Is there a “rape proclivity bubble on a multi-axis quadrant?” try 2

This is just a repost without all the extra junk that ensued, so I can solicit comments on the post itself. There are very slight alterations, but none that change my point. If you read the other one, no need to reread this one unless you’re looking for a way to post about it without getting entangled (and I honestly hope you do comment… I need your feedback!). If you’re looking for something different to read, Ed Brayton expands Greg’s theme in a different direction, through all the acts of barbarism of which the same example soldiers are capable. Or you could read one of Greg’s follow-ups on the topic admonishing those that make the topic about themselves, that it’s not about them (unless they happen to be women being victimized by roaming bands of soldiers).

But whatever else you do, go here to do something positive and support the Silence is the Enemy campaign.

Greg Laden, as you may already know, recently postulated a hypothesis regarding the possibility of a “rape switch” — a set of circumstances in which soldiers are significantly more likely to rape members of the local population — that rang true with him. The idea originally came from one of his students’ term paper written in 1993. Discussion of the topic has been heated, to say the least, and I’ve been throwing more than my fair share of wild punches in the fray. This is just an attempt to put together a number of them into something more cohesive (and coherent) now that a lot of the rage has subsided. I will attempt to avoid or ameliorate those sticking points that drew so much of everyone’s off-topic ire, and I’ll even try to make up for a number of misconceptions I myself had in coming into the argument to begin with.

Continue reading “Is there a “rape proclivity bubble on a multi-axis quadrant?” try 2″

Is there a “rape proclivity bubble on a multi-axis quadrant?” try 2
{advertisement}

Is there a “rape proclivity bubble on a multi-axis quadrant?”

Greg Laden, as you may already know, recently postulated a hypothesis regarding the possibility of a “rape switch” — a set of circumstances in which soldiers are significantly more likely to rape members of the local population — that rang true with him. The idea originally came from one of his students’ term paper written in 1993. Discussion of the topic has been heated, to say the least, and I’ve been throwing more than my fair share of wild punches in the fray. This is just an attempt to put together a number of them into something more cohesive (and coherent) now that a lot of the rage has subsided. I will attempt to avoid or ameliorate those sticking points that drew so much of everyone’s off-topic ire, and I’ll even try to make up for a number of misconceptions I myself had in coming into the argument to begin with.

Continue reading “Is there a “rape proclivity bubble on a multi-axis quadrant?””

Is there a “rape proclivity bubble on a multi-axis quadrant?”

A victory

I’ve had my head twisted about from all the discussion at Greg Laden’s and Stephanie Zvan’s, that I’ve been neglecting to post about something good that happened recently. A friend of mine (who can step forward and take credit if he wants) complained about a hideous transit ad and apparently got results, or at least his voice was added to the choir on it. Either way, this is a victory, however small.

Date: Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Subject: Offensive Ad on Bus
To: [email protected]

Hi

I just want to contact you with regards to an ad on the side of one of your buses that I saw in Wolfville yesterday, May 28, 2009. it was an ad for the Yellow pages that stated something to effect of “ways to find a motel room before she changes her mind”.

I would like your reaction to my complaint before I take this to the next step. I find the ad so offensive that If I do not hear from your office within a reasonable time frame and I see it still posted on the bus I will take this objection to the media. Your counterparts in HRM will not run ads promoting alternative religious points of view, but it seems to be ok for our transit system to display an ad with a blatantly sexist message.

HRM is the Halifax section of our provincial transit system. Never mind that the CBC article linked has its title completely wrong, in that it’s keeping “No God” off its buses. I can’t find any pictures of this Yellow Pages ad, but Jodi’s seen it, and she was less than impressed herself. And she’s definitely not one to overreact to, well, just about anything. Far more level-headed than I am anyway.

Anyway, the Yellow Pages folks answered.

Good afternoon Mr. xxxx,

We took your feedback into consideration and I can tell you the ad in question will be removed from circulation within the next couple of weeks.

Best Regards,

Annie Dauphinais
Directrice Alliances – Communications marketing
Alliance Manager – Marketing Communications

16, Place du Commerce, Île-des-Soeurs, Québec, H3E 2A5
T 514 934-2613 M 514 702-1565 F 1 877 471-5775
www.ypg.com www.pagesjaunes.ca www.yellowpages.ca www.canada411.ca

Now I admit this could be a cop-out — e.g. they were only scheduled to run that bus ad for so long — but if his letter had any effect whatsoever, then way to go.

A victory

“Rape switch”? Or “aggression switch”?

I’ve been involved (on and off) in a comment war all day long over at Greg Laden’s, where Greg attempts to explain the plausibility of a “rape switch” that is turned on in men when they are subjected to the trials and expectations of a war zone, and how men in whom this “rape switch” is turned on are then capable of raping the indiginous women where they might not have been previously. A semantic war erupted, where no less than three commenters have driven a counter-offensive against such a sweeping generalization or indoctrinate affront. I personally suggested that the more likely scenario is that war, by virtue of being war, turns on an aggression switch in its soldiers, by the designs of their higher-ups, that these soldiers can’t necessarily channel in an appropriate manner (e.g. by killing the locals), instead resorting to raping the locals’ women.

I’ve been going back and forth with a commenter by the name of Thomas, who seems to have approximated the same “vagispiracy” position that The Real Meme did in my recent Oprah-bashing post. At the time of this post, he has challenged me to provide some citations for my claims; I’m about to attempt to do so, though some of them weren’t made with citations in mind (e.g., I pulled them out of my ass, or Colbert’s favorite fact source, the gut).

I wanted to write a post today about Roguelike games, or get around maybe to writing part two of Blogging the Election, but you get this instead. Enjoy!

“Rape switch”? Or “aggression switch”?

Silence is the Enemy

There’s a blogging event going on right now, and for the rest of June, started by Sheril Kirschenbaum at The Intersection, in an effort to draw attention to the frequent and widespread rape occurring presently in Liberia. The fact is, rape isn’t a regional or cultural problem — it’s an everywhere problem, and the solution to it requires all of us to participate.

This problem has thankfully not touched me directly (or indirectly, really, as my one experience with rape involves a girl crying wolf), and I’m afraid I don’t have anything to say about it that’s at all insightful. I know I am not capable personally of raping someone, but I am aware that with my inability to navigate social situations, I have had problems all my life distinguishing welcome from unwelcome attention whether on the giving or receiving end, and therefore have likely made more than one girl feel uncomfortable in my lifetime with my fumbling inability to flirt, or hell, even my fumbling inability to make sexual advances on someone who I know would be receptive, like a long-term girlfriend. Though I feel as though I have absolutely no ability to comprehend the actions of men willing to force themselves on others, being barely able to assert myself to any degree even when it’s solicited, I nonetheless feel compelled to do SOMETHING, so I will direct what little traffic I have to the myriad blog posts that have been put up in the past few days on on the subject.

The ScienceBlogs Select RSS tells me all the following blogs have posts on the subject, so I’ll link them now, though I have not yet had time to read all of them:

On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess
Thus Spake Zuska
Sciencewoman
Framing Science
DrugMonkey
Aardvarchaeology
Bioephemera
Aetiology
Neurotopia

A word of warning, many of these blogs are considered safe havens for women and thus those of you who happen to be swinging pipe would be well advised to lurk before posting, if posting at all. And remember that the only thing separating you from rapists is that you are likely neurotypical (e.g. not batshit insane), and you were likely brought up in a society that frowns upon men forcing themselves on women.

On other blogs on my RSS feed which I subscribe to specifically (as opposed to the ScienceBlogs Select feed), there are more blog posts you should read along the same lines. Here’s Greg Laden’s discussion entitled A Rape in Progress, and its Part 2. He also links to Women’s eNews where a connection is drawn between rape and conflict mineral mining. Stephanie Zvan wrote a brilliant article over at Quiche Moraine entitled Legacy of War where she delves into the first casualty of any war: civilization itself. And finally, and most certainly always worth a read, is DuWayne Brayton at Traumatized by Truth.

Hopefully that’s enough reading material to get you through the night. All of these blogs are going to be posting throughout the month on the topic, so visit them as frequently as you can manage. (I’m often late posting stuff because of information overload — I follow far too many blogs and far too much catches my eye.)

Silence is the Enemy

Hero? HERO!? Like hell!

It’s amazing what the far-right is saying about Dr. George Tiller, who was murdered for performing legal and medically necessary abortions to save women’s lives. Here’s Rachel Maddow on George Tiller’s death, and the long chain of right-wing terrorism perpetrated in the name of anti-abortion. I honestly can’t add anything to this, and I’m so thankful that Rachel has the courage to call this what it is — terrorism.

(To clarify the subject, I’m talking about one of the money quotes suggesting Scott Roeder’s a hero for killing Tiller.)

Hero? HERO!? Like hell!

What’s worse is these assholes think this is justified.

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard the argument from fundamentalist right-wingers that killing abortion doctors is justified because it saves unborn babies. And yet those unborn babies’ lives — many of which aren’t even viable yet, or would be stillborn, or a danger to the mother’s life — are more valuable to these hypocrites than the lives of women who would die should they attempt to give birth to the baby naturally, or would be forced to seek a back-alley abortion illegally. Never mind what they think about sending your country’s kids off to go kill hundreds of thousands of brown people. These people are not pro-life. They are pro-fetus, then after it is born and baptized, the sprog is on its own.

Sadly, another example of this hypocrisy just happened in Kansas. Dr. George Tiller, an abortion doctor who’s saved countless women’s lives and provided a safe way for women to exercise control over their bodies in the face of years of harassment, vandalism, protests and assaults, was gunned down while ushering at his church’s service. He is remembered as being a good, kind man, and is obviously God-fearing, and yet in an effort to save more blastocysts, he was cut down for performing life-saving and completely legal medical procedures.

I want to make this perfectly clear — this is another untempered act of terrorism in a long line of such acts, fomented by the ragemongers on television and radio whipping the radical zealot remainder of the Republican base into a frenzy ever since the political landscape shifted out from under them. If you are to refer to this act, please, from now on, call it terrorism, because that’s what it is — a political assassination meant to strike terror into people who hold a particular viewpoint. The right wing may have coined the phrase “war on terror/ism” but that shouldn’t insulate them from being accused of using the same tactics to further their own political ends.

And yet, this hypocrisy is drilled into religious folks as though it was internally consistent with the religious teachings of Christians’ most holy book, despite ample evidence the Bible really considers babies to be non-persons until they reach one month old — that’s one month *after birth*. No, being anti-abortion is not a Christian value, it is a conservative value, despite religion and conservatism having a huge overlap in the Venn diagram — remember, conservatism feeds off of religious folks as much as they can manage, because they are ordinarily a credulous and “earthy” folk.

Case in point, Ronald Reagan’s son is peddling free copies of a book ostensibly written by Reagan (yeah, prove it) entitled Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation. PZ Myers suggests we should all order a copy to deprive them of some money, and while I’m tempted to do so, frankly I wouldn’t want to have the carbon used to create that copy of the book on my conscience. It could be the most brilliant and insightful book in the world on the conservative ideas about abortion, but it would still be wrong-headed and evil just by virtue of arguing that a blastocyst’s life is worth more than a doctor’s or a mother’s.

I know a few of you readers really do feel strongly that abortion is wrong. What I’d really like to know is, have you ever faced the decision yourself? And if you were forced to decide to abort despite your own moral misgivings, would you prefer to have the ability to do it safely in a medical environment, or would you prefer to use a coathanger? Also, why should your moral qualms about it affect anyone else’s decision? I know people who have had abortions and frankly, they felt horrible about it, and still bear the emotional scars from it, even though the decision was the right one for both the baby that might have ended up being another burden on the adoption system, and the mother who may not even have survived the endeavour. Abortion rights are women’s rights, and if you legislate a woman’s uterus then you are anti-women’s-rights, period.

I’m sorry if this offends anyone, but I’m sick and tired of seeing people shove their moral values down everyone’s throats when the decision is already a very personal and grave one, with devastating consequences outside of hellfire and brimstone and other such imaginary punishment from an imaginary god. It’s not like we pro-choice folks go out and abort after accidentally getting impregnated after a wild weekend of debaucherous orgies. That’s why it’s pro-choice not pro-death, not just because we’d prefer not to have some stupid framing war over the issue, but because the mother, whose life the pregnancy and motherhood would affect the most, has the most right to decide what is best for her, and her potential offspring’s, life.

There’s nothing particularly sacred about life, being that it’s nothing more than a runaway chain reaction. But what makes it sacred is the personal emotional bond formed between parents and their children, a bond that’s formed before the baby is even born, and which is broken to devastating emotional consequence when an abortion is had. What these conservative and religious folks don’t seem to get is that if any particular life is sacred, then ALL life is sacred — from the tiniest single-celled organism to the majestic trees and beautiful flowers up to the most complex multicellular creatures like we humans, and that means every single one of us humans, not just the ones that happen to follow your particular religion.

What’s worse is these assholes think this is justified.

This one’s gonna be raw. Lots of naked Jason, and not the good kind. You are warned.


UPDATE April 10th, 2015
Content note: rape, consent, false accusations

Seeing as how people — Slimepitters, mostly, but all manner of ne’er-do-well — keep dredging this story up to pick at the scars, which have long since healed over (I blogged this six years ago, after all), I want to clarify a few things.

First, I don’t believe in the “friend zone”. I did, at the time, before I came to understand that is a construction to make “I’m not interested in you” some sort of sin, and before the term existed I was very much in danger of becoming one of those self-entitled and whiny “nice guys”. I also don’t, after reflection, think that the fact that this ex-girlfriend

Second, I absolutely maintain that this episode was formative in my understanding of rape and sexuality, and it created in me a literal phobia of abridging someone else’s consent, to the point of causing me issues with my partners.

Third, I wrote this piece partly for catharsis, and mostly intended it to be a reflection on my lack of understanding of traditional gender roles. I don’t know how to “be a man”.

Fourth, if somehow this story makes you worried about being around me, if it makes you want to dissociate yourself from me out of fear that I actually did rape my first girlfriend twenty years ago, do so. You don’t owe me anything. Do whatever you need to do to protect yourself, I will not mind.

Many have attacked me for my stance, using this story as their ammunition — MRAs and TERFs and antifeminists determined to attack feminists over some sort of imagined overreach on the topic of rape. I take this stand knowing full well that they mostly attack me because, by rights, I should have become a Men’s Rights Activist myself. I should have, if their narrative actually holds true, become one of them, attacking feminists for daring to talk about rape as a serious crime despite myself being victim of a false rape accusation. Though exceedingly rare (especially when you consider only the ones that make it to the cops’ ears), false rape accusations do actually happen — they are not entirely a myth, but they are certainly nowhere near as prevalent as MRAs would have you believe.

Most of my life, I’ve had no idea what it means to “be a man”. I mean, I’m heterosexual, I have a penis, I can open jars, like to tinker with electronics or recently woodworking, and I exhibit a number of traits that might be stereotypically intrinsic to males (f’r instance, I suck at navigation, especially if I’ve never been someplace before). But when you hear exhortations from just about everyone from your father to kids on the playground to (of all things) girlfriends, to “be a man”, and you just can’t parse the suggestion much less actively try to change yourself for it, it makes life, and navigating gender roles in today’s society, a little difficult.
Continue reading “This one’s gonna be raw. Lots of naked Jason, and not the good kind. You are warned.”

This one’s gonna be raw. Lots of naked Jason, and not the good kind. You are warned.

Rewriting “The Rules”

Below the fold, I will attempt the challenge as presented by Greg Laden, to rewrite Comrade PhysioProf’s “Handy Dandy Guide for d00dly Commenters“. The guide was originally presented as a numbered list of suggestions on how to not engender the rage of basically everyone on seemingly any feminist blog, but came off as a list of rules on what would not be tolerated and what would be considered trollish behaviour on Isis’ blog specifically, no matter how earnestly posted, to all but the most sycophantic of his boosters.

Please note that I don’t personally believe in these rules, though many of them are good suggestions on civility in public discourse with people who may have pre-existing hostility to your masculinity for various, and very good, reasons. Also, any number of them should probably be stripped of their gender assignments and applied to everyone equally. The point CPP was driving at is de facto wrong-headed, in that it purports to be applicable to all feminist blogs, when it most certainly is not. This is ONLY an attempt at rewriting the message for clarity, inclusiveness and coherence (though definitely not succinctness), and to explain why each of these suggestions might have been made. Additionally, I feel that they bring out nuances of each point that are missing in CPP’s profanity-riddled tirade.

Compare with the original list, and note that because the numbered format lends itself to being interpreted as hard and fast rules that will be referenced later (e.g., “see #4”), numbers will not be used below. Two points were combined into one, in keeping with my “suggestion then explanation” format.

See, CPP? Was this so hard? I hacked this out over lunch, and revised it on a coffee break later in the day! (It helps that I’m a phenomenal typer, and wasn’t really providing much original thought.)

(EDIT: Plus I’ve made a few more edits, to both the above description and the rules themselves below, as of about 9pm AST — to fix some things that were nagging me, and to clarify my original intent in posting this to begin with.)

Continue reading “Rewriting “The Rules””

Rewriting “The Rules”

Today’s lesson: men and women ARE different

Since we’re talking a bit about gender norms and sexist behaviour lately, here’s a fascinating study Jodi pointed out to me yesterday regarding what people perceive as sexist.

Jodi has reservations with some of the questions asked, feeling as though if there’s not a preexisting stereotype regarding the behaviour in the question, it’s not really sexism, or it might not be perceived as sexism. The example she gave me was that if someone were to see me typing madly away at my keyboard and say “wow, he’s good with computers, too bad he probably sucks at fishing,” while it does follow logically that heavy computer users might not get as much outdoor activity as others, the fact that there’s no preexisting stereotype suggesting that computer users are bad at fishing means that the statement is not a prejudice so much as a logical deduction. If someone were to see me and say “my, what a good looking man, too bad he must be bad at fishing”, if there was a pre-existing prejudice against hot men regarding fishing ability (like the example used of intelligence), then that would be a sexist comment.

One of the more surprising results to me is the fact that more women than men find misandry to be sexist. I suppose it’s not surprising that they’d be more attuned to sexism since the women’s liberation movement is probably still fresh in most women’s minds, but it’s quite surprising that men ignore sexism against them as often as they ignore sexism against women.

Wait, is it sexist to say that men are predisposed to turning a blind eye toward sexism as a whole? Studying this stuff always feels like you’re walking into a trap.

Today’s lesson: men and women ARE different