Disagree. You play with fire, you get burned. He has not done anything to these people other than to publish the fact that they had done something which they had, in fact, done. It's not /nicey nicey/, but it's not evil.
Eh. I'm nearly of two minds. I particularly hypocrites espousing simple views of complicated issues. I could imagine a lot of people who were caught falling in to that category.
But, in the end, this is deeply wrong. Fucking people over for relatively trivial mistakes is wrong. Moreover, doing things like this wrecks a forum and destroys the ability for legitimate use of that forum. Fuck him. Litigious, hell. I wish him deeper karmic payback than that.
Sort of reminds me of.. what was that called again? The Nuremberg Files or something? All he was doing was posting the addresses and photos of abortion doctors, along with the fact that they had done something which they had, in fact, done.
I don't mean to suggest that this makes both sites bad, by the way. It's just the same sort of troublesome, in one case in a more life-or-death way.
He has not done anything to these people other than to publish the fact that they had done something which they had, in fact, done.
No, he's (depending on the ad) either explicitly or implicitly promised to keep their information secret, and then broken that promise. You could argue about whether they're lousy enough people to deserve it, but that doesn't mean he didn't fail to follow through on a committment he made.
They were stupid, but he misrepresented himself as well, no? And the intention to cause harm in the original post seems like a pretty good argument for a tort to.
d2, you described similar behavior from SdB as "twatty," if I recall correctly.
On the other hand, this could just be a simple case of blackmail. Do we know whether these suckers had a chance to pay to have themselvse removed?
They were stupid
You could argue about whether they're lousy enough people to deserve it
Jeez, we're pretty judgemental, aren't we? This is really common stuff, finding partners online. I haven't dont it myself, but come on. What's so bad about it? If you want to actually meet someone, for sex, I would assume you would *have* to send them your picture.
The fact that this goes on all the time with no problems is proof, isn't it, that something like 99.9999% of people can be trusted. Which seems to be to be a rather good illustration of what a breach of trust this was.
There's also a way in which this reminds me of traditional, off-line sexual abuses of trust. Perhaps this is too deconstructive, but here's one way to look at the situation: The woman (in this case, not really a woman) invites the man to trust her and enter into a situation he thinks he's comfortable with; when she has him in a compromised position, she changes the rules of the game and does something to him that he would never have consented to.
But I mean, he was totally asking for it, so he deserved it. Wearing that short skirt and everything.
Some of these guys are married, so at least some of them are lousy people, but yeah, I don't see that we can know it for the rest of them.
Don't try and tie d2 down with your foolish notions of consistency, Labs. In any case, maybe he's just not as attached to broad notions of privacy as many Americans are: twatty isn't the same as evil.
Or more to the point: 'when she has him in a situation where his consent is superfluous'
9: See my "you could argue about". I'm not committed to the idea that anyone who'd object to this sort of thing being done to them deserves it, just saying that you'd have to make that argument, rather than just claiming that there was nothing bad about outing them at all.
Gah, some of those photos seem so normal, but they're paired with such nasty, vicious text. I wonder how many of those guys would have actually gone through with a hookup.
JM, did you read the ad about what the "woman" wanted?
10: I don't think it's helpful to reverse the genders of the traditional sexual abuse of trust here. What this guy did was shitty, I agree, but it's also some way short of actual physical rape.
Also, what assurance does he have (he asked, not having read the post because he's not about to go to a URL with "sex_bait" in it while at work) that these pictures and identifying information are definitely for the people communicating with him? It's not hard for me to imagine someone using fake pictures & info for some complicated and essentially masturbatory fantasy-play. I mean, that was even the core concept of the funniest radio ad for Earthlink, evar, which they used to run around here, oh, six years ago or so: an old man's voice describing how he's glad he's switched to Earthlink from AOL even though it means he can no longer hang out in AOL chat rooms pretending to be an 18-year-old contortionist.
Some of these guys are married, so at least some of them are lousy people
Maybe all their wives are frigid.
Yeah, I was thinking of that too, McManly; people might be "identifying" people who didn't even respond.
...especially the one from the dog-rescuing hypnotist with Asperger's.
The guy who published all of it is a dick. He put up a dirty ad for sex, he got dirty responses, he went gotcha.
It's not like he was trying to sell a tricycle or something and was inundated with sex chatter.
Are tricycles the new trolleys for you people?
16.--Yes, but at least "her" photo was consistent with "her" ad. The guys are sending sensitive photos--by a mountain creek, on a porch swing, with their dog, with friends, with their mothers--the kind of photos you'd send along with a response to a "I like to take long walks on beaches" personal.
Oh, I see what you're saying. It's a good question: given how few guys must get responses, I wonder how many of them get their jollies just having a forum where it feels ok to write stuff like this.
26: I can't seem to understand what you're pointing out in noting the difference between the tone of the photos and the tone of the text.
Thanks to "POSTIN UR N00DZ" guy, I will never sleep again.
does this fall into the "if its too good to be true, it probably isn't true" category?
10: I don't think it's helpful to reverse the genders of the traditional sexual abuse of trust here. What this guy did was shitty, I agree, but it's also some way short of actual physical rape.
I wasn't trying to argue that it was similar in effect because obviously it isn't. But the power dynamics are oddly similar in the two cases, and thus also the extent to which the victims are responsible for their fate. (I 'reversed' the genders because I was re-explaining what happened in this case, not because I was trying to describe a rape committed by a woman.)
D2 is being uncharacteristically jerky; this is entrapment, and it sucks. Regardless of whether the people being entrapped are married, Ogged; what are you, John Ashcroft?
If you'd get off your high horse, maybe you'd be getting more oxygen.
Fucking people over for relatively trivial mistakes is wrong.
Y'know, if these people's mistakes were "relatively trivial," they wouldn't be begging not to get busted.
27: A lot. A lot a lot a lot a lot.
A lot of guys also get their jollies from writing the same kind of stuff to feminist bloggers, by the way.
this is entrapment, and it sucks
It's only entrapment where you're induced to do something you wouldn't ordinarily do.
The picture wasn't THAT compelling. I mean, "goodness, there was a gap-assed woman bending over, I simply couldn't control myself as I typed my real name and attached a photo of myself and sent it"? Come now.
33: Oh, that's just silly. Picture a perfectly nice person with a dull conservative job and a wildly embarassing fetish that doesn't make you want to think he's a bad person -- dressing up in a bunny suit and rubbing himself against a sex partner dressed as a carrot. He'd hate to have that come out publicly, but he wouldn't have done anything wrong trying to find a willing carrot impersonator online.
35: It's completely assholish, as 34 was intended to convey. Nonetheless, it is entrapment to *induce* people to be assholish and then mortify them for it. Not legally, but ethically.
And most decent people are ashamed over "relatively trivial" things, and would prefer not to have them made public knowledge.
Assholish, sure, but not entrapment.
It's not a zero-sum morality game--the prankster and the respondents are both deplorable.
And most decent people are ashamed over "relatively trivial" things, and would prefer not to have them made public knowledge.
Sure. I'm just denying that making lewd propositions in response to solicitations by a complete stranger, and doing so with your real name/pic, is "relatively trivial." Just because we're embarrassed by many trivia, doesn't make whatever embarrasses us trivial.
D2 is being uncharacteristically jerky; this is entrapment, and it sucks. Regardless of whether the people being entrapped are married, Ogged; what are you, John Ashcroft?
Pretty much wrong from start to finish, B. dsquared is being characteristically jerky, you just don't notice when he's on your side. (Confidential to dsquared: making fun of guys for being wussies and talking about their feelings is my shtick.)
And I wasn't excusing the outing, just making a qualified defense of LB's point upthread.
It's a good thing your job doesn't require reading comprehension.
These people are more or less fucked. Something is out there on the Internet that describes them as having violent sexual, if consensual, tendencies. And they're all available via google. To future potential employers, landlords, dates, etc. And, because people are linking and copying and the like, it's out there forever. The more I think about it, the more horrible what this guy did seems.
(NB: I didn't read the responses, or much of anything. Maybe I'm missing some crucial fact.)
respondents are...deplorable
What? Why?
gap-assed woman
Isn't that a Santana song?
39: It's a good thing I read better than you do and know something about the importance of context. D2 is often rude, but seldom jerky. And whether or not you were defending LB this time, your comment was consistent with previous comments you've made on the subject.
Ok, I admit, I am John Ashcroft. Break out the Crisco and let's sing a song, bitches!
Another scary thought: someone using a friend or acquaintance's pictures for online fantasy-play - or for revenge? Kind of like in that David Sedaris story, where his sister calls his dad at work and impersonates one of their dad's co-workers? Holy crap. Once I really stare into the vortex of possible misidentifications, it gets scarier and scarier.
Isn't that a Santana song?
No, Robert Johnson.
She's a gap-assed woman... studies felching all the time
Yeah she's a gap-assed woman ... studies felching all the time
You well's to peg me, as to have it on your mind
I think this is where I'm required by contract to step in and say it is scary, and I feel bad for the guys, but it *is* also true that sending violent or disgusting messages to women online, as I implied in 34, is also scary and deserves *something*, if not this particular kind of thing.
From the sex_bait page: He took the text and photo from a sexually explicit ad
So there's absolutely no way that anyone seeking sex online could have distinguished this phony ad from a real ad, because it was a real ad. As an aside to 46, I think that the person pictured in the ad is also among the victims of this abuse, possibly even one with a legitimate criminal complaint.
I'd like to get some of the people who are on record as saying the victims are, in some degree, to blame here, to explain why the same doesn't apply to women who are raped by an aggressor who lied to gain their trust (the most common sort of rape, I believe). To make it extra-clear, I'm not saying that what happened to these people was worse than rape, so leave that out of it at all possible.
30 was to the advertisement. Which I actually havent read because I'm at work.
50 answers 51. It wasn't too good to be true.
As an aside to 46, I think that the person pictured in the ad is also among the victims of this abuse
I just went and read the original link (via lynx, from a non-work host, so I still haven't seen any pictures), and I agree wholeheartedly.
These people are more or less fucked. Something is out there on the Internet that describes them as having violent sexual, if consensual, tendencies. And they're all available via google. To future potential employers, landlords, dates, etc. And, because people are linking and copying and the like, it's out there forever.
You left off, "because they were really, really stupid." Being stupid has its costs. I've paid the stupid bill myself in the past. Who hasn't?
I'm just denying that making lewd propositions in response to solicitations by a complete stranger, and doing so with your real name/pic, is "relatively trivial."
I feel compelled to point that what this means is that sex is a bigger issue for you than some other people. Don't project your own value-system.
Anderson, your "you're really, really stupid and deserve what's coming to you if you trust people" reasoning is absurd and rather deplorable.
You left off, "because they were really, really stupid." Being stupid has its costs. I've paid the stupid bill myself in the past. Who hasn't??
That really is explicitly the "blame the victim" response. Stupidity shouldn't mean disproportionate punishment. Nobody sane says, "Gay sex without a condom and you caught AIDS? You deserve it." Some bills are self-evidently too high.
Anderson, your "you're really, really stupid and deserve what's coming to you if you trust people" reasoning is absurd and rather deplorable.
Trusting people isn't stupid. Trusting TOTAL STRANGERS with your POTENTIALLY LIFE-WRECKING info, without any reliable assurances whatsoever, is stupid.
And as for "blaming the victim," well? Victims are never blameworthy, now? When did this happen? I thought the Republicans still controlled the Congress!
Whether or not the guy who set up the hoax was an asshole when he conceived the plan, there's no doubt he turned into an asshole when people contacted him and said "please take down my picture" and he said, "nyeah nyeah."
Also, is 39 ogged doing a character? I can't tell anymore.
Anderson, your first paragraph says "trusting people isn't stupid, but trusting people is stupid." Hi contradiction, nice to meet ya.
Maybe you're not aware that this sort of behavior goes on pretty much 24 hours a day every day, and that violations of trust are almost unheard of.
38 (me) I'm just denying that making lewd propositions in response to solicitations by a complete stranger, and doing so with your real name/pic, is "relatively trivial."
55 (Michael) I feel compelled to point that what this means is that sex is a bigger issue for you than some other people.
Talk about stupidity ... "Bigger issue for ME"? Jesus F. Christ. How about for the people who are screaming, "PLEASE don't let anyone see the response I sent to that ad"? I guess THOSE people aren't quite up to your level of enlightenment either, are they?
You want to act like sex can't be a serious issue? Have fun, go blind doing it. But pretty obviously to anyone with the reading comprehension and mental capacity required to open your internet browser, the people who are complaining about being "outed" have a different opinion ... at least, now they do.
And I wasn't excusing the outing, just making a qualified defense of LB's point upthread.
You know, it's not an unfair reading of what I said, but I didn't mean in 5 that the victims had it coming. What I meant to say, and said badly, is that you couldn't defend the prankster's actions as not-wrong, he violated a trust. My point was that to defend him, you would have to make the argument that the victims had it coming and deserved to be attacked.
Okay, Michael Troll-Boy: it's NEVER stupid to trust people?
I'll ignore the rest of your comments, & cordially invite you to return the favor.
There's obvious distinction between being embarrassed by your own actions and being afraid of other people's judgements. It's a fundamnetal distinction in understanding human nature, and i'm really sorry you can't see that.
Cocksucker.
Whether or not the guy who set up the hoax was an asshole when he conceived the plan, there's no doubt he turned into an asshole when people contacted him and said "please take down my picture" and he said, "nyeah nyeah."
Totally agree. And he'd better hope he hasn't ruined anyone's life sufficiently that they feel the leisure to come after him.
I will now post Anderson's IP. I kid, I kid.
You two are going to have sex now, aren't you?
I'm not going to waste time with someone who isn't mature enough to argue without calling his opponent "stupid" and a "troll". I have no patience for such childishness.
My point was that to defend him, you would have to make the argument that the victims had it coming and deserved to be attacked.
Right. I walk by a Mercedes & see it empty, windows down, ignition on, I think "what an idiot." Doesn't make it okay for someone to steal it, though.
Wow. I hope that guy has a good lawyer, and I kind of wonder if he needs a good bodyguard, too.
Would it have been more or less problematic if he'd acted as a submissive man wanting someone to come over and give his asshole a good pounding, and posted the responses to that?
I will now post Anderson's IP. I kid, I kid.
Potentially embarassing, but not in a life-wrecking way. I think ...
You two are going to have sex now, aren't you?
Well, I couldn't quite figure out if that "cocksucker" remark was an inquiry, or a signature.
Would it have been more or less problematic if he'd acted as a submissive man wanting someone to come over and give his asshole a good pounding, and posted the responses to that?
More. Then he's outing some gays as well. Though in an interesting reverse-prejudiced kind of way, I imagine that closeted gay sex-surfers are a bit more careful with their ID's, at least on the 1st e-mail. I suspect I'm mistaken.
Would it have been more or less problematic if he'd acted as a submissive man wanting someone to come over and give his asshole a good pounding, and posted the responses to that?
No! I honest to gawd don't know how this is at all confusing. Outing people is, in general, very, very bad. People are usually "in" for a reason. You need an excellent justification for doing it. "Because I can" doesn't meet my standards. It shouldn't meet yours.
71- why would it be any more or less problematic? It would be exactly equally problematic, no?
You know, I don't even think 'what an idiot' in this case. I haven't looked at the ad or the responses, so maybe I hate everyone involved because they're mean and horrible. But under the assumption that they're just regular perverts trying to meet other appropriate perverts to do consensual perverted things with, it doesn't seem insanely incautious to me to contact a potential sex partner with your real name. Oh, it backfired here and that's a real risk, but they're on a forum where the assumption is that everyone is seriously trying to do the same thing.
I have to say, the respondents only seem medium-stupid to me, not totally stupid. Like Michael says, this kind of communication happens constantly without anyone being outed. Yes, they should have been more cautious, because the potential for something like this exists, but it's not as if it should have been obvious to them that it would happen.
70: Right. I walk by a Mercedes & see it empty, windows down, ignition on, I think "what an idiot."
I am quite interested to see you respond to 50, if only because you're the only person left willing to give a spirited argument that the victims had it coming.
Maybe all their wives are frigid.
Ah, Michael. Ever a charmer.
49: Doesn't the context -- consensuality, buy-in to certain forms of subculture, etc -- determine a lot of what constitutes violent and disgusting?
50: Might help if you picked a less inflammatory comparison. Like, say, someone on a dating site reposting the personal info of women who wrote to them. (Looks as though that route wouldn't provide nearly as much lurid fodder as the men do, but the principle would otherwise be comparable...)
On the post topic, there's another potential harm: to the real submissive women who look for sex on Craigslist and will now have that much more trouble getting anyone to trust them. Will no one think of them?
80: I was thinking that -- I've now read the ad, although not the responses, and I'm having a hard time thinking what would be an inappropriately violent or disgusting response to it short of threats of significant physical injury.
I think the only thing left to discuss at this point is: what is the appropriate punishment?
Were I the judge I would rule that he made a binding agreement with these suitors (in equity, by virtue of their reliance and his fraud), and would order specific performance (in all cases in which the injured party still wanted to enforce the agreement).
Hopefully at least one of the lawyers is laughing at that, although I'm sure no one else is.
82: That sounded prissily judgmental. What I meant is, the ad is explictly setting a violent tone, and adopting that tone, or even going beyond it (short of anything really scary) doesn't seem as if it could be out of line.
83: I'm not a lawyer, yet I understand, and verily am amused.
On the post topic, there's another potential harm: to the real submissive women who look for sex on Craigslist and will now have that much more trouble getting anyone to trust them. Will no one think of them?
See comment #3.
I am quite interested to see you respond to 50, if only because you're the only person left willing to give a spirited argument that the victims had it coming.
But I *don't* think the victims "had it coming," any more than I think the Mercedes owner "had it coming." I'm looking at this from a gloriously pseudo-Kantian perspective where *both* sides can be 100% at fault! (The plaintiff's dream!)
But, looking at 50, I do think there can be cases where a rape victim was incredibly stupid to trust the rapist-to-be, "what was she thinking???" Doesn't make rape okay, god knows.
And, ogged: not obvious that it WOULD happen, doesn't equal "not obvious that it VERY WELL COULD happen."
71: I hardly see why that would make a difference. This clown has just outed a bunch of people who were in the closet, who thought they were engaging in consensual play, and who may lose jobs, relationships and family because of it.
49: Did you see the ad itself, B? If someone wrote to you at your blog in a manner resembling these guys' responses, I would applaud you for outing them. Written in response to this ad, they just seem like an attempt to match its tone.
71, 73, 75, 80-82: No, a gay version of this situation would be less disturbing, because sexual violence against women is at (least partly) the root of sexual violence against gay men. And the fact that this hoax *was* a hoax puts the spotlight directly on the important distinction between consensual and non-consensual sexual violence.
75: I'd think it would be about equally problematic. But it seems like what this guy did is W-R-O-N-G period, to the point where the people who got outed (as perverts) get zero blame, and I'm mildly surprised to see people disagreeing.
92: I have no idea what you're trying to communicate.
No, a gay version of this situation would be less disturbing, because sexual violence against women is at (least partly) the root of sexual violence against gay men.
Huh???
Is gay rape less disturbing than straight rape for the same reason?
I don't follow you at all.
Based on 43, dsquared is going to have to start trying harder.
One of the responders is totally Iranian. Or maybe Mexican. Eh, same thing.
Wondering: What do y'all think of regular people, not vulnerably demented old folks, who trustingly send their life savings to Nigerian e-scammers?
90: I've gotten rape threads and "suck my cock, bitch" email b/c of the blog, yes. But I won't out it, no.
I do think there can be cases where a rape victim was incredibly stupid to trust the rapist-to-be, "what was she thinking???" Doesn't make rape okay, god knows.
That's offensive, I'm sorry. First, because it's only possible to say that sort of thing in hindsight, and second, because it implies that rape is some sort of natural force that women are supposed to, what? Get insurance against? People trust other people because most other people are trustworthy. When someone violates that trust, they, not the person who trusted them, are entirely at fault. Period.
One of the responders is totally Iranian.
See, when you're the President of Iran and you post this kinda shit, you REALLY have no excuse. Think of the foreign-policy consequences! (Would get the nukes off the front page for a while, though.)
Wondering: What do y'all think of regular people, not vulnerably demented old folks, who trustingly send their life savings to Nigerian e-scammers?
This is a totally different circumstance. As Michael said, these forums have an implied code of confidence--as do gay clubs, and any number of other sorts of associations--that simply isn't true of the e-mail scams. The closer question is, "What do you think of people who got stung by phishing scams when they first started?"
95/92: I'm a bit hungry and low bloodsugary, but let me see if I can make myself clear. No, raping gay men isn't less heinous than raping women. But I think that part of what's behind all rape is hatred of women (as social category)--that is, the eroticization of violence, the combo of sex and force. Does that help?
92: I don't get it. It seems to me the outing is the problem, not the violence, which was supposed to be consensual. The outing would be nonconsensual in both heterosexual and homosexual cases.
Not that the distinction between consensual and nonconsensual sexual violence isn't important, but I don't see how the gender preferences of the participants affects that any more than the matter of outing.
98: Helping someone smuggle money stolen from the people of Nigeria out of the country is much more morally problematic than engaging in kinky sex. Trying to defraud rich and gullible Americans so you can buy clothes in Nigeria is also much less morally problematic than fucking with the lives of a bunch of perverts because you're bored.
88: there can be cases where a rape victim was incredibly stupid to trust the rapist-to-be, "what was she thinking???" Doesn't make rape okay, god knows.
Does it make the rape victims 'deplorable'?
who trustingly send their life savings to Nigerian e-scammers?
Did they know they were scammers? Were they on a forum where money is exchanged daily, virtually always discreetly, with mutual consent, and for mutual benefit? Were they engaging in an activity that inherently involves trust and personal privacy, no matter the circumstances? If all that happened, which is really the case with craiglist personal (OR SO I HAVE HEARD!), then yes, I would feel bad for them.
First, because it's only possible to say that sort of thing in hindsight
Oh, bullshit. A guy in a chat room says, where do you live, I want to come over and mess around with you. Not having the least clue who he is, I tell him. He shows up in a car with 2 guy friends, all strangers, and says, let's go for a ride. So I do. And they gang-rape me. ---You *really* want to say that was just totally fucking unforeseeable?
Why, exactly, are we supposed to assume that women are utterly clueless? Because the women I know live in a culture where rape happens; they know it; and they would hear about an account like the one I've spun, and say, "what was she thinking???" While happily endorsing the ritual execution of the rapists.
People trust other people because most other people are trustworthy.
Right, which is why you readily let any stranger you meet take your kid for a ride while you go shopping? What on earth is your point supposed to be? Because I am so totally not getting it.
Are we really going to have a discussion of whether it's possible for rape victims to "ask for it"? Can we not, please?
Tim you motherfucker how many times are you going to pwn me in the course of one thread!?
I'm on the verge of being totally confused, B.
First, on the rape issue: I think it's important to distinguish moral criticism from other sorts of evaluation. All the moral condemnation goes toward the rapist, we agree. But it seems to me that dangerous behavior can be criticized as being extraordinarly imprudent. (If you get shot walking through a dangerous neighborhood late at night, I might, at some point after you've recovered, point out that you made a pretty dumb decision, ceteris paribus; why wouldn't the same go for rape?)
Second, I don't understand this:
a gay version of this situation would be less disturbing, because sexual violence against women is at (least partly) the root of sexual violence against gay men.
I don't think that "X is partly the root of Y; therefore any instance of X is worse than any instance of Y" is going to hold up in general. I would have thought that the badness of being outed was a function of what kinds of discrimination were levelled against being gay/being a big ol' perv, and that the wrongness of outing was a function of the harms done. This is just a quick, off-the-top-of-my-head comment, but that's the impression I have.
First, because it's only possible to say that sort of thing in hindsight
Oh, bullshit. A guy in a chat room says, where do you live, I want to come over and mess around with you. Not having the least clue who he is, I tell him. He shows up in a car with 2 guy friends, all strangers, and says, let's go for a ride. So I do. And they gang-rape me. ---You *really* want to say that was just totally fucking unforeseeable?
Why, exactly, are we supposed to assume that women are utterly clueless? Because the women I know live in a culture where rape happens; they know it; and they would hear about an account like the one I've spun, and say, "what was she thinking???" While happily endorsing the ritual execution of the rapists.
People trust other people because most other people are trustworthy.
Right, which is why you readily let any stranger you meet take your kid for a ride while you go shopping? What on earth is your point supposed to be? Because I am so totally not getting it.
104: The person who posted the ad is *not* a woman who is into S&M. He's exploiting the reality of violence against women to draw men (who may or may not distinguish between consensual violent sex) into a relationship *with him* that isn't, on their part, consensual (in the sense of being fully informed).
100: I'm not saying you should out anyone, but that if you chose to do so it would be understandable. This guy is just a sociopath, who found a category of people he could get away with hurting. Although I would expect him to have to go into hiding soon.
103- I understand your point but don't see how that makes the homosexual case less bad. (On second thought, maybe that means I don't understand your point.)
As Michael said, these forums have an implied code of confidence
But they're not "associations." Associations have rules, and memberships, & such. They're public spaces where anyone can do just about anything. It would be helpful for people to remember that.
But it seems to me that dangerous behavior can be criticized as being extraordinarly imprudent.
Okay, gotta go get my kid (because I don't trust just anyone to!), but let me just say: I am breathtaken that such an obvious statement, on a par with "chewing glass can cause oral bleeding," is even debatable, as it appears to be on this thread.
the women I know live in a culture where rape happens; they know it; and they would hear about an account like the one I've spun, and say, "what was she thinking???"
In other words, women should (and a lot of women accept this as a given) recognize that rape is a fact of nature.
111: Imprudent, maybe; but "stupid" implies moral censure in a way that "imprudent" doesn't, surely. Re X/Y, I don't think I was saying (at least I didn't mean to say) that "any instance of X is worst than any instance of Y"; I think I was saying that X as a phenomenon is worse than Y as a phenomenon because without X, no Y.
Ogged, you were totally asking for that discussion. I know you want it, you hirsute persian bitch, and I'm going to discuss it with you so hard you'll wake the neighbors.
chewing glass can cause oral bleeding
Right, but it also stops terror. So, you know, two sides to every issue.
"stupid" implies moral censure in a way that "imprudent" doesn't
No, it doesn't. I have some students who are stupid but morally admirable, and I bet you do too.
The 'act of nature' argument is bad, I think. Failing to take precautions against known tendencies toward malfeasance is just as dumb as failing to take precautions against harms that are not based in agency; thinking this does not involve conflating actions and events.
113: so the dude who posted the ad is reprehensible a) because he screwed over a bunch of innocent dudes, and b) because he encouraged violence against women in the process? And c) the dudes who sent the emails are also reprehensible, if somewhat less so, because they sent violent emails to what they thought was a woman?
121: One can use "stupid" in a way that isn't censurious, sure, and I'll accept an argument that "stupid" isn't *inherently* so, but as the Cultural Studies prof said to the Philosophy Prof, come on; you know the word is commonly used that way.
The point of the act of nature argument is to put a lot of weight on why it is crucial to maintain the distinction between mere practicality and moral imperatives. Which people blur all the time when they talk about sexual behavior.
113: What? This seems to me to be beside the point I was trying to make. I'm saying that the violence of the responses would not have been inappropriate (theoretically, as I only read a couple of them), had the poster of the ad been who and what he purported to be, assuming you don't condemn BDSM out of hand.
Obviously their relationship to the actual poster is non-consensual.
As for the question of whether he is exploiting the reality of violence against women, well, yeah but that's not what I was talking about in 100.
The 'act of nature' argument is bad, I think. Failing to take precautions against known tendencies toward malfeasance is just as dumb as failing to take precautions against harms that are not based in agency; thinking this does not involve conflating actions and events.
I agree that it's a bad argument in the abstract, but it's a good argument against the "Well, of course she got raped -- it's not her fault, but she was certainly an idiot for (walking home alone/walking home with a man/walking home with a group of men/remaining passive and acquiescent when sexually threatened/becoming hostile and aggressive when sexually threatened/whatever the hell else she might have done differently)" claim as it is actually used.
Good Lord. Haven't we been over this about 1000 times already? Saying, of a rape victim, "yes, the rapist is horrible, but she was imprudent to get in the car with him" is not just a form of musing about how best to deal with strange men in cars. It's a form of argument that gets made all the fucking time and that, by getting made all the fucking time, hurts rape victims. IT DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER WHETHER IT IS TRUE OR NOT. What matters is that it's a rhetorical move that's harmful and counterproductive and that's why it ought to fucking stop.
People are real quick to call others stupid on the internet. It usually is associated with the statement "everybody knows [some obscure geeky fact that your life would probally be much better for never knowing]"
122: I'm not saying he encouraged violence against women. I'm saying he took advantage of it.
125: Okay, like I said, I'm low blood sugary. By the way, I meant not only that the relationship of the respondents to the actual poster (by which I assume you mean the woman whose picture was posted) is non-consensual; my point was that their relationship to the guy who posted the fake ad was, too.
It is also true that stupidity is the force that runs the universe. Along with greed. And self-regard. And an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.
117, "dangerously behavior can be criticized as being extraordinarily imprudent" is not what you said in 38. You said that people who engage in dangerous behavior are deplorable; I don't see any way to interpret that beyond an endorsement of bad things happening to them. The comment about 'paying the stupid bill' in 54 drives it home a little more.
It's a bit ironic to use a bait-and-switch argument like that in this thread, I think.
127: A much clearer way of making the point I was trying to in 126.
No, by "actual poster", I meant the prankster.
131 does a marvellous job of showing why 126 and 127 are exactly right.
Hmm. Are the guys who emailed responses to the ad in any way in the wrong? Other than maybe not being sufficiently cynical about people claiming to be sexy women who want your cock on the internet?
133 to 129. As far as the woman in the original ad, I think she is harmed only insofar as there is identifying material in her ad. I didn't notice any. Obviously it's creepy to have your ad appropriated, but if she's not identified, or contacted by people who saw the prankster's ad, then she hasn't suffered harm on the same level as the people who were outed. I think.
I have to say, this is not the mental picture I had of SomeCallMeTim.
B- maybe you should get something to eat?
135: Let's all go over to the Twisty archive.
138: Yes.
135: I don't think we have sufficient information to determine that, unless one wants to make the argument that such desires are inherently blameworthy.
136: I guess it depends on how many people recognize the gap-ass. Show of hands?
re 127
The rape rates are way down. If it were a matter of prudent behaviour rather than just a way to shame and control women, people should say things like "yes, the rapist is horrible, but she was imprudent to walk around in that section of town" a lot less.
132: I was thinking just the opposite. In any case, 127 comes primarily from work that people like you and B and a few other bloggy feminists have done, so thanks.
127: Maybe if you used the word "fucking" a few more times, I'd be convinced. I'll settle for your endorsement of the truth of my claim, though.
140: I thought you were making something like that argument (i.e. these guys sent some nasty shit to what they thought was a woman, and that deserves some sort of punishment). If not, then it's another case of violent yet confused agreement.
