Well, I hope you're happy. I took a look at that thread about how hostile Cif is towards women and ended up reading the whole damn thing. So much I wanted to say to so many people.
I'm not sure if you're still perplexed about your exchange with flaneuse, but here's my take on it:
Her original point was not that men should "come to the rescue", but merely that sometimes she would like to see a few men call some of the other men out on their sexism rather than obsessively blasting the ATL writer over something relatively minor that might not have been expressed very well.
The point being (I think), that when men who say they're not sexist ignore sexist BTL comments from men while they're ripping the ATL writer to shreds, it tends to give the impression of not being particularly offended at best and tacit approval at worst. I can think of very few instances where I've seen a male Ciffer call another man out for a sexist remark.
On the other hand, there are quite a few feminist women posters on Cif (including me, when I was more active over there) who make a point of calling out women for sexist or outright misandrist comments. One of the reasons I do it is because I think it's important to remind men that the Bindels, Bidishas and Angie124s are not representative of most feminists. The other reason I do it is to inform the Angie124s that they are not representative of most feminists and that they tend to do feminism more harm than good.
So that's all it really boils down to, I think (obviously I'm speculating and projecting a bit*) -- just a desire to see a few men calling out other men for sexist remarks from time to time.
But I don't think you were out of order with her and I didn't really get the feeling that she did, either.
*That is what it's called, isn't it -- when you attribute to someone else attitudes/desires that you, yourself have -- projection? I only ever took two psych courses and I walked out on the 2nd one when the prof said that women who dress in short skirts were asking to be raped. I decided I'd rather fail the course.
BTW -- was I the only person who assumed that flaneuse was lagrandflaneuse under a slightly different name?
Apparently, they're totally different women. I just looked at the profiles, thinking that LGF had been banned or something silly like that and came back as just-plain-flaneuse.
I don't recall ever seeing just-plain-flaneuse before.
I'll admit to not having read the whole CiF thread, but I agree with Montana 100% on her point that those who don't call others on their sexist remarks are complicit.
I seem to remember flaneuse, don't think she's new to CiF, just appears to comment mainly on certain issues.
And I too would have walked out of a lectture which blamed women's behaviour or dress for sexual violence against them.
Do not really look at CiF any more, so cannot really comment on your first point, although we should all stand up and point when we see aliens in the room.
As to the prof - surely, he was trying to foster debate by being provocative? Or just plain crazy, maybe.
The killer of Joanna Yeates could have transported her all the way from her flat to the spot where her body was found without being picked up by CCTV cameras, it was claimed. [...]
But a separate route between the home in the Clifton area of the city and Longwood Lane on the outskirts of the city could reportedly enable a driver to travel undetected by cameras while adding only a few minutes to the journey.
Interesting that we now have an aghast breathlessness when it is discovered that there are areas of Broekn Britain which are not monitored by CCTV 24/7, from the cradle to the grave.
It says, basically, look at what perils beset you when you are not monitored and kept under constant surveillance.
People get away with murder.
In other, other news, it seems that The Yellow Streak, Nick Clegg, may soon be needing his trusty brown trousers and bicycle clips.
Nick Clegg is facing a backlash from Liberal Democrat MPs over the Government's climbdown on bankers' pay and bonuses.
Some backbenchers fear that the Liberal Democrats, already suffering in the polls after a U-turn over tuition fees, may also bear the brunt of public anger if the Coalition fails to live up to the rhetoric of Mr Clegg and the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, on a need to rein in bonuses.
There are growing signs that the Chancellor has the upper hand in his battle with Mr Cable over the banks after the Business Secretary lost part of his empire last month for saying privately that he had "declared war" on the media magnate Rupert Murdoch.
Things are working out rather well for the Tories, then - as predicted, its the Lib Dems who are the fall guys. The Mirror had a piece the other day which said that 70 Tory MPs have links to the finaincial sector & 30% of Tory peers have worked in banking. Osbourne has also ignored Sir David Walker's recommendation that banks should be made to disclose all pay packages above £1m.
So that's all right then, at least we're all in this together.
Thanks Montana *affects a Southern drawl* you're a fine lady (thanks for giving your perspective).
I was actually having (what I thought) was a pretty good conversation with her, then she went off at me for 'laughing at women being killed' which got me too mad to respond, mainly because it seemed to come from out of the blue.
She's right though, men do need to point out sexist males as well and I think had she remained polite she might have convinced NormanHadley myself and maybe a couple of others, but as with a debating forum people tend to 'dig in' when the tone drops.
But I'll leave that one there if I may? Just wanted to see if I'd been a bit of a shit.
As for the username, I'll stick with NeonSamurai for now (as that's an alternative persona for my blog) and any changes there might cause problems.
And hello to Chekhov as well as the notable journalist Polly Toynbee. This place has certainly gone 'up market' since I was here last!
Speaking of the Lib Dems as fall guys: your comment reminded me of a dream I had last night, which I'd forgotten until now.
All I remember is that Nick Clegg was giving a press conference on Sky News and was clearly very drunk, and at one point staggered into the scenery behind him.
If this happens in RL you can say you saw it here first and that I'm some sort of psychic.
In other news, probable alien, brain eating lizard henchman, MiliVanilli Snr is now apparently in talks with Sunderland AFC to become a vice-chairman type person.
Admittedly, it's less dangerous than him being leader of the opposition/future PM and that, but, if Steve Bruce suddenly finds an 8 foot tall, super-fast, flying striker to start alongside Darren Bent in this month's transfer window, I think it's safe to say my theory has been proved correct!!
This is a question for Dott and James about cicadas:
what's happened to the cicada waves that used to engulf my back yard?
Ok, you probably need more info: my backyard is 10x5 metres (I've just walked it out) I live in Sydney inner-west and over the last few years I've noticed that around 6-7pm summer-time I can hear the fight-path noise of qantas and myriad other flight-providers which are no longer blocked by the cicada wall-of-sound.
And - separately - but no less an important issue - I'd like to address the administrators of this blog (I guess that's Montana, Thm, Jay (not Scherf - apparently not)+ others) about the stats available held by blog administrators - can you make these public? Because that would be in the interests of transparency and the collective environment which 'we' espouse. Don't you reckon? that would good - thanks
Not really my area of expertise I'm afraid but a quick search of the scientific literature raises the possibility of a sexually transmitted fungus! Only a possibility, will see if I can find out more when I have a bit more time.
Perhaps Hanman can pop over and explain how acting on the feedback from regulars in relation to admin and moderation of CiF translates into the simultaneous pre-mod or banning of Jay, The Brackenator and Meerk.
I'm almost sure that there wasn't a widespread request to crack down on the most readable posters for little or no apparent reason. If you discount MartynInContinent that is.
Christ - a sexually transmitted fungus - can I just say that (as far as I know) there's been none of that sort of stuff happening in my back yard recently - I've been o'seas.
However there might be CCTV footage of cicada/qantas inappropriateness ...
Re football grounds. I hate sitting down, really fucking hate it and I pine for the days of terracing again. I was at a stag weekend in Bristol last year and we toddled along to watch Bristol Rovers play. Bloody brilliant- terracing, standing up, crush barriers my Dad used to pop me on, the lot.
The interesting thing regarding terracing is that terracing was not responsible for any of the disasters that hit British football in the last few decades- Hillsborough- police criminality and fencing. Bradford Fire- failure to upkeep stands- apparently newspapