt-tripped into turning him down because her parents had brainwashed her into a Victorian prudishness, or because she was worried about what her friends would think. Those statements might well be true, but they don't constitute a valid defense. "No" means no.

But does "yes" mean yes? There's a limited class of instances in which a woman's expressed consent would be ineffective. For example, a child can't give legally effective consent. Consent procured by threat of force is ineffective. If we were to broaden such narrow categories to say that consent is ineffective whenever it's influenced by a woman's upbringing of not saying no to men, how are men and the legal system supposed to deal with that principle? Under what circumstances, if any, can a man of good conscience make love to a woman? Under what circumstances, if any, can a man who has done so defend himself against a subsequent charge of rape?

We are all of us subject to many pressures of the type you describe. Some women are brought up with the idea that they shouldn't say no to men; some women and some men are brought up with the idea that they should achieve and flaunt material wealth. The latter is reinforced and exploited by, for example, pervasive advertising campaigns for new cars. Nevertheless, we don't let people renounce their car payment obligations just by pointing to such factors.

If you mean that I don't have a clue about the social pressures on women, I think you're wrong. I'm no expert, but I understand the idea to some extent. If, however, you mean that I don't have a clue about how MacKinnon's view could reasonably be applied to the practice of individual relationships and of the criminal justice system, then you're right. I really don't see how her statement could be the basis for any sensible reform. The real solution would be to change the socialization practices that cause the problem. Just because that task is hugely difficult doesn't meet that there must be a quick fix somewhere.

[Cerridwen]

81. I think perhaps what what he is responding to is MacKinnon's

previous thought which was, in essence, "consent" should be irrelevant to "prove rape" in rape cases such as she listed:

"The assumption," she says, "is that women can be unequal to men economically, socially, culturally, politically, and in religion, but the moment they have sexual interactions, they are free and equal. That's the assumption - and I think it ought to be thought about, and in particular what consent then means. It means acquiescence. It means passivity. You can be semi-knocked out. You can be dead in some jurisdictions."

I almost choke on my mineral water. Dead and giving consent? "Sex with a dead body is necrophilia but it isn't regarded as rape." Oh, I see. "You can be semi-comatose, not to mention married in many places, and be regarded as consenting whenever sex takes place."

And I would call it "journalistic garbling" as she's suggesting that the idea of consent in rape cases needs to be examined more.

[bloom]

66. Violence against women in the US

I think it would be a good idea if people were to consider how much violence is done to women because they are women.

That includes forcible rapes (1,871* every day - on average), murders by husbands/boyfriends (3 a day). And there is who knows how much harassment.

American women are 8 times more likely to be raped than European women and 26 more likely than Japanese women (Senate Judiciary Committee Report on Sexual Assault, 1991).**

---------

It seems to be so common that people take it for granted. Or blame the woman. Or deny that it exists. Like the people who are sure that it's the Duke Lacrosse team that are the victims in that case.


I suppose it was the Libertarian- minded people attacking her on this one:

"Kinnon was attacked for her views on sexual harassment. In her first book, Sexual Harassment of Working Women (1979), she argued it should be treated as a form of discrimination under the US Civil Rights Act - something the Supreme Court accepted in 1986."

Interesting how many people seem to be Libertarians these days.

It seems that some people don't want to consider crimes against women hate crimes because there are so many of them - that it might diminish how people think of other hate crimes. Or do they deny that the perpetrators hate women? The behavior of the Duke men seemed pretty hateful to me - and I don't think it was all about race.


Or if people were to classify porn as hate speech - people might be expected to do something about it.

"MacKinnon rather considered it hate speech, one that she and Dworkin defined as "the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures or words", but also one with real power - notably, to cause the rape and murder of women.MacKinnon rather considered it hate speech, one that she and Dworkin defined as "the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures or words", but also one with real power - notably, to cause the rape and murder of women."



* http://www.actabuse.com/SAstatistics.html

** http://danenet.wicip.org/dcccrsa/saissues/sainfo.html

[sui generis]

68. it's POV

"rape" is not a hate crime. It's modern mental illness and other atavistic crap we brought forward from our monkey ancestors, but it's not a hate crime. I believe if women had dicks and greater aggression and strength (generally) and men were on the receiving end, women would have arrived here on Darwin's train looking just like us and men would have been at home birthin' babies and cooking grits into the 21st century.

Pornography is not a hate crime. The pornography industry is disgusting to be sure, and takes extreme advantage of its players, but pornography in and of itself is not a "hate" crime foisted upon women. It is people taking advantage of people. There are women producers and financiers of pornography too for cryin' out loud.

There are very REAL problems as you've pointed out. Women are disadvantaged all across the spectrum, from legitimate business to crime against women to the privacy of the home in every sector and segment of the world's societies. A poster above even pointed out something I've noticed, which is that SOMETIMES a woman can say something and be ignored and a man can say it a moment later and be lauded as brilliant (oh cheez, just forget I'm male for a moment :P), but the world is changing, not stagnant and not sliding backwards. I wish it could happen faster, that people were smarter and more observant and more fair and more honest, but we're starting with a mixed bag of scraps to make this quilt, and we can't have it done this afternoon.

Women have never held more positions of power and influence, more unassailable authority in their own lives, and have more money collectively than at any other time in history, the world over. It's nowhere near equal through, and it's not all changing at once, but MANY people do listen regardless of gonadic arrangement, and MANY people do get involved and care and work towards making things as equal and involved and fair as quickly as possible because those are the values we learned from our own parents and are passing on to our own children.

My father didn't tell me to hate and mistrust women or even to view them as sex objects, and my mother led by example, and they love and trust each other to this day (I got my obnoxious-bossy know-it-all from both of them), and I have never thought of the idea of women as different from the idea of men, and those are the ideas that I want to pass on to my kiddos.

Even if I were someone else and didn't know those things in my life and could only dream about them I would still want to pass those values on. That's why I don't understand this approach of defining your enemies as evil raping criminals and yourselves as helpless victims and ignore anyone else who doesn't fit that mold, cause there are a lot of people who don't fit that mold, and don't tolerate that.

There ARE criminals out there, and there ARE victims, but they're not criminals and victims just because of the arrangement of their gonads.

[bloom]

69. You are reading into it what you want to

and you are making yourself part of the problem.


I didn't say all men rape. I didn't say all men hate women.

I do say that a lot of people dismiss the problem - and that is part of the problem.

[Katherine Brengle]

95. Disagreed - rape IS a hate crime -

I suggest reading Against Our Will by Susan Brownmiller, which goes into rather disturbing detail about the history of the crime of rape.

It's not easy to read, but it is enlightening.

[mongo]

71. Or if people were to classify porn as hate speech"

"MacKinnon rather considered it hate speech, one that she and Dworkin defined as "the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures or words", but also one with real power - notably, to cause the rape and murder of women.MacKinnon rather considered it hate speech, one that she and Dworkin defined as "the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures or words", but also one with real power - notably, to cause the rape and murder of women."

Because, as we all know, women were never raped or murdered before porn.

Porn makes such a convienent scapegoat for all the problems facing women today.

[Cerridwen]

82. Howzabout, we get the entire definition in here rather than just

a rather convenient snippet of the whole? Perhaps we could even put it into the context in which it was originally used; defining "pornography" and "obscenity" as something other than erotica or sex education.

You will notice, the definition of pornography goes a bit beyond just "the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures or words" to include such "sexy" and "stimulating" and "pleasurable" activities as treating women's bodies and body parts as objects, humiliation, rape, mutilation...well, read for yourself.

1. "Pornography" means the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures and/or words that also includes one or more of the following:
a. women are presented dehumanized as sexual objects, things or commodities; or
b. women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy humiliation or pain; or
c. women are presented as sexual objects experiencing sexual pleasure in rape, incest, or other sexual assault; or
d. women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or
e. women are presented in postures or positions of sexual submission, servility, or display; or
f. women's body parts-including but not limited to vaginas, breasts, or buttocks-are exhibited such that women are reduced to those parts; or
g. women are presented being penetrated by objects or animals; or
h. women are presented in scenarios of degradation, humiliation, injury, torture, shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual.

2. The use of men, children, or transsexuals in the place of women in (a) of this definition is also pornography for purposes of this law.

3. "Person" shall include child or transsexual.

Full text here: http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/other/ordinance/newday/AppD.htm


As to your comment "...women were never raped or murdered before porn." Before porn? When exactly was that?

Though porn is a topic of this discussion, it's not the only thing "bearing the blame" for problems facing women today, nor do I believe, that many here are saying it is the only problem which contributes to much of what women today face. It just happens to be the topic in this thread.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

99. Is there any statistical evidence?

You quote Dworkin as claiming that pornography has the power to cause the rape and murder of women. What evidence is there to the effect that it does?

[Post]

72. Duke and Predatory Feminism?!?

This is very scary. This is what's REALLY in the hearts and minds of angry white men in the fly over states regarding the Duke Rape. http://postanapology.blogspot.com/2006/04/duke-and-predatory-feminism.html#links

[bloom]

75. These men are in some serious denial

about how effectively our justice system deals with rapists.

Like I posted elsewhere - a lawyer was telling me of a case recently where the woman was confined, battered and raped and the guy served ONE DAY in jail for it. They he went out and over the years has done that to other women.

Or there was the case (Vermont) where the man was sentenced to 6 months (later extended) for repeatedly raping a young girl.

That is why people protest. Because the justice system (as a whole) is not doing a reasonable job. It's better to get out ahead of the case and demand justice than to wait until the case is totally brushed off and it's too late.

[Captain Hilts]

80. Using the word 'females' instead of 'women' implies they aren't human. nt

[LetsThink]

102. In Some States Rape in Marriage is Legal........

What more do you need by way of proof that women are still considered 'property' under many laws-- second class citizens?