Ok, what the hell, we're here anyway, and Labs asked for it. I'm curious how people interpret some of these comments. Obviously, I'm coming to any comment on this site with all the baggage of previous comments and other interactions, etc., but, if I were to look at comments 111 and 127 side by side, I'd say that one commenter had clearly more fully internalized "feminist" thought, and that commenter is Labs. (This is in no way meant as a slam on DaveL, who seems like a fine guy.) Would the rest of you read them that way? I'm not asking for theoretical points (yet), but how you react to those two comments.
145: I was, at one point. I suspect that what I really should say is that such desires are, imho, inherently bad--at least inasmuch as they tend to be heavily gendered in terms of who plays which role--but individual people aren't morally bad for being subject to sexism.
Except, of course, when they are.
Labs, admit it. You're just looking for a reason to excuse homosexual rape.
Me: the women I know live in a culture where rape happens; they know it; and they would hear about an account like the one I've spun, and say, "what was she thinking???"
B.PhD.: In other words, women should (and a lot of women accept this as a given) recognize that rape is a fact of nature.
Did I mention Jesus F. Christ already in this thread??? Nature, culture---feminists think those are the same things, right?
IT DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER WHETHER IT IS TRUE OR NOT
See, the point where the truth doesn't fucking matter? That's where I get off the bus.
144: Labs is Gaijin Biker!
147: "homosexual" s/b "face"
144: I guess the frustration is seeing the same crap after watching a week of feminist consciousness-raising efforts. I don't think there's anything terribly subtle about the idea that sometimes it's a good idea to keep our mouths shut even when we think we're right about something, but if there were, it's not like there haven't been a couple of thousand comments on related issues on this very blog in the last week.
Personal example of something similar: embarrassingly enough, Googling my name turns up some comments I made on Je/ff G/ol/dstein's site in the early days of my exposure to the blogosphere. It was in a thread about legislation in Washington to delete the word "Oriental" anywhere it appeared in state statutes, and my comments were basically along the lines that it was just a silly political stunt. I still think I was basically right about the merits of the issue, such as they were. But what I didn't understand was that neither the legislation nor the thread were really about the merits of cleaning up the Revised Code of Washington and the Washington Administrative Code. They were moves in a power game over who gets to control how language is used to refer to a particular group of people, and the people who were pissed off at Je/ff (and me, at some points) were right to be pissed off. So I was on the wrong side of the real issue, even though I think the arguments I was making were perfectly correct on the merits as I understood them.
149- I don't think it was meant that way, Anderson. You're reading too much into things.
There are lots of things that are true that don't bear repeating. I'm sure the ritual liars Persians among us understand.
See, the point where the truth doesn't fucking matter? That's where I get off the bus.
DaveL is, I think, making the point that the words you say can communicate several messages, and that, for a given context, there is going to be a dominant interpretation that is properly read out of it. In the context of rape, "You were stupid," is often rightly read as, "You deserved it." That might be changing, but you'd have had to live under a rock not to know that said interpretation was pretty common for a long, long time.
Obviously, I'm coming to any comment on this site with all the baggage of previous comments and other interactions, etc., but, if I were to look at comments 111 and 127 side by side, I'd say that one commenter had clearly more fully internalized "feminist" thought, and that commenter is Labs. (This is in no way meant as a slam on DaveL, who seems like a fine guy.) Would the rest of you read them that way?
Nope. (No slam against Labs.) What Labs said was (IMO) correct, and inoffensive, and not a bad thing to say. But it missed the feminist point B. was making (oh, missed the point is unfair. I'm sure Labs got the point but wanted to talk about something else -- the literal truth or otherwise of what B. said). Dave and I both addressed the feminist point.
If by "internalized 'feminist' thought" you mean that Labs was speaking in a manner that did not acknowledge and assume the existence of sexism -- that his comment is the one you would expect a person who already lived in an entirely non-sexist society to make -- that would be a fair evaluation of what Labs said. But it would be a weird usage of "feminist thought": real world feminist thought is largely about reactions to sexism.
If you're going to take my name in vain, at least get it right.
Nature, culture---feminists think those are the same things, right?
Snarking about feminism is not going to help your cause, dear.
153 and 155 are basically what I was driving at.
Labs and Ogged probably ought to go read Marcotte for a few weeks. B is way too nice lately.
I've already got baa reading The Second Sex for me.
160: That's something I'm saving up for a dull week on the blog. What's with all the extravagant Marcotte hating? I don't get it and it kind of bothers me.
Posting the responses is evil, but it's pretty funny how many guys thought it was a good idea to send a cock pic.
Oh, wildly disapproving of the whole thing and thinking the prankster is a bad, awful, evil guy doesn't mean it's not funny.
Is it ever a bad idea to send a cock pic?
What's with all the extravagant Marcotte hating?
Her tone is uncongenial? (I have nothing against Marcotte.)
131 pretty much means pwned 148 and 149, if I'm not mistaken.
I think 156 might be unfair. I suspect that Labs' feminism is different than my own. I also suspect that this has to do with his being some kind of philosopher or something and being hung up on literalisms and wanting to use language very precisely, but that's got more to do with my being a lit type person than it does with my being a feminist. I think.
Also, people apply the "stupid" label with a pretty broad brush. The people who will say this, and they're still around, and actually, some are self identified feminists, think a pretty wide swath of behavior is inadvisable. The only way to drive the risk of rape down really low would be to never put yourself in an intimate situation with a man and never go out. But some women are assuming the risk of rape for a teensy bit of physical and sexual freedom. So when anyone says stupid, maybe it's more like, "unwilling to give up liberty." I am sure some people would think some of the things I do are "stupid," and I am fully cognizant of the risks involved, but nevertheless am unwilling to limit my behavior to the extent other people are suggesting. I'm not stupid; I just have a different set of priorities.
149: See, the point where the truth doesn't fucking matter? That's where I get off the bus.
So, here are a few truths that matter:
First, we all still live in societies where disturbingly large numbers of people think precisely in terms of "she wore that dress to that bar and deserved whatever she got."
Second, it shouldn't be hard to figure out that this attitude does (im)measurable harm to rape victims (in terms of undermining potential support networks and piling on further psychological stress, for example).
Third, it's extremely hard to distinguish cases where the victim could be genuinely called "stupid" or "imprudent" from cases where those talking about them are simply dressing up their own prudery as "common sense." And the latter are common enough that in the pragmatic sense, the distinction really isn't worth making.
I'm totally with you about the need to keep things reality-based. I think DaveL and others are being 100% reality-based in this case, and you aren't.
B, what I'm asking about, maybe unfairly, is the quick impression you get of the two commenters based on those comments.
I mostly like Marcotte, and I'm basically sincere about the value of reading her for a while. And best to read for a while before piping up in comments, IMO. She does tend toward the shorter-fused end of the spectrum, so it's best to have a sense of where she's coming from before saying something that might start a fight, especially since her comments section can occasionally get a bit over the top.
167: Oh, I really didn't mean to impugn Labs' feminism -- I was addressing ogged's question as to whether in the cited comments Labs came off as more feminist than DaveL. (Which, kind of a weird question, but I'll talk about anything rather than work.)
And, you know, DaveL was talking about the feminist issue, and Labs was talking about the literal truth value of your statement. Nothing wrong with that as a mode of discussion, but it's not indicative of being more feminist than the alternative.
163: Especially given that the original ad, if I remember correctly, explicitly stated a neutral attitude towards size. In Heaven, Kinsey just gave Freud a bitchin' high-five.
Is it ever a bad idea to send a cock pic?
I got more interviews once I took the cock pic off of my résumé.
162: She's young, and it often shows in her perspective. If you go back and look at almost all of the feminism brouhahas here (at least in the last, say, nine months), you'll see B has a complicated--if to my mind, not clearly correct--view of the way the world works and people in it interact. Welcome to what used to be called "wisdom." And she's aware that there's a decent chance that she's wrong, and willing to talk through why she is or isn't. And there's wisdom's oft-forgotten cousin, "humility."
160 probably has a lot to do with my impending proximity to the Pacific Ocean. Also possibly a lot to do with my impending hiatus from academia. It might be more than simple coincidence that I'm not *just* "bitch."
I used to think that 163 was the right thing to think, but I'm coming around more and more to 165's point of view. I think it has something to do with familiarity breeding a deeper appreciation. Which, you know, is why porn would be great if it were truly feminist.
Any relationship between the two paragraphs above is entirely coincidental.
167- Jesus D. Christ, go eat something B. You aren't making any sense. I'm trying to avoid assuming that's just because you're a woman, but you're making it very hard for me. With your behavior today it's like you're asking for some sexism. I mean, sexism is still wrong, of course, but that doesn't mean there aren't some things women ought to do to protect themselves against it.
So I take it no one else reads profgrrrrl's blog?
BL, 167 does make sense. What's with people today? Do you all need to be raped in the face?
I got more interviews once I took the cock pic off of my résumé.
Your cock must not make a very good first impression. Which is especially sad, considering that everyone embellishes on their resumes.
It was a joke that Brock said 167 didn't make sense? If so, my apologies.
113: Unless I misread, the ad was originally posted by a woman as a legitimate ad seeking, well, whatever it was she was seeking. The illegitimacy of the prankster's act is, IMO, in co-opting the her request into a forum where he had no intentions of following through with it (and then subsequently publicizing the responses, etc.).
180: I think it was the whole having to print the résumé on a scroll that threw employers.
His feminism is different because he uses language very precisely? What exactly about that makes sense?
(His writing style is different, and perhaps his linguistic precision, but his feminism?)
My face is just fine unraped, thanks.
183: I may be wrong, and Brock can speak for himself, but I'm pretty darn sure he was kidding. Read what he said again and tell me it's straight-faced.
ogged's question as to whether in the cited comments Labs came off as more feminist than DaveL
I guess the connoisseurship thing is true.
181/183: it was mostly a joke, but that part did confuse me.
176: I kid. I think I started reading you more-or-less during the time that you've said that things were really tough for you and that you were edgier than usual. I endorse most of 175.
And, in fairness to Labs and Ogged, it may be that my strong reaction to the rape avoidance stuff has to do with linking the discussion here in the last week with discussions that I've read elsewhere (including Marcotte's place) on that specific issue, and that the link isn't so obvious to someone who doesn't read those blogs.
And one thing 15+ years of living with my wife has taught me is that sometimes even when I'm basically smart and decent and trying to do the right thing, it takes a really good bashing about the head and shoulders to make me see how I'm being obtuse about something I think I understand already. YMMV.
170: Okay, DaveL and Labs can take it on the chin and blame you for my taking the swing.
If I knew nothing else about the people behind 111 and 127, here would be my thoughts:
111: Smart, thoughtful, pedantic. Comment in and of itself unimpeachable, but I am not clear on whether this person understands that there's a feminist issue here or maybe he fails to see that altogether (or is merely putting it aside) and is merely approaching the thing from the point of view of strict accuracy. Suspect that he understands feminism, but need more evidence. Suspect also that he is functioning at a very high level of intellectual apprehension of the question at hand. Understanding of feminism possibly different than my own, possibly further along, possibly less so. Would have to address topic directly to find out.
127: Commenter is new to this particular feminist argument, and has all the fervor of a convert. Good for him, we shall see whether he moves on and calms down or whether he breaks up on the shoals of self-congratulation. More typical of online feminist discussion than 111, but the comment 127 is responding to demonstrates why this is the case. Probably, therefore, a far more *useful* comment in this particular discussion than 111.
I got more interviews once I took the cock pic off of my résumé.
Well, how were you supposed to know? It just said "personal photo," right? Sounds pretty g.d. personal to *me*.
You didn't want to work for those stuffy prudes anyway.
In fairness, I don't hate DaveL as much it might seem, and I've been away from the blog.
It's true and important that "she was dumb to put herself at risk" gets abused in all sorts of loathsome ways. But the way to say this is *not* to say something that sounds like "shut up, that truth is inconvenient," for obvious reasons.
Was ogged really confused that comment was mostly a joke? That seems implausible.
188: Goddamn, look at that guy. He is so damn empathetic. He really understands women's perspective.
198: Ogged's all about the implausibility.
But the way to say this is *not* to say something that sounds like "shut up, that truth is inconvenient," for obvious reasons.
Which is all I'm sayin'. And damn, I didn't even want to touch #50 & this rape stuff, I was specifically *asked* to give an opinion on it. For reasons that have now escaped the asker, I feel sure.
Your guy ain't shit. He has a poster of Anna Kournikova with her tongue out in his bedroom. Now that guy over there, he just cited some Butler.
I got that it was mostly a joke, Brock, but I thought your confusion was genuine. Which is to say, I was totally right, and LB was wrong, and sucks eggs.
174: well, sure, but how many of them were for jobs you really wanted?
Gag me. I wouldn't trust that guy to teach me about feminism as far as I can throw him. He never read the Butler, he just found it on a Snapple lid. My guy is way fucking better.
What are you talking about, bitch? They don't have Buttler on Snapple lids. I question your commitment to feminism.
175: Why, thank you very much, Tim. I am utterly, utterly charmed.
Brock, re. precise use of language/feminism: What I mean is that my own personal brain is both feminist and very interested in metaphor and connotation and allusion and the sloppiness of language. Whereas I think Labs' brain is better than mine at using language very precisely and he's way less likely than I am (by which I mean, I have never seen him do this) to make vague, sweeping gestures with his arms and say, "oh well, whatever, you know what I mean."
So my feminism is probably more populist and more interested in Joe Average's apprehension of gender issues, maybe, than Labs's is. But then I suspect that, in general, I am more populist and interested in Joe Average than Labs. I think he's a lot more careful and well-organized teacher than I am, and a better academic, too. I *may* be a *better* teacher for many kinds of students for whom charisma and sweeping gestures are reassuring. I'm almost certainly a far worse lecturer. I might be better at inspiring smart but insecure people to think for themselves.
Make sense?
Since we're in confessional mode, I note that for me one important subtext is the narrative that says conservatives assert simple important truths that liberals pretend to disbelieve because of something some French theorist said somewhere. Since it's obviously true that peoples' choices affect the probability of their being harmed through wrong action, saying something that seems to deny this or to label its assertion morally impermissible invites all sorts of bad conversational turns.
The only sweeping gesture I make in class is to feign masturbation.
194: Basically a fair cop. Add: I would not feel the fervor of a convert on this particular point but for the threads of the past week. Parts of Tia's Uncongenial post and some of her comments on that thread pissed me off, but pissed me off in a way where I felt like the appropriate reaction was to shut up and listen rather than try to respond, and reflected on those comments, some of yours and LB's, and some stuff over at AWB's. And then I saw the rape comments on this thread, and maybe it's because I've watched that particular discussion on other blogs and connected it to recent events in a way that others didn't, but those comments triggered a pretty strong "haven't you been paying any attention at all?" reaction that came through in my post.
My reflections on the Go/ldst/ein thread I referred to above and other bloggy battles are another factor. I'm not a confrontational person at all IRL, so reading and responding to blogs has led me to think a lot more than I have in the past about how arguments work and when they are or aren't really about what they're nominally about. Truthfully, I probably have more fervor about that than I do about the feminist issue. I'm still mostly trying to shut up and listen on feminist stuff.
Thanks for 194, B. I read 127 almost exactly as you do, except for the "more useful" part. I read 111 differently though, mainly in that the way it brackets the moral condemnation issue reads to me as coming from someone who has had this debate many times, and assumes that we all agree on that point, such that we can niggle about ancillary points.
In short, 127: well-meaning, new to this, might still beat his wife (no offense, DaveL). 111: gets it, assumes we all get it too.
I'm not trying to establish the rightness of my reading, obviously. I'm trying to understand how people react to various things so I can maybe see how we end up in some of these contentious discussions even though we all seem to be in substantive agreement.
Brock, re. precise use of language/feminism: What I mean is that my own personal brain is both feminist and very interested in metaphor and connotation and allusion and the sloppiness of language.
What B means is that she frequently expresses herself sloppily.
200: Well that's a pretty lame thing to 'feel sure' of when you ignored my followup, twice.
175 sounds right, so it's unfair for me to say nasty things about Marcotte (totally not endorsing the "B is wise" angle). I think I've only done it once, but belated apologies in any case.
I read 111 differently though, mainly in that the way it brackets the moral condemnation issue reads to me as coming from someone who has had this debate many times, and assumes that we all agree on that point, such that we can niggle about ancillary points.
That's the thing. I'm really, really, really not meaning to say anything bad about Labs, or about his comment. But it is in fact false that "we all agree on that point" unless you've got a very controlled 'we' rather than the mass of people out there on the internet. So heading straight for the (valid! useful for the reasons given in 207, which is an issue which concerns me greatly!) nitpick without even nodding to the actual point being made is not 'useful' if there's any need to make the point.
196, 207: I don't hate FL in the least, and yes, 127 came on a little strong (and, for that matter, wasn't aimed at FL in particular but at a discussion that seemed to be taking a conventional and loaded form). But I don't think the argument is "shut up, that truth is inconvenient." It's more like "criticizing extreme sports is out of place at the funeral of the guy whose parachute didn't open." The problem is that rape is an issue at one level or another for most (all?) women, so it's sort of like we're at that funeral all the time when it comes to rape. Anything we say about the victim can, I gather, sound to the women present like a critique of how they're living their lives and whether it would be their fault if they were raped.
201 made me go looking around for a fucking Butler reference in this thread, goddamn it.
214: without even nodding to the actual point being made
You know, I just looked back at 111, and of course Labs did address the actual point being made. So never mind.
it is in fact false that "we all agree on that point" unless you've got a very controlled 'we' rather than the mass of people out there on the internet
Yeah, this is part of my "how do you think of this forum" point: I take the "we" to be regular commenters, and I think a lot of other people take it to be potential readers.
I hate everybody. I am Face Raper, hear me roar.
111: gets it, assumes we all get it too.
What LB said. Obviously we don't all get it, or we wouldn't be having the rape discussion at all. Now, by "we" I think you mean "a subset of the people who are actually here," and I agree with you that that "we" are the people I most care about on this site (a "we" that includes DaveL, I feel compelled to say). But because I use language sloppily, I am maybe more tolerant of the sloppy overflow of that "we" to include, e.g., Anderson (who I think is being an intellectually dishonest tool, by the way). And maybe, since I'm all humble and shit, this has something to do with my being halfway between the elite "we" and the real-world we.
I am overlooking your refusal to recognize my wisdom.
??? Sorry, Neil. Got lost there. [Scrolls up, searchingly, wondering why there's no pulldown bar on comments window that would have a search option on it ....]
--Okay, is this it? You said that people who engage in dangerous behavior are deplorable; I don't see any way to interpret that beyond an endorsement of bad things happening to them.
I think that just means you don't know what "deplorable" means.
Though I didn't just say "engage in dangerous behavior," our soldiers in Iraq are doing that. Stupidly engaging in gratuitously dangerous behavior without any prudential appreciation of the risks ... yeah, I deplore that. Whatcha got 'gainst deploring?
Way late on this, but:
f you get shot walking through a dangerous neighborhood late at night, I might, at some point after you've recovered, point out that you made a pretty dumb decision, ceteris paribus; why wouldn't the same go for rape?
All else ain't equal. In the abstract, of course, go out with friends, be careful, etc, is all very good advice. And advice women give each other all the time.
Practically speaking, though, anything short of being a cloistered virgin gets spun as making a dumb decision. Were I raped walking home at night, and it made the news, it would almost certainly become a matter of whether I was wearing a skirt, did I look provocative, wasn't it silly for me to walk home with that ass rather than hey, maybe men shouldn't rape women, jackasses.
And the sad thing is that it wouldn't take dangerous behavior, or not the sort of behavior that stands out as risky: invite a male classmate over. Have a colleague walk you home. If anything happens you should have known better.
More analogous would be your friend getting shot in a parking garage where usually he parked every single day and the response being 'That was stupid of you for having a car and parking it.'
This isn't the same as saying that the truth is inconvenient. It's just that it's often irrelevant because whether the behavior is risky is determined (erroneously) by whether something bad happened. Compound this with a tendency to conflate 'She should have known better' with 'And since she didn't, he couldn't help himself 'cause blueballs hurt.', and you get a really nasty form of argument.
Anyhow, on the craigslist hookups thing: it's a community where people come to have sex with other people. It's not always anonymous, and there's an expectation of if not trust, at least that when the other person says "I like X and want to do X", they mean "I am soliciting X and if you like X, it's okay to contact me."
It's not perfectly safe, but again, it's not like the guy said, "Buy my three year old's tricycle" and got violent sex fantasies in response. He said "I like violent sex." "Me too!"
"You horrible pigfucker! I unveil thee!"
218: Not "potential readers." Actual regular commenters who aren't necessarily the folks we all want to meet up with irl.
In addition to being wise and humble, I *am* a bitch. Don't ever forget that.
Anderson (who I think is being an intellectually dishonest tool, by the way).
Well, I don't think I'm the one who took someone's reference to "culture" and coolly pretended they said "nature" instead. Who was that again?
Speaking of the real world, this entire rape discussion is completely ignoring the real world fact that stranger rape, the "she should have been more careful" kind, is a small minority percentage of most actual rapes. Most actual rapes are committed by men who know the victim as a friend, lover, partner, family member, etc.
Cala's 222 usefully reiterates a recurring theme here ... fear of being spun. "Eek, let's avoid acknowledging the truth of ___, because the usual assholes will spin it against us."
Well, they ARE the usual assholes, and they're going to spin *whatever* you say against us. Period. You are not going to somehow not make this happen.
So, sure, avoid saying the actual words "she brought it on herself, she was asking for it," etc.---not because they might be spun, but b/c they're not true. Nothing entitles anybody to rape, maim, etc.
But don't have this "we can't give the Coulters of the world ammo" attitude, because they shit their ammo out their own asses, with gusto.
Let me tell you, you get "you should have been more careful" even in the case of date/acquaintance rape. What, you went to his room? You assumed he'd accept that consent to one act doesn't mean consent to all? What were you thinking?!?
Most actual rapes are committed by men who know the victim as a friend, lover, partner, family member, etc.
Right, but that's just b/c the whole rape discussion is an uneasy graft onto the original fact pattern of the post. No one's going to say "well, she was crazy to spend the night in the house with her own father."
224: I know you are, but what am I?
Also, I'm rubber, you're glue, what bounces off me sticks to you.
Who else wants to play? Anyone? Anyone?
Anderson, I'm gonna go hang out with the big kids, then. Here, have a lolly.
I know you are, but what am I?
Someone explain to me how the person who calls somebody else an "intellectually dishonest tool," then comes back & says that? I am missing a logical step or two, here.
Well, they ARE the usual assholes
pronoun error
Here, have a lolly.
Hey, if you're giving those out you have to bring enough to share.
Don't think that wasn't a potty mouth comment, Standpipe.
233: God, men are so entitled. Why do you think it's B's job to provide you with something to suck on?
I was waiting for 232. Damn, that's quick.
Let me tell you, you get "you should have been more careful" even in the case of date/acquaintance rape.
Right. That doesn't mean there's never such a thing as having needed to be more careful.
And remember, a lot of this is human nature wishing to avert the idea of harm's befalling oneself: "she did something wrong & bad things happened to her ... I will do things right, and bad things won't happen to me." Superstition, to some extent.
Eek, let's avoid acknowledging the truth of ___, because the usual assholes will spin it against us.
Wow. You could probably misread me more intentionally, but I think you might have to pretend that I wrote in Kiswahili first.
For the rest of the crowd, I'll reiterate that women do recognize dangerous situations; there are whole meetings at college on how to protect each other and what to watch out for. This is not a truth we don't acknowledge, okay?
But it is sadly true -- and ask anyone who's ever worked a rape crisis center -- that especially in cases of date rape, those precautions don't suffice to exonerate the woman from being called stupid. The idea 'Just be careful and you'll be fine' is meaningless when 'careful' is pegged to 'nothing bad happened.'
I mean, if you want a society where women simply expect that men are raping machines and if we're alone with them, it happens, sort of like breathing air, fine. But it's not reasonable or desirable to expect women to act like that.
235: But I'm more than happy to reciprocate!
225, I actually think that this trust-violation we're talking about has a lot more to do with acquaintance rape, in that they were conned into submitting to a situation where their ability to defend themselves was compromised. That's why I brought it up in the first place.
Anderson, I understood 'deplorable' to mean something similar to 'despicable.' Perhaps you meant it in the 'lamentable' sense, but with all your other references to immorality and stupidity, I didn't see it.
233: They're only for the whiny titty babies. Whyn't you meet the rest of us at the bar?
Don't think that wasn't a potty mouth comment, Standpipe.
Please elaborate. I knew I was being mean to Anderson when I wrote it. I didn't care for his crude gloss on Cala's comment at all. Especially "Eek". Not cool.
Please elaborate.
I didn't mean it as censure; mostly joshing that the clever "pronoun error" didn't mean you hadn't called him an asshole--about which I joshed just because actually calling him an asshole would be unlike you.
I mean, if you want a society where women simply expect that men are raping machines and if we're alone with them, it happens, sort of like breathing air, fine. But it's not reasonable or desirable to expect women to act like that.
Very well put, and goes well with #3, I find.
those precautions don't suffice to exonerate the woman from being called stupid.
Right. The ones who call those women "stupid" are jerks, or to be consistent with my foregoing, assholes.
So, how does your point apply to the issue of whether some people *do* in fact behave with reckless abandon that makes them much more prone to suffer disastroust consequences? Because as you noted, I'm evidently not following you.
This exchange belongs on Standpipe's joke explaining blog.
I'm honestly sorry, Anderson. I should have said, I don't care for your crude gloss on Cala's comment at all. Especially "Eek". Not cool.
241: Since you lot finish work earlier than I do, why don't you all leap on a plane and come on out? There are some decent places to watch the sunset in Waikiki, if you don't mine umbrellas in your face and buffed-out beach bodies blocking the view.
239: Oh, well in that case, meet me at the bar and then we'll go somewhere else afterward.
Face s/b drink. I blame the patriarchy.
242: Okay, reading back over my comment, I shouldn't have aimed it so much at Cala's. She reminded me of some stuff upthread, to which I was responding more than to what she wrote. Sorry. Though I *did* give Standpipe a good opening ....
Anderson, at this point, though you may be tempted to strike back at your detractors, I suggest that you submit a one or two sentence formulation of the position you take yourself to be arguing against (and then sit back and take more abuse, as people tell you that's not what they said at all).
The ones who call those women "stupid" are jerks, or to be consistent with my foregoing, assholes.
But the ones who call those *other* women stupid (or superstitious) are stand-up, tell-it-like-it-is guys.
Otherwise known by many as assholes.
Re 111 and following brouhaha:
There are contexts in which it would be entirely appropriate to say “this behavior was really risky,” for instance if you are giving advice to a young person about how to handle new situations. At some point I’m going to have to advice my children about giving out identifying information on the internet, and I’m going to identify a lot of behavior as risky, even stupid. These are true statements that I would not utter in another context.
I say this because it deflates the whole “you aren’t acknowledging the truth” angle. I do acknowledge the truth, but Christ, why talk about it here.
I like, by the way, the analogy to criticizing extreme sports at the funeral of someone whose parachute didn’t open. Similar case: going on at length about how risky Steve Erwin’s techniques were. A lot of people in a position to know said he often came to close to dangerous animals, but right now it is more respectful to note that he made real contributions to wildlife conservation.
Though I *did* give Standpipe a good opening
At the Mineshaft.
(And I already got called a cocksucker upthread ... is that worse than "asshole"? Or is "cocksucker" one of those "not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that" terms?)
Okay, somehow I feel I've morphed into the troll of this thread, which is now making me wonder whether classic Trolls I Have Known were really feeling earnest about what *they* wrote ... being a troll & not knowing it is a very creepy prospect.
So: keep the cock jokes waving!
And really, I emphasize, for all you, externally, are looking at a woman's behavior and saying, "she's being reckless," maybe she knows exactly what she's doing and just isn't sacrificing her freedom. All this "reckless" and "stupid" business is assuming facts not in evidence about her state of mind. You should meet someone in a public place before you go home with him, okay, but beyond that, and "listen to yourself," what precautions does anyone propose that women take? Because some women are going to say fuck that, I'd just rather do what I want to.
Well, Tia, those women are stupid, didn't you know? They don't get to do what they want to in this society.
somehow I feel I've morphed into the troll of this thread
You have, brotherman. And this is the risk you run when you engage a heated topic on a blog you know perhaps not fully well. "Cocksucker" has a long and glorious history on this site, as do Michael's incendiary comments.
It doesn't, Anderson; when I quoted Labs I was responding to him, not the discussion at large.
Labs' assertion that 'be more careful' can be appropriate to say assumes a somewhat stationary standard for 'careful.' But, like I said, what counts as 'careful' is indexed to what happens, making it a less than useful argument in the vast majority of cases.
In college, I often watched The West Wing in my male best friend's dormitory single. Just us. Sometimes, I'd even have a drink while we watched the show! It was nice. And my friend isn't a dickhead; but had he turned out to be a rapist, it would have been "Alone? Drinking with a man? With that perfect ass? What were you thinking?"
Cala is Jessica Biel? You're really smart for an actress!
Everyone knows you should only drink with homely-assed men. Duh!
I'm Jessica Biel's 47-year-old balding brother.
Wait, was the "perfect ass" in 261 the guy who a part of Cala's anatomy?
I more often think of this in reference to airport security, but sometimes its worse to be afraid of a threat all the time and take unreasonable precautions than it is to just take the risk. The affect (and perhaps the point) of beefed up airport security isn't to make us safer, it's to make us more afraid. Warning people about how imprudence results in rape (or however you want to phrase it) has the same kind of terrorizing affect.
What keeps many women in fear is more than just actual rapists, it's also people making remarks like this. And by making them, you're becoming an actual part of the rape problem.
Since we've sort of moved to a discussion of 111, let's-- haha!-- pay attention to context.
Anderson in 88:
...But I *don't* think the victims "had it coming," any more than I think the Mercedes owner "had it coming." I'm looking at this from a gloriously pseudo-Kantian perspective where *both* sides can be 100% at fault! (The plaintiff's dream!)
But, looking at 50, I do think there can be cases where a rape victim was incredibly stupid to trust the rapist-to-be, "what was she thinking???" Doesn't make rape okay, god knows.
B in 100:
I do think there can be cases where a rape victim was incredibly stupid to trust the rapist-to-be, "what was she thinking???" Doesn't make rape okay, god knows.
That's offensive, I'm sorry. First, because it's only possible to say that sort of thing in hindsight, and second, because it implies that rape is some sort of natural force that women are supposed to, what? Get insurance against? People trust other people because most other people are trustworthy. When someone violates that trust, they, not the person who trusted them, are entirely at fault. Period.
I wrote 111 because (a) I think the first sentence of Anderson's that I quoted is true-- it's an existential quantifier for pity's sake; and (b) B's response is to note offense and to suggest, falsely, that Anderson has ignored the agency issue, both of which drive me a little crazy.
It's not like we're at the funeral, exactly.
Sorry, claification: the claim of A's that I take to be true is "there can be cases where a rape victim was incredibly stupid to trust the rapist-to-be, "what was she thinking???" "
It's not like we're at the funeral, exactly.
We're in a very public space commenting on a tragedy shortly after it happened. Close enough?
270: Seems to me that other parties have since clarified that the problem with that statement is that, given other prevailing social factors, it's incredibly difficult to verify whether or not it's true and thus unhelpfully hostile to bring it up?
270: When I saw comments on the last couple of feminism threads in the general form of "you guys are being assholes," I kind of bristled even when I hadn't commented on those threads and was pretty sure I wasn't in the class "you guys" for purposes of those comments. I think it's the same sort of thing here. A claim that is very narrow in form--"there exists at least one rape victim who was being incredibly stupid to get into the situation in which she was raped"--is widely taken to apply more broadly. Greater precision in language doesn't always produce better communication.
I should probably stop trying to tell my grandmother how to suck eggs.
There's another problem with calling such things "incredibly stupid." There are a lot of situations where putting yourself at risk is not only not stupid, it's morally good. And women behaving in ways that men wouldn't think twice about is morally commendable.
You could also claim "there existed at least one lynching victim who was being incredibly stupid to get into the situation in which he was lynched." But black people behaving like people was the morally right thing to do, even if it increased ones risk of being lynched. And a white person telling a stranger "you should be more careful, you know, the Klan" isn't good advice, it's morally supporting the goal of the Klan to instill fear.
http://rfjason.livejournal.com/410344.html
Amusing and useful for further insight into how this young man rationalizes his assholery. Also, scroll down in the comments to see some global-warming denial and a very special guest-star.
Good point in 275. To that I would like to add that what happened to these blokes was totally unpredictable. There are a lot of other things that are forseeable consequences of their risky behavior patterns, but I don't think this is one of them. (For one thing, most blackmailers ask for money.)
So I don't judge them in the same way that I would somebody who went through with a hookup and brought a disease home to his wife. Maybe somebody who went through with a hookup and then died in a car accident on the way home. Well, you shouldn't have left the house if you didn't want to become a statistic!
For the rest of the crowd, I'll reiterate that women do recognize dangerous situations; there are whole meetings at college on how to protect each other and what to watch out for. This is not a truth we don't acknowledge, okay?
Exactly. It's a pernicious idea that we could see significant reductions in the number of rapes if only women were more careful, as if chicks are taking naked nightime jogs through Sex Offender Alley or something. But in reality, this is almost never the case. Occasionally people do thoughtless things, like that poor Holloway girl, but in my experience it's pretty damn rare that women do something that should have been recognized as dangerous.
275 makes a good point, but taking the risk is something for each person to decide to do or not, and we don't usually think advising someone to take a risk is also praiseworthy. Especially when it comes to physical danger, don't we almost universally counsel caution?
(And I have no idea what "morally supporting" means in 275.)
277: Oh Jesus, he's a fucking Randroid. Well that explains an awful lot.
Paisley shows up in the outing thread too.
Since we're on the whole "reckless" theme, that outing stunt is not the kind of thing to pull when your name and pic are so readily available.
From his post: "Next, learn from the critical thinkers of the world: Aristotle, Thomas Jefferson, Nikola Tesla, Ayn Rand."
Next, learn from the great orators of the world: Cicero, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Koko the signing gorilla...
To 275:
People aren't under an obligation to be heroic, and whether or not an action was prudent/smart depends on what the action is being performed to accomplish. If you have set out to challenge the regime of lynching, then someone saying, "boy, it was really dumb of X to do that, got himself lynched" is simply wrong. But you might also be trying to keep yourself alive (which I don't think was morally wrong, even if it did nothing to end lynching), in which case some courses of action will be more advisable than others, and if you pursue the less-advisable ones, well, that's not, relative to your goals, so smart. (Opting to act in such a matter—that is, trying to play along and save your skin—might be bad/stupid from the perspective of effecting meaningful change, though.)
I mean, I can see your point, but it seems to place pretty high expectations on people. I'm not well-read on the Klan so I don't know how much influence they had generally but I'm willing to bet that in at least some areas they were actually something worth fearing. If some stranger who didn't, say, know the extent of their influence in a particular area moved in would you really simply not tell them? I can see the argument that even though you wouldn't be threatening them (you could simply be saying, there are some crazies here and this is how they act) you're basically communicating a threat to them willy-nilly. But it's not courageous opposition when you don't even know the opponent is there, and if you don't tell them, they could be, well, lynched, and that's a pretty bad thing. If a white person telling a black person about the Klan is moral support of the Klan, then I don't see how either a black person telling a black person, or a black person simply trying to avoid a lynching, isn't also a moral support of the Klan.
Though probably the Klan would lynch whomever they pleased regardless of how they acted, so that's probably not the best example (for me, I mean). But still, if I were 275's white dude, I think I'd find it hard not to warn people.
I'm really not understanding the confusion. Discussions of relative risk are discussions of pragmatism. They don't really have any relevance, it seems to me, as regards whether someone somehow deserved some outcome. (I think this is where B's use of "nature" comes in: we treat people who ignore physical facts as "deserving" the outcome of their behavior. But that's not really a good description of what's going on here.)
We all agree that hookers can be raped, despite what I have to think is an unbelievably high risk of rape occurring. We might be less surprised if it happens to a hooker, we might even deploy fewer resources to prevent such occurrances, but we don't think she deserved it.
277: was that even remotely coherent?
Possibly less loaded analogy: we have a problem around here with old people getting run over crossing streets. OK to say, "eh, you're old and slow, stay home where it's safe"?
i have to say i don't think bitchphd is sloppy with language. you/she seem(s) to be quite precise, but in a way that is quit different to how i would be. its the main reason i've read that blog, its utterly facinating to try to figure out what her/your mindset is; if its based in use of language, or something deeper in perspective. i'm not sure if htis is complimentary or insulting. the literary/philosophy distinction is helpful a bit.
Anderson: most effective troller of unfogged.com ever? Or only of this week?
was that even remotely coherent?
The first four words were "This is an Objectivist sermon," which answers your question.
The first four words were "This is an Objectivist sermon," which answers your question.
This is an arithmetic sermon.
I am being totally consistent with respect to this case and that of SdB: I judge this and all cases according to whether they are hilarious or not.
268, 270 (not quite caught up with rest of thread): I don't see, "suggest, falsey, that A has ignored the agency issue." I think A. made a formal gesture at the agency issue and then proceeded, nonetheless, to dismiss said gesture. I think that focusing on the question of whether or not it's okay to say that a rape victim might have done something stupid at such length, not to mention leading with that (which A did before he got around to saying more or less "of course it's not her fault") effectively amounts to ignoring the agency issue.
Y'all are exhausting and I've got to go knead pizza dough...
The hell with lawsuits; IMNSHO, the CL guy should be shot.
In the incredibly sexually uptight US [Janet Jackson's titty! The end is upon us!], outing someone in the sexual margins is not laughable. Kinky people have had their children taken away from them, are likely to lose their livelihoods [especially if they worked around children - why does this society seem to equate "anything but missionary" with paedophilia?], suffer rifts in families and broken friendships. Despite the DSM-IV's de-pathologising of kink [and a subsequent psychological study that showed kinky folk were pretty much ordinary], it is still stigmatising to be identified as such.
I didn't read all the responses to the "ad", but several of them looked more like men trying to exercise a fantasy via e-mail than anything else, others were polite, others simply responded in the same tone in the "ad". Outing them was thoughtless and nasty and evil and will have consequences that will destroy people's lives.
I re-iterate: The CL asshole needs to be shot.
The CL asshole needs to be shot.
I think no one is saying this because it seems like a real possibility.
I'd wild-ass-guess the odds at about one in ten that someone will try. And I think it's safe to say that he should have known better, and will deserve what he gets.
Sorry, claification: the claim of A's that I take to be true is "there can be cases where a rape victim was incredibly stupid to trust the rapist-to-be, "what was she thinking???" "
Right, and I was challenging your analogy (for parity with most rape victims' experience, you'd have to call your friend stupid if he got shot in his home - obviously he didn't take precautions if he got shot) as well as the usefulness of the argument, given that it is often conflated with blaming the victim as if rape is a proper punishment for getting drunk at a frat party. I imagine your hypothetical shot friend still gets to file charges against the perpetrator; that's another dissimilarity.
Occasionally people do thoughtless things, like that poor Holloway girl, but in my experience it's pretty damn rare that women do something that should have been recognized as dangerous.
I know you understand this, but just to be clear for those following along in Kiswahili; none of this is predicated on a belief that women are always thoughtful and careful.
And really, the poor Holloway girl probably had always heard "Never go alone anywhere with a strange man." But when you're 18, and you hang out all night with a group, going off with that group isn't really all that strange. Especially since you know groups are safe.
Hanging out for a while makes people seem trustworthy when you're 18. (Anyone else hang out with people the first week of college? Had you done a background check? I played frisbee on the lawn till 2am!)
280 and 285:
See, first of all, I *am* someone who "has set out to challenge the regime of lynching." Second of all, as Cala pointed out, there is not a woman in the US who doesn't, in fact, know that rape happens and don't walk down streets at night and all that. Third, talking about rape (or lynching) after the fact pretty much lacks any preventative effect. Fourth, who is the audience we think is being warned here? The women reading unfogged? Fifth, what, really, is the value of insisting on the abstract truth that it is possible to say that X was stupid and dangerous? Sixth, I still think that the whole "Kantian imperative" thing was more formal aside than actual argument. Seventh, I still maintain that the word "stupid" connotes moral judgment, as A himself implies in 245, and throughout that was the thing I was putting pressure on.
And eighth, I'm being defensive because I don't like making Labs think less of me.
I'm really not understanding the confusion. Discussions of relative risk are discussions of pragmatism. They don't really have any relevance, it seems to me, as regards whether someone somehow deserved some outcome.
This may be a lawyerly response, but of course they do. The sticker on the ladder that says "Don't step above the third step from the top" means that if you disobey the warning, what happens to you is your own damn fault -- you were on notice it was dangerous. And that's the way warnings that women need to be careful about rape work.
297: I completely agree. Whether it is possible for some woman X that her having been raped may have had as a contributing cause (although not a morally significant cause) her own lack of caution is obviously true -- denying it would be silly. BUT it's a pointless and irrelevant thing to say unless you're on some level appealing to the idea that women need to accept rape as an inevitability that they need to structure their lives around being cautious enough to avoid. If the point is only that contributory negligence is possible, there's no reason for it to have been made with regard to rape.
So the fact that Bitch responded to Anderson's comment by finding it offensive isn't unfair -- regardless of the disclaimer he made about moral responsibility, the comment doesn't make sense unless the offensive message is part of it. (I am not making a claim about Anderson's beliefs, just about the implications of what he said -- I'd certainly buy on the basis of the first comment that he was carelessly offensive rather than intentionally so.)
Bitch fell into a rhetorical trap by responding to the implications rather than the formal structure of the comment, but she was right -- the implications were there, and the formal structure deserved disregarding.
But I'm vastly comforted that Cala seems to agree with me, and she's a better philosopher than I. So Labs can bite me.
Also, LB. I'm feeling better and better. I moon Labs with impunity.
Handily enough, I'll be taking the required logic course this coming quarter! I'll be sure to check back after the final.
And eighth, I'm being defensive because I don't like making Labs think less of me.
Communication is difficult, Part 98,603: I took you rather than Labs to be the authority figure in that part of the discussion and was therefore a bit chagrined at your 194, even though I thought it was fair and accurate and even though I readily acknowledge that Labs' place in the community is senior to mine (and am not (or try not to be) particularly status-oriented anyway).
I took you rather than Labs to be the authority figure in that part of the discussion and was therefore a bit chagrined at your 194, even though I thought it was fair and accurate and even though I readily acknowledge that Labs' place in the community is senior to mine (and am not (or try not to be) particularly status-oriented anyway).
We all defer to Labs because he's just so frighteningly large.
Wait, 302 is a response to me? I wasn't even talking about rape (hoping, against all available evidence, that we weren't having this conversation), I meant it quite generally: risky things can be morally good, but we don't usually counsel risky behavior. That's a distinction that wasn't in 275 that I though ought to be (as, I think, did Ben).
308, I knew you'd be chagrined, and I am really sorry. I thoroughly respect your brilliance in many other ways, truly I do. It's just I think Labs is somewhat smarter than I am, or at least, way better read and precise, two things I have something of an inferiority complex about.
309: You just need an ocean between you and him. Easy.
310: risky things can be morally good, but we don't usually counsel risky behavior.
I don't think that's true in any way that's meaningful to this discussion. We counsel people to go to work (despite 40,000+ traffic deaths per year), get exercise (despite various bad things that can happen while running, biking, whatever), go on interesting trips (plane crashes, intestinal crud), and so on and on and on. The kind of caution that women are advised to practice to avoid rape is not at all on par with "climbing Everest is dangerous."
I dunno; we don't usually counsel risky behavior in the abstract. But feminism is itself, arguably, a form of counselling risky behavior. And saying we don't usually do something doesn't really affect whether or not doing it is right in a particular instance, I don't think.
311: I'm glad you made the comment and I think my gut reaction was both inappropriate and useful. I'm just intrigued by all the interesting dynamics going on in these conversations, and they have little enough impact on the rest of my life that I get to learn things about my own and others' reactions to interpersonal stuff in a pretty low-risk way. That's one of the things that I find cool about this place.
People, I was responding to one comment, and the only example in that comment was about lynching and the Klan; that's the kind of situation I was making the point about--I didn't have rape in mind at all.
316: Okay, great, but dude, context. What you had in mind isn't the only thing that matters. Intentional fallacy, and all that.
303: I don't think that's quite right, because the label says two things: (1) This ladder is safe for any and all uses you could possibly think to put it ("'No' always means no"), and (2) don't step ubove the third step ("Take precautions to avoid rape"). Some of this discussion is being motivated by a lack of clarity about which message we treat as determinitive. I suspect all of the male commenters treat the first one as the one that matters, and their comments are being made with that assumption.
It's strange to read some of the women's comments, because, at this late date and in the very narrow slice of the world I live in, I think the default act is to believe an accusation of rape. That belief may be modified by later facts or circs., but it's pretty clearly the default assumption in my neck of the woods.
299: I'm a lex talionis sort. If someone does off the guy, I'll probably donate to his defence fund.
I see Timbot has already responded to LB, but I took what you quoted him as saying to be roughly equivalent to Labs 111 where he says that "it's important to distinguish moral criticism from other sorts of evaluation." So even if it was totally fucking your fault that you fell off the ladder, you idiot--that doesn't tell us whether you deserved to fall. Which is to say, he's using "deserve" in its moral sense.
unless you're on some level appealing to the idea that women need to accept rape as an inevitability that they need to structure their lives around being cautious enough to avoid
Genuine question: why is this bad? Is the problem the word "accept," or that the level of caution is necessarily constricting, or what?
And I hereby put a temporary not-too-serious hex on neil for bringing up rape. Hex!
I think the reason it's bad is that it accepts rape as an inevitability, which shows a lack of imagination and a reification of teh patriarchy.
I re-iterate: The CL asshole needs to be shot.
It would be pretty sweet if one of the victims accuses him of blackmail. How would he exculpate himself from that?
Then they could shoot him after the trial.
Oh man, I was afraid that 109 had been to me. Oh well, in my defense I was naive enough to think that we could use the fact that rape victims aren't "asking for it" as a starting point rather than hashing it out.
It would be pretty sweet if one of the victims accuses him of blackmail. How would he exculpate himself from that?
Why would he need to? Absent proof, he's not going to jail. And I'm not sure I'd think of worse of him if he were merely a blackmailer, and had not released all of this information, and the series of pics.
I'm not sure but it seems like merely having posted this info is some major evidence pointing towards blackmail.
I also would think better of him if he were a blackmailer; at least that's giving the victims a sporting chance.
Once people are conditioned to accept anything as an "inevitability", discussions of how to "avoid" it become meaningless. To convince anyone to accept victim status is to deprive them of their personal power. Is rape a possibility? To be sure. Are there things one can do to make that possibility less probable? Of course, just as one can take steps to avoid being robbed or falling off that ladder. But don't tell women it's unavoidable; that's tantamount to suggesting that they should remain in purda for their own safety.
Once people are conditioned to accept anything as an "inevitability", discussions of how to "avoid" it become meaningless.
This made me think about terrorism. Anyone else?
What do y'all mean by inevitable? I mean, I think murder and theft are inevitable, in the sense that in any fairly large group of people, those phenomena will exist.
But people don't make a huge deal out of how to avoid being murdered or robbed.
But people don't make a huge deal out of how to avoid being murdered or robbed.
???
Maybe not about murdered, but about robbed? This seems just clearly wrong to me. People of the internets?
LB, I so want to stop talking about this, but the analogy to the warning sticker doesn't convince me. A label like that is meant to absolve the manufacturer of liability by making obvious the limits and dangers of a product, right? The upshot is not that it's the consumer's fault so much as it's *not* the manufacturer's. But to view rapists that way--i.e., as objects that respond to stimuli in a certain way-- is to think of rape in just the wrong way, because it's no longer an action. Two points are crucial here: (i) that there are different kinds of condemnation (stupid, morally wrong, etc.); and (ii) that condemnation (of various sorts) is not a zero-sum game.
"People" in the sense, as always, of "culture." I mean, you lock your doors, fine, whatever. But that's not something you're constantly being warned about in such a way as to make you paranoid.
That said, I do, in fact, think that people are constantly being warned about murder/robbery in racialized ways, e.g., "don't go to that part of town." And, as with rape, I usually try to make it a point to argue that that kind of warning is socially destructive.
condemnation (of various sorts) is not a zero-sum game.
But isn't there a third point, which is that in discussions of rape, it almost always is seen that way?
Or rather, that "stupid girl" is always seen as a mitigating factor?
people are constantly being warned about murder/robbery in racialized ways, e.g., "don't go to that part of town."
Yes, exactly. It's pervasive. Every city-dweller is always alert to the possibility of mugging, and every rural dweller thinks of crime first, second, or third when he thinks of cities. So I think it's just false to say it's not something people are made paranoid about. Is this a tangent?
Genuine question: why is this bad? Is the problem the word "accept," or that the level of caution is necessarily constricting, or what?
Three reasons I can think of:
First, the level of caution required to be at a point where one would say, 'You did everything you could' is extremely restricting. It's more than just the common sense advice we give to college girls; common sense unfortunately isn't always a good protection, especially against date rape since it's also a violation of trust. It's plausible that Natalee Holloway followed every rule she'd heard: don't go off alone with a stranger (we've been friends all night! I'm in a group!) but now she's the poster child for crazy kids and poor parenting. Unless we want to ban women from having a drink, going to college, and dating, the risk is going to be there.
(This is not to say ignore common sense. It's just not magic fairy dust.)
Second, there's a difference between rape and other crimes in terms of prosecution; consent makes all the difference. 'Should have been more careful, stupid' isn't as innocuous here as it is if you're mugged late at night; the thief will still be persecuted, but the rapist might not if the victim can be smeared enough (again, stranger rape is rare.) Treating it as inevitable reinforces that.
Third, I can't think of another crime that we just think of as inevitable and then require the victim to be responsible for his or her own safety. We don't say, "Hmm. High murder rate. Your own damn fault if you live there and if you get shot we probably won't prosecute." We try to fix it.
Again, inevitable is just the wrong word for it.
No, I think you're right and that the rape/bad neighborhoods thing is a good parallel. Maybe I was being weirdly suburban or something for a moment.
But people don't make a huge deal out of how to avoid being murdered or robbed.
This is wrong, but in the neighborhood. We're told precautions to avoid being a robbery victim but without the underlying thing 'Because if it happens it will be your own fault and no one will bother trying to prosecute the case.'
But isn't there a third point, which is that in discussions of rape, it almost always is seen that way?
By saying this, aren't you disregarding agents' responsibility for their own ratiocinations? ZING!
But on further thought, no: the difference is that when it comes to fear of crime, the social sense of blame is always on the brown/poor people; when it comes to fear of rape, the social sense is that responsibility lies on the woman to prevent it.
341: No, absolutely not. Because there's a difference between recognizing that this is true, and endorsing it.
And I get full credit for the former, because it's so clear that I never do the latter.
Which is why 211, or whatever it was, leaves the reader who doesn't know you in the position of not being sure whether or not you're a feminism; without making that distinction clear, the speaker leaves it up to the reader to infer. And given the culture, benefit-of-the-doubt on the rape responsibility issue isn't something one can just assume.
Ok, can we get comity on this? Will people sign up for the following?
Saying that it's possible for women to be imprudent with regard to their safety from rape is true, but in our society, impossible to say without reinforcing norms that harm women, and therefore better left unsaid.
Pretty much. I would back away from 'impossible' to say without reinforcing those norms, but certainly very very difficult to. 'Better left unsaid' might be 'If you want to say this, consider carefully what purpose it serves for you to say it, and whether you have other practically available options for making your point.'
Comity!
The CL guy was apparently just interviewed by the NY Times.
Was 346/347 ever in dispute? I don't think the troll even ever really disagreed with this.
Still nice to have it stated succinctly, I suppose.
No comity for you! That statement goes too far in defining women as victims; it's not better left unsaid because, as per 238, it's not a truth that is or should be left unacknowledged. When talking about a past incident, though, it's probably true about 'better left unsaid.' Spilt milk and all that.
I wouldn't go with "better left unsaid," largely b/c I'm uncomfortable with the whole "better left unsaid" aspect of some of the discussion here of late. I think I would go with, "it's important to make it clear that such discussion is largely theoretical and/or intellectual, either by saying so quite painstakingly, or by knowing your audience really, really well."
But *basically* 346 works, yes.
I *would*, however, accept a moratorium on the word "stupid" in such a context without caveat.
unless you're on some level appealing to the idea that women need to accept rape as an inevitability that they need to structure their lives around being cautious enough to avoid
Genuine question: why is this bad? Is the problem the word "accept," or that the level of caution is necessarily constricting, or what?
I haven't thought out the implications of this, but I would like to point out that imaginary people thought that it is very strange of me to structure my life so that the people around me aren't a physical threat. I didn't choose to be cautious in my activities, so instead I arranged myself so that I am as dangerous as anyone in the room (which is nearly always not dangerous at all). People thought that was a peculiar way to live, but I thought it was a way not to be scared.
353: Ooh, brilliant! B/c I'd argue, were I analyzing the topic of "warning women to be careful about rape" with your blog post as an example, that the primary reason people object to your the blog post is that emphasizes the woman's (your) *strength*, rather than fear.
Hmm... lots of credit card and probably soon mortgage stuff seems to come down to the company saying "this is in your contract" and the person saying "I didn't know what I was signing", as a result we give apparently serious advice to people to read and understand probably 100 kilobytes of small gray text before accepting an offer from a perky teenager at the Gap saying "all you have to do is sign up for this and you'll save 20%!"
I think that selling someone a mortgage that leaves them predictably and totally fucked in two years is morally wrong and likely to be a crime soon, and that there are plenty of people who will say "well, you should have figured that they were trying to rip you off so it's your own fault."
so instead I arranged myself so that I am as dangerous as anyone in the room
Just seems peculiar because it's basically impossible. Most people I think just comes to terms with the fact that they're not always the hardest person around, and just live with it.
Is that why you called it a "messed up" way of looking at the world, B?
355- Jake, that's different because those are mortgages, you know, financial stuff -- men's work. Woman in general are held to a lower standard of responsibility for their own behavior, since they're not really completely rational. That's why they need the patriarchy, to help protect them.
357: Accept that we repealed the 14th and you got owned by Megan. Don't t try to complicate the issue.
Wait, me? Hemoglobin, people. Explain to me slowly what Megan's old post has to do with what I've said here.
357: I was hoping someone would ask that. Yes, I think, in all honesty it was. I still think it's messed up, for different reasons, but I think that my initial response to it was also messed up, and I offer this self-criticism in recompense.
Well, I think big men live with the idea that they are likely the hardest person in the room, except for the few occasions when there is someone bigger and scarier around. And I believe that most small women live with an underlying knowledge that should it come to that, they are always at risk from stronger men, and so their options are, for example, not to be alone with men.
I want the privileges of big men, and since I'm not little myself, and since I believe in my (long-dormant) skills, I arrange that. It comes at a lower cost than being scared to walk the streets at night.
On preview, I'm behind. Lemme think for a second how it relates to Ogged's comment.
I offer this self-criticism in recompense
Fuck that. I say Megan gets to beat the crap out of you. You'll both be in California....
B/c Megan's old post accepts rape as a fact of life, just as the whole "live in fear and don't go out at night" advice does; but Megan's old post goes a step beyond the fear advice and says okay, if this is a fact of life, then I'm going to take charge of that situation, and instead of limiting myself, I'll limit the men around me.
Now we'll all throw acid in each other's faces and sing Kumbayah.
No she doesn't, we're on the same team. We both get to beat the crap out of you, low hemoglobin guy.
Don't ruin my Kumbayah with your hemoglobist bigotry, B.
I wasn't really looking for your agreement to being beaten up, B.
I wasn't really looking for your agreement to being beaten up, B.
Which is why you deserve to have Megan and me kick your ass.
Well, I think big men live with the idea that they are likely the hardest person in the room
I'm not big nor small, but if I went around imagining being in a fight with everyone in the room, I'd be feeling a lot more fear than I do now. I consider myself lucky that I haven't been conditioned to think that way, I guess.
I think big men live with the idea that they are likely the hardest person in the room
I think this often involves a bit of self delusion, even for big guys. But, a relatively small bit of self deception, as these things go.
I suspect the acid will ruin the Kumbayah, Apo.
Nope. Just make it into a Kumbayaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh.
Someone's shrieking, Lord, Kumbayah...
I think big men live with the idea that they are likely the hardest person in the room
Maybe some do, I don't know. I know I don't.
I think big men live with the idea that they are likely the hardest person in the room
It's the quiet confidence that comes with all those kegels.
Fuck! Do I even need to mention at this point that I'm drunk?
Yeah, like 365. I did accept physical threat as a risk and I did change my life, and when I mentioned that people thought it was wierd.
But people are accustomed to the idea that women can limit their risk by not doing certain things (don't hang out with men, don't wear skirts, don't walk the streets at night, trust your fear...), and I was all, fuck that. I'll do what I want to, and limit the people around me instead. They're both distortions from accepting that physical threat exists, but mine is unusual enough to notice. Your reaction to my method might give you a new look at why it is bad to accept rape as an inevitability.
What kind of irresponsible father are you?
Megan, I'm moving to California soon. Do you have a boyfriend yet? If not, could I take you out to dinner? I'm pretty sure you could kick my ass if it came down to that.
Dunno. What kind of irresponsible fathers are there?
Well, there's the drunks, to start with.
I saw that. Venture is not that far from my Dad's house (in LA distances). No boyfriend. Why would that determine whether we go out to dinner?
Well, you know, I was asking you out. And despite my own whorish ways, I don't assume that everyone else is like me.
Oh! I think that's the kind I am. Although, can I make multiple selections? I'm sure I likely qualify in a few different categories.
Well, I think big men live with the idea that they are likely the hardest person in the room, except for the few occasions when there is someone bigger and scarier around.
Big men just don't think about it, really.
I mean, you have moose-headbutting status-establishing fights, in which size is useful, but which are very easily avoided.
You have stylized martial arts tournaments, where size helps, hence weight classes.
Then you have real fights, in which Asian-style martial arts seem to lose to medieval-European martial arts: i.e. hit the guy over the head when he's not looking and kick him when he's on the ground, with a side-helping of kneeing him in the nuts when he doesn't expect it, and a topper of stabbing him in the kidney.
I don't think my size (6'4", 220lb) would help much in any of those.
Your reaction to my method might give you a new look at why it is bad to accept rape as an inevitability.
My reaction was that I could too beat you up. Or did you mean another reaction?
Sure, it's not an exclusive category.
That said, I think I'm gonna grab a beer. But first I probably should go out in the pouring rain to clean up after the goddamn raccoons because garbage pickup is tomorrow morning, and if I start drinking beer I'll decide to hell with the garbage. Grrrr. It sucks not having a man around the house.
"just don't think about it" = "live with the idea that they are likely the hardest person in the room," effectively.
My reaction was that I could too beat you up. Or did you mean another reaction?
Actually, that will probably do, if you think about it.
I'm the same size as Jake. What Megan seems to mean is that people like us are not afraid that we'll be attacked beaten or raped by others, we just don't think about it. That's true for me, but how true is it that people who aren't big guys do always think about those things?
Whatever, finweight. If it doesn't advance the debate, I'm happy to move on to flirting with BPhD. Flirting with women is easy. But I got a range of reactions, like, OOOooohh! You're living your life in fear, or No way a pretty little thing like you could beat a man, or TKD isn't the best martial art anyway, or You're deluding yourself because You Could Still Be Raped. Those reactions might help answer your genuine question. Or not.
Grrrr. It sucks not having a man around the house.
It's totally objectionable to blame men for not responding in the socially-accepted manner to the risk of raccoon depredations. The raccoons are solely responsible for the evil of strewn garbage.
See how well I'm internalizing this stuff?
Well, people who are women do pretty reflexively, for starters.
No way a pretty little thing like you could beat a man
This was ogged's exact reaction, no?
400: I'm not blaming the raccoons, I'm bitching that I don't have a man who'll clean up after them so that I don't have to get my pretty little feet wet.
398 - I can't say for positive, but I think small women think about it almost all the time. I've had roommates who do. Freedom from that is a privilege that big guys don't even notice.
Small men, I don't know.
B- where's PK? Can't you send him out there for some man-training?
403: That's the problem. Men should be able to do as they damn please without fearing that raccoons will make them go out in the rain.
PK's with his papa, who called me from the beach a couple of hours ago.
The raccoons are not responsible for what the men do or do not do. Men have agency.
Data point: I'm not a big guy (just svelte, really...), and I don't generally fear physical violence, unless I'm being directly threatened in an dangerous situation. It's not at all a routine feeling.
Either I'm doing a really shitty job of trying to be playful or I'm doing a really shitty job of reading the responses.
Um, I think you're doing a fine job, but maybe you're not recognizing that I'm playing along?
In a very dry way, of course, since I haven't yet summoned up the requisite will to go deal with the garbage problem.
"just don't think about it" = "live with the idea that they are likely the hardest person in the room," effectively.
I don't think so. When I go to to a bar later tonight, there's no doubt that at least 25% of the people there could kick my ass, and that another 25% are certainly "harder" than me.
Size doesn't protect me, living in a civilized country and not being the type of person who gets into fights does.
I may, of course, be clueless.
Oooh, then talk more about our going out to dinner. Do your whorish ways imply that you meant "dinner"?
I fucking hate raccoons.
Grrrr. It sucks not having a man around the house.
M/tch w/ll help!
413: It's not that it has to be a *fact* that you could beat almost anyone up. It's that you don't *think* about it, *despite* the fact that you probably couldn't.
414: Depends. What are your opinions on who takes out the garbage in domestic arrangements?
And besides, if you start drinking beer, you might get motivated to go sit on the back porch and throw the empties at the raccoons when they come back. Violence doesn't solve problems, but it can be fun. Especially against something that can't beat you up.
Now, 417 sounds a lot better than going out and cleaning up the garbage. Yet both involve being out in the rain. Hmm, interesting.
I find thinking about whether you can beat up the people around you weird in the same way that regular people feeling a need to carry guns around all the time is weird. But I'm also a medium-largish guy who has very little reason to feel physically threatened, and focusing on the degree to which women are conditioned to feel that they are in physical danger while doing routine things is one those useful exercises in thinking about stuff that's right under my nose but that I don't generally notice. I'm still pretty dubious about Megan's way of thinking about it, but it's not crazy.
412: That's the problem. I need to go home and get a beer so my brain starts working again. I thought you probably were playing along but I wasn't doing well at mapping your responses onto the earlier discussion.
Size doesn't protect me, living in a civilized country and not being the type of person who gets into fights does.
That and the fact that you think fights just don't happen to you very often allow you not to think about it very much. Since women think that living in a civilized country won't prevent rape, and that they are the type of person who is eligible to be raped, and they don't have size either, they are looking at a very different risk assessment. I think lots of them are scared a lot, and limit their activities a lot.
416: But I *can't* beat almost anyone up. I *know* it. I'm horribly uncoordinated and have no depth perception. I just figure that most people I hang around with are not inclined to pursue whatever advantage that they can get via beating me up, and even if I'm wrong, a little beating never killed anyone, I know lots of lawyers, and I hate worrying about stuff.
"Plan against capability, not intent" is arguably a reasonable strategy for the Pentagon, but I don't want to live like that.
414 - first person to see the full trash can takes the trash out.
420: I think maybe b/c I am often somewhat inconsistent, depending on what key the conversation is in.
422: The point is, you don't have to worry about it because despite being uncoordinated, people aren't constantly warning you about what a victim you could be.
423: I'm cool with taking it *out*, I just don't want to go out and clean up the torn up bags of now wet garbage and drag it all to the curb.
Look at us. We're totally enacting the lesbian stereotype and discussing living arrangements before we've been on a date.
398: I'm just under 5'4". In my errant youth, I used to hitchhike all over. I only had to draw the Bowie knife strapped to my leg under my shirt once. [The Girl Scout motto is also "Be Prepared".
When I lived in NYC, every single one of my four roommates was mugged at least once, even the 6' tall guy. I, who hung out in the West End Bar half the night and walked across a dark campus to get to my apartment at 3am, never was. 'It's because you look scary' said the same 6' tall guy. [FWIW, I've been described as resembling a Christmas tree angel.] No, it was because I was *damned* if I was going to let anyone make me be afraid all the time.
This is one reason I get pissed when I hear women declare that rape is inevitable. Embracing victimhood makes one weak; refusing to do so is the first step toward finding solutions to the problem. Or when I watch the Bushies convince half the populace to live in such fear that they cede personal liberties and quake every time they see a guy with a beard. Both strip people of autonomy and strength. Both are efforts to skew the balance of power.
Oh. Bear/Ninja/Cowboy for who has to clean up the trash on the curb.
There are arguments for letting one's children continue to live at home once they are tall enough to carry the trash down to the bin...
427: Maybe we can hire DominEditrix's kid to do it?
I can now report that beer improves reading comprehension, at least for the initial beer.
I can now report that the raccoon carnage, while disgusting, was less so than I had feared.
We? We are making on-going arrangements for how to handle our day-to-day chores, once we have met and gone out to dinner?
431: Raccoons make lovely coats. Especially after they've devoured half one's corn crop and all of one's pot plants.
I do miss living in the Berkshires...
429/432: I would be willing to sell him to you for pennies on the dollar as long as you take all of his clothes and furniture so that I can use his bedroom for all of the bookcases I need to buy.
What? No! Raccoons are cute! Annoying, but cute.
Actually, isn't "annoying" kind of a necessary quality of "cute"?
I don't think my size (6'4", 220lb) would help much in any of those.
Maybe not, but it probably *does* reduce the number of people who view you as a threat.
435: Let me have a look at him once I get out there; maybe it's a deal.
I apparently send a very good 'fuck off' vibe for someone petite. Also, I lack the gene for self-preservation in fights, so I hope I'm not in a serious one, ever.
Also, if I could train my cat to take out the trash, I would.
Also, I lack the gene for self-preservation in fights, so I hope I'm not in a serious one, ever.
That might actually make you a more effective combatant.
Raccoons aren't cute when they come in your house with their freakin' three inch razor edged claws at two in the morning and they're all, yeah, we own this place now.
Actually, I'll ask you again 'cause I didn't understand. What would my boyfriend status have to do with us going out to dinner? Unless you were ONLY asking me on a date, but that doesn't seem right, 'cause you know I like the boys and I get the impression you mostly do too. My boyfriend status and your open marriage wouldn't influence any other dinner plans we might make.
My System of Oppression has a Bigger Cock Than Your System of Oppression ...R. Mildred of Punkass Blog via Beyerstein
Pointless lurker strike, based on seeing the word "cock"
441: I'm straight, too, I was just joking around.
But having dinner would be great, seriously.
Raccoons = varmints. Cute varmints, but varmints.
[Besides, after they eat all one's weed, they like to sit and knit. Why would you refuse the lovely varmint garment that they create?]
That might actually make you a more effective combatant.
If I win quickly.
Note: Diet caffeine-free Coke and Benadryl gives a buzz, but it fucks up my vision something wicked. I will probably dream of rabid raccoons attacking Craig's List posters with Kantian arguments and converting to Scientology. And why does Tom Cruise have a Chinese baby?
444 - Oooh! Joking. I've heard of that. Sure, I'll write you before I head south again.
I though Suri looked Central Asian, Tajik or something, with the epicanthal fold and the light eyes. Gorgeous. She has Kate's mouth, though
Dude. This movie? Sets a new land-speed-record for awesome per second. Drinking whiskey beforehand makes it awesomer.
Hmmm, looks kinda good. I shall try to remember to seek it out.
#449
You've already seen it? Damn you. My wife is sick! And if I go see it without her she'll cut something off while I sleep.
"Kinda good"?
Failure to internalize the awesomeness that is Tony Jaa is a serious moral shortcoming.
Dude, he straps elephant femurs to his forearms for one of the fight scenes!
Did a back flip
Land on my dick
That Thai tried to kill me
#453
Aaaaarrrrgh. You're killing me. If the wife's not better by Sunday she's on her own.
434 made me life.
Being now Safe From Work, I read the guy's post. Asshole deserves every bit of bad karma that's coming his way. If there were any question at all about whether he deserves it for the stunt itself, the smugness alone is sufficient to justify a really good ass-kicking. Megan, how would you feel about a quick trip to Seattle.
Damn, "life" s/b "laugh." The second beer apparently affects typing skills. Must continue experiment....
Raccoon-hater.
Seattle's nice, Megan. Well worth visiting.
It was affectionate laughter?
Actually, when I think about it, the idea of a bunch of stoned raccoons running around DE's garden is pretty damn funny indeed.
Sorry, I can't let 175 stand. The She-Who-Cannot-Be-Named position? Not so humble.
It might be other good things, to those who support it, but "humble" sticks in the craw.
Not to restart arguing about Hirshman, if I understood 175, it was comparing Bitch's personal qualities to those of Amanda Marcotte, not taking a position on every substantive position she's ever argued.
Also not getting into SWCBN, but I was making a comparison to Marcotte, as LB notes, so characteristics are relative. As I noted in 175, I often don't find her position compelling. And I probably fall into the oggedian camp that finds it hard to argue with her: her mind works differently than mine, and I don't always understand the structure behind her movement from point to point. But she's smart, she thinks about these things, and she's not a bookbag feminist. I guess that's the difference I was trying to get across.
You know, I wanna say, because I've been thinking about these issues lately, that while I certainly do not dispute B's excellent personal qualities, and have been saying lately, publically and privately, how much I admire her and have learned from her, it actually seems kind of bullshit to say that B is wise and AM is not because of different methods of self-expression they choose, because it assumes AM is totally constrained by her personality, and is not constructing her self presentation for a reason. B is maybe 8 years older than AM, and while 8 years can be a lot, especially when it involves having children, I'm just not sure the whole issue is how much more B knows about the world than AM. I've been thinking lately about all the different ways, in life and in feminism, you can go about dealing with people who are not stepping up and taking responsibility for themselves and their actions and their place in the world. One way is to model good behavior (empathy &c.): forgive even when you don't get an apology, demonstrate an understanding of someone's feelings even when they show none of yours. Another way is to expect and demand good behavior, and to say just how inexcusable the failure to get it is. And a subset of this is to expect and demand good behavior, and when you don't get it, meet your interlocutor with rage and obscenity. I think there's a place for both, even the subset of the latter, especially in feminism, since women's rage is so constantly suppressed. In life, I think excesses of both approaches are possible. On the one hand, "model good behavior", at least for me, could slide easily into, "I am a doormat", and then my behavior wouldn't stay good for long. I like having baseline standards, for example, if you can't say you're sorry, big boy, I'm done with you. And I found someone who met and exceeded every standard I could dream up, so I think that's not a bad approach. OTOH, if you're in a long term situation, like a marriage, I imagine people will fall into patterns and you'll go through periods where they don't have good behavior to give, and then you have to do the modeling, if you don't want things to spiral downward. And in fact, I think Graham did occasionally model for me, though it was only ever for a period of minutes, or maybe an hour and a half, before I was like, uh, this person is stepping up to deal with conflict in a loving way; I should too. But of course, that was in a non cohabiting relationship, which is different from a marriage. I was also thinking about it in terms of therapy, where I also think excesses of both approaches are possible. (This is kind of speculative, because I don't have a ton of experience being in therapy, and I'm just starting to take classes in clinical approaches.) On one hand, people need a foundation of positive regard and obviously empathy from the therapist in order to get any work done, but on the other, I have seen some people who just had their self-concept reinforced in therapy, and the expectation of and demand for change didn't seem to be there. So back to feminism, someone could start a feminist blog, survey the scene, and say, quite reasonably, what the feminist blogosphere needs is a lot of spluttering disgust and rage at gross injustice and really lip curling disdain for bad behavior. The good cop can't do what she needs to without the bad cop. Obviously her personality may influence her to choose the bad cop role, but it seems really fallacious and condescending to say AM doesn't understand this or that, when just as likely, AM isn't choosing to emphasize this or that.
And actually, as someone who really hated the Hirshman piece, I am not comfortable with the She Who Cannot Be Named thing.
It's more a maneuver not to begin the Hirshman discussion again, bracket that, rather than compare her to Voldemort. For Tim's sake, really, not my own.
Saying that it's possible for women to be imprudent with regard to their safety from rape is true, but in our society, impossible to say without reinforcing norms that harm women, and therefore better left unsaid.
Well, *I've* certainly become a believer in that proposition.
Can we have a corollary? "Asking people in Unfogged comment threads whether such imprudence is possible is therefore also better left unsaid"?
But, looking back, I have to concede that I should've been more careful ...
I realize I may be taking little swipes at B, here and there, and should probably just come out and say what's behind that comment, since this is the week of truth-telling and all. B, you often set yourself up as the Voice of Feminism, are doing so in this thread, and whereas I didn't mind so much before the H threads—because as Tia says, you're often a useful ally—the Mommy Wars stuff is one of the most pressing issues, if not the most, in feminism right now, and if I think you're not reasonable on that, the Voice of Feminism thing is jarring and off-putting to me.
Now, you don't have to worry how you come off to me. You can do what you like. But I suppose some reaction I have to you here is that you have the potential to be influential, so I probably shouldn't let that feeling pass. It seems to me, the way you're going, that if being the big feminist on the internet is not a hobby, and you intend to write books and articles to spread your opinion, that you may have some rhetorical and polemical success. Even great success. I don't know. But it will be personal success, not political. If you want to effect real social change, you will need to bring people like me along, rather than totally alienating them.
It depends what your goals are, of course.
I say that not to be a bitch, myself, but because it seems important. It's because you are smart and ambitious and do have the potential try to connect to people and win them over that I say that.
As is well known I worship Marcotte, grovel at her feet, hang on every word. Just kidding. Not really.
There is an implicit and explicit physicality in the language, not simply the rage, but the metaphors and similes that remind me of of materiality of oppression. That feminism is about ...umm...your bodies, your selves. Feminism is not an ideology, but a existential stance, an affirmative grasping, an engagement.
Nit that I even have a right to say anything.
I like and admire you all, but AM is the guru. And Texan.
Once again, I know that everyone else has moved on. I know that I think slowly. I know that I'm not real quick. I know that I normally speak a different version of English, one that only runs on two bit processors. But here's my two bits' worth.
Saying that it's possible for women to be imprudent with regard to their safety from rape is true, but in our society, impossible to say without reinforcing norms that harm women, and therefore better left unsaid.
Disagree. The duty is positive, not negative. The duty is not to avoid reinforcing a bad norm. The duty is to change the norm.
The first problem is to unpack the norms, because we're having more than one. The norms I see implicated are:
1. "X is imprudent" where X is somewhere between 'leaving the house without a duenna and 5 armed guards' and 'getting drunk and naked at a party and passing out before the drunk naked guys have passed out'.
2. "Males have diminished capacity for knowing right from wrong, and conforming their conduct thereto, when confronted by a female doing X" (the 'she made me' defense)
3. "Any woman doing X is obviously signalling consent to a, b, and c." (the 'she was asking for it' defense)
4. "Any woman who does X is, at least in part, to blame for being raped."
We're clear (I hope) tht 2 and 3 are simply wrong, bad, indefensible, non-negotiable. I'm not sure about 4, so I'm going to set it aside.
However, I see discussion of 1 - the question of what's prudent, what's the magnitude of the risk, how can one mitigate those risks, and the costs of that mitigation - as a necessary discussion.
People talk about norms. That's what makes 'em norms. It's inevitable. There's no way to avoid discussions of the form "was it reasonable to do X under those circumstances?" Tort law is (mostly) a very formal mechanism for resolving questions of what is reasonable and prudent. Just last week I said to a friend of mine, as I watched him cutting a stump, "you do know that cutting with the tip of the chain saw is usually considered imprudent because of the risk of kickback, don't you?"
And, as has been pointed out, people (even feminist people) do talk about what's prudent in light of the possibility of rape. People talk about self-defense skills, about where and when and with whom one mebbe should think about not going, etc.
Maybe this does acknowledge rape as a fact of life, but that's not the same thing as accepting it. I see no inconsistency in saying "this is bad, and we need to change it, but in the mean time it's a real risk to consider." I have no problem with both getting an anti-kickback chain and avoiding cutting with the tip.
Someone brought up the terrorism analogy, and I think it's apt. There's no way we can ever reduce the incidence of rape or terrorism to zero. We shouldn't let the fear or terrorism or rape totally consume our lives, either as a society or as individual. We have to decide what's reasonable and prudent, societally and individually, and that means talking about the norm of what's reasonable and what's not. Personally, I think that if being safe means secret wiretaps on anyone suspected of having a connection to a penis, it's a price worth paying.
So trying to rule discussions of what's reasonable in this one area off the table strikes me as impossible.
Instead, the better answer is to say "X isn't unreasonable because ... ." This was, if I understood her, Cala's answer to the Natalee Holloway example. I rather agree with her. That is, it's better to confront and deny the norm, to change the norm, to inscribe a norm that says it's reasonable for women to have basic freedoms such as wearing what they want and walking where they want. Surely there's room to say "getting naked, getting drunk, and then passing out at that party wasn't maybe really prudent" without also having to say "women should be confined to their homes and never be seen on the street".
If the question is 'what liberties should a woman give up simply because she is a woman?', then let's face tht question. Yes, maybe guys have the liberty of getting drunk and passing out among drunk guys. Is this an important liberty? Is there anything we can do to make sure women have this liberty too? Or do we put all those questions off the table rather than somehow reinforce norms numbers 2 and 3? Or do we say that no one, irrespective of gender, should ask tendentious rhetorical questions?
Number 4, claiming that someone who transgresses a norm is blameworthy, is much more problematical for me. Part of the whole idea of norms is that transgressions are bad, transgressors are bad people, and they will come to a bad end. They'll end up in the gutter with a belly full of bad booze, unless Jane Fonda comes along to redeem them. On the other hand, there's the whole issue of cause. Is rape a natural and probably consequence of the transgression? If it is, we're back to norms 2 and 3, or something like them. And the agency question, and independent supevening causes, and proximate cause, and foreseeability, and all that other stuff I don't want to try to remember. Besides, I think I've reached the limit of my COPY buffer.
Had an experience today that sheds some light on a theme in this thread. This afternoon my daughter was pushed from behind while getting off the train by a guy on rollerblades. She fell on the platform, and broke the screen on her video ipod, which was in her pocket. I got home after her, she was very upset, and when I was trying to get her to tell me about it, she'd already told my wife, she brushed off my concern and walked away. Maybe because I was so upset by her own distress, and felt so helpless and frustrated, I couldn't help but say "Maybe it wouldn't have broken if you had it in a cover, like I always tell you." She knew I would say that.
Now why did I say that? Why did I think it? Because I wasn't there, I was unable to help, since it had all happened, and in my helpless frustration I wanted to find something that might have kept this thing from happening. What an impulse that is! Just grasps at straws, seizes everything it can that might have made it different.
Bad times dude.
Something every guy should learn. When a woman is venting about something, don't give advice unless she specifically asks for it. She's looking to talk out the stress, not get a solution.
That sucks, IDP. However, the short answer to "Now why did I say that?" is that you were inconsiderate and selfish.
What if someone's iPod fell in the toilet?
I realize no one cares about 469/70, but I was just desiring the feminist solidarity this week, and not totally feeling it because of lingering H issues, and was sad about that. I spent the Whole Day with some unfogged women today, may be in a better place about it, in the end. Not, again, that anyone cares, but thought I say that.
Interesting. Will somebody write it up, do you think, or perhaps use something said as a jumping-off point? Or is there a sort of confidentiality agreement?
Ogged, did I ever tell you about the time I dropped my Holter monitor in the toilet by accident?
I think you told the whole internet that story.
Which is to say, either in a comment here or at profgrrrrl's.
I didn't think googling "fontana labs" toilet would get 181 hits, but it does.
Is Whole Day the name of Whole Foods's new life-encompassing line of stores?
Yes, but most of them are about the time I dropped Gary Farber in the toilet.
And "Fontana Labs" Holter gets 0. I wanna hear the story.
("Posted by fl" holter gets a comment thread, but not one with the story.)
479- The compromise I came to was that I tend to have my friends in mind in that discussion, none of whom are stay at home moms, but who are also decidedly not ibankers. Whereas B or whoever may be focused on some great fear of women deciding to stay home, giving up on independence altogether. One or two things JM said resonated, on this score. Though still, I think one could make clearer, more helpful, less contemptuous distinctions about these things.
It was funny, a non-blog friend was hanging out with some of us, and surprised by the vehemence with which we discussed all this.
It was funny, a non-blog friend was hanging out with some of us, and surprised by the vehemence with which we discussed all this.
Surprised by the vehemence about this topic? That surprises me.
On the other hand, maybe not. I stayed out of the whole LH discussion because I couldn't articulate a clear reaction. I wonder how many people do that same thing on a much wider scale in their daily lives and friendships (just generally avoiding talking/thinking about unnerving, socially-divisive issues) for somewhat related reasons.
One of the earlier sexism discussions had a thread of "Men can choose not to think about this stuff/women don't have that luxury" running through it. Even though that's often true, I think a lot of women just push this stuff out of mind, at least some of the time.
I realize no one cares about 469/70, but I was just desiring the feminist solidarity this week, and not totally feeling it because of lingering H issues,
You're a heroin user?!
311: Yes, B. Labs is very smart, intimidatingly so.
ac--I totally appreciate what you're saying, and I just wanted to put that out there. I don't have anything to add to your comments just now, but I don't want them to hang out there unanswered, because I think they're important.
Cala! Yay! It's good to see you and your clear, well-argued, calm and not-so-calm comments. This is going to sound incredibly hokey, but I'll say it anyway. I was worried that with the start of a enw school year, you were going to get all serious and would abandon us. Sigh. I'm glad you're procrastinating for a bit.
I'm confused by the links. I read a quasi-academic summary of the exercise, but I never saw the responses or the pictures that Jackmormon described. Where are these?
490- Yes, I'm secretly one of those crazy Irish expats in Singapore, going through rehab with alameida.
I think I'm pretty reliable, actually, about saying constistently that I am not "The Voice of Feminism." I'm always on about there being different feminisms and I'm pretty sure that on my own blog one of the "greatest hits" links is to a post where I very explicitly described my own and noted its limitations (as I am aware of them).
I also don't think that my argument about Hirshman is as unnuanced as you seem to think it is. For one thing, I think everyone here is aware that I am in fact taking "leave" from a tenure-track job to move to LA and write for a year while my husband earns a six-figure income. For another, my own field is liberal arts--not investment banking.
I think a lot of the anger about the Hirshman thing comes from other people's defensiveness rather than the essence of the Hirshman argument, but then I've said that many times. In any case, I'm quite willing to say (yet again) that my own particular feminist expression may very well not appeal to everyone. Luckily, I'm humble enough to feel that I'm not required to.
I would say it's precisely because you are not completely following Hirshman's prescriptions that you might be more sensitive to the scorn she heaps on people not following her program. Which I am by no means inventing. But, enough.
And I would say that it's because I don't have a problem saying that my own personal decision to possibly leave academia might not be the most feminist act of my entire life, that I don't feel inclined to be sensitive (aka defensive) about it.
Ac: Is there a possibility that you're lumping together disagreement with disagreeableness? That is, you appear to take a substantively different position from B. on the issues Hirshman talks about. I don't think it makes sense to say that you would be convinced by B. if she were less alienating to you, where what you find alienating is actual disagreement. If that's what's going on, there's no way to be less alienating without abandoning the project of convincing you of anything.
I'm not really defensive on my own behalf. My job sucks. I don't have kids. I've worked in financial positions at corporations, could be doing that now, totally understand why someone would leave—irrespective of whether he or she has a family. I know lots of men who get burned out in corporate jobs. People with money are often fulfilled by the use they put it too, rather than mere acquisition of it: philanthropic projects, &c. My friend who is a classical musician has what has to be the most fulfilling job in the world. My main objection to H is probably her attempt to equate power with happiness. Doesn't seem true to me. You can decouple those things, and say women should pursue power anyway. I think it captures more truth to recognize that happiness is somewhere in the middle. Men probably overvalue power as a means to fulfillment, and often end up estranged from families that would provide them with more warmth and happy memories, women undervalue it and get stuck in dependent positions that keep them from having good lives.
I was just having a conversation about a couple with a very traditional marriage, the husband's a workaholic, the wife stays at home, and the striking thing neither are happy.
She isn't equating power with happiness. She's saying, it's not feminist to pursue your own personal happiness without regard to the probable effect of your doing so. In terms of her argument, happiness is completely beside the point.
I guess it depends how you read the word "flourishing."
Also, the covered in babyshit thing would point to happiness being elsewhere.
Yes, and whether you think pursuing full human flourishing is supposed to guarantee happiness.
In any case, I would really prefer it if disagreements with me could be couched in terms that aren't about my personal qualities or lack thereof, if that's quite all right. All the qualifiers in the world--"i say that not to be a bitch, myself" and "i realize i may be taking little swipes at B," and "i realize no one cares about 469/70" and "but, enough"--don't really disguise the fact that part of what's being buried in the discussion about interpreting Hirshman is a claim that my position on her argument (and my tone in general, since I set myself up as the voice of feminism?) is somehow insufficiently feminist for some reason. Or insufficiently modest. Or whatever.
Which might be completely true, but I find it disagreeable myself when disagreements about issues get expressed as personal criticisms.
Well, being covered in babyshit is, in fact, not pleasant. I'm pretty sure even the happiest stay at home mom in the world does not find the babyshit part of it particularly enjoyable.
You do make your personality something of an issue, with your moniker and all. It's part of your political persona. You say you're being tough or harsh and people should just deal with it. But hey, I'll try to separate those things.
It seems to me that your objection to both Hirshman and myself boils down to your not liking polemic. Which is totally fine, but surely that's more a matter of personal taste than it is some kind of important feminist principle, right?
I mean, I don't think my rhetoric is any more direct than Tia's, and I don't think I argued for Hirshman's position any more strenuously than LB did.
But I don't dislike polemic. I helped Tia craft hers. The question is whether it's effective, and what political goals it advances. There seems to be a highly speculative core at the heart of H's argument, which is that if more women adopt the 80 hour work week, then somehow, magically, the work week will shift to more reasonable levels. The European model, which is actually existing, and although not perhaps culturally suited to the US doesn't require such acts of speculation because of that existence, was achieved through government legislation.
B, this comment about twisty certainly came off to me as you laying down the law about what the feminist position is. Or at least that you were claiming some special authority, simply because you stated your position without providing any argument, as though that were enough. That was glaring because the previous comment addressing twisty, Tia's 39, specifically argued that none of twisty's opponents were actually putting forth the claim that some women were islands.
Particularly in light of the rest of Tia's 39, it seemed to me that you were simply disregarding the arguments that she had made against twisty. (Cala too, in 19, and perhaps some of her remarks about tone translate to LH.) That's ordinarily the sign of a claim to greater authority.
Also this:
I would really prefer it if disagreements with me could be couched in terms that aren't about my personal qualities or lack thereof, if that's quite all right.
is fair enough, but then you shouldn't be so quick to call other women defensive. That's also making disagreement personal.
Although what I'm saying may amount to "You should've reenacted the Great Blowjob War," and I don't think that would've been a good idea either.
512: That's a substantive, not a rhetorical, disagreement. Certainly if you think that Hirshman's wrong, and B. and I are wrong to think she has a good point, you should disagree with her, and us. But your disagreement isn't the result of B's un-humble or whatever tone, or rhetoric. It's just a disagreement about what's effective.
LB, it's the coupling of its scornful tone with its highly speculative quality that is the problem.
I often state my position flatly, without laying out an argument. That's what I mean by polemic.
Anyway, fine. I think this is really basically a version of the "your tone isn't congenial" argument, and it's kind of pissing me off, to tell the truth, so I'm gonna let it go. Except to say that I thought 461 was really unnecessary.
"I think a lot of the anger about the Hirshman thing comes from other people's defensiveness rather than the essence of the Hirshman argument, but then I've said that many times."
Not for me at least. The Hirshman piece was provocative, but it was also wrong to the extent that some of its prescriptions for how to lead a feminist life might not actually lead to better conditions, a more equal workplace, etc, and that anything besides those ones was a wasted or a poor choice.
Now, Hirshman's basic point -- that attaining power can be a way to attain equality -- seems to be not wholly false. But there comes a point when I'm tired of having to do the author's work for them with a series of 'Well, basicallys.' And I also tire of someone presenting me with a 'Well, basically' and insisting that 'That's all Hirshman (or whoever) really meant' and concluding that my disagreement is about tone. When it's not about tone at all, because your 'well, basically' pretty much changed everything about the substance of the argument.
It's not as though tone and content are mutually exclusive.
513: Come on, Matt. Since when on this blog are declarative statements like the one of mine you liked not par for the course? Obviously I was making an assertive statement as a matter of personal taste, just like everyone else around here does when it comes to, say, which bands are good.
513: Also, granted re. "defensive," but in my *own* defense, let me point out that that was a response to ac's taking little swipes at me (as she acknowledged). Not that "she started it" is terribly mature of me, I realize.
Ok, letting it go and shutting up now. I'm sorry I didn't just let it go in the first place.
I mean, for example:
"No woman is an island" (reading into it "No sexual choice is completely free of culture") is indeed a wholly different statement than "No woman has ever enjoyed a blowjob." Twisty assumed that anyone who denied the latter denied the former, which is a pretty dishonest form of argument. Great for getting blog attention, or bringing attention to a topic, but not so much for arguing seriously.
But, well, basically, all she's saying is that a blowjob isn't exactly a neutral sex act. Well, basically. This could be a great new trope for me to adopt.
Cala: "You're a fucking retard."
Someone: "That's not true."
Cala: "Well, basically, all I meant is that you have your head up your ass. You just didn't like my tone."
Needs some work.
Sufjan Stevens sucks.
Seriously, (and I'm speaking generally now, not taking sides here) there's a difference between making flat declarative statements about what are obviously matters of taste, and making those statements about things people take much more personally (whether they're bad people, or living their lives in suboptimal ways, or whatever). I mean, when I say things like that, I'm trying to hurt y'all's feelings, but I think most you don't have the same intent, and should be mindful of the distinction.
The difference I saw wasn't just about making flat statements about matters of taste, but about making flat statements in response to someone else's argument. And, if I may interpret ac, I think that's what 516 is getting at; dismissing other positions is particularly irksome when the arguments don't back it up (this is something I'm attributing to Hirshman, not to you, B).
Cala, there's a vacancy.
I'm finding this discussion disturbing and unpleasant. When did this become "Apropos of nothing special, you know what annoys me about you?" day?
The really funny thing about that is that you've hit a figure flaw I'm genuinely sensitive about.
They certainly could be.
I'll just sit here, sorrowing over the fact that while I resemble my mother strongly in many other ways, the gazelle-like legs passed me by. Then I'll try to work up an eating disorder.
the gazelle-like legs passed me by
Don't worry, you can always get hooves attached to yours. That would solve the uncomfortable shoe problem as well.
I too am sorry.
Don't worry, you can always get hooves attached to yours.
Got 'em already. They come with the forked tail when you get sworn in as an attorney.
I'll just sit here, sorrowing over the fact that while I resemble my mother strongly in many other ways, the gazelle-like legs passed me by.
Is she still single?
Indeed she is. And well seasoned, with many entertaining stories about being a flight attendant in the dawn of the Jet Age. You want her number?
Timbot! You two-timer! You're crushing on Becks's mom, remember?
Leaving her mom unchaperoned! This is Tim's chance!
I was probably out of line with 461, or "starting it," because of leftover anger from the H discussion, which happened to be triggered by the mention of "humility." I made the first comment in irritation, but tried to explain that I later discussed all this stuff with Tia & JM, and came to some better place about it.
The difference I saw wasn't just about making flat statements about matters of taste, but about making flat statements in response to someone else's argument.
But I'd already made my arguments on the Twisty thing, and at that point we were just referring back to a previous discussion.
Yeah, that could be the whole "don't refight the blowjob wars" thing. (I don't think I caught that discussion, but that's OK.)
Yeah, exactly. I was just poking at Tia a little.
Re. that discussion, you didn't miss much.
449-453: Tony Jaa should already be on the path to canonization, but that is the worst written, edited, and directed movie I've seen in a number of years. And I saw Snakes on a Plane. I spent the whole movie either gaping at Jaa's abilities or slack-jawed at the incomprehensibility of the film: Why did that guy pull a train whistle and have a gang of people on rollerblades and bmx bikes come attack Jaa? Why did they think that the best things to attack him with were fluorescent light tubes? At one point Rose isn't the head of the criminal empire (some guy yells at her about the quality of her turtle soup) and then suddenly she is. What was the Mayor agreeing to do with them anyway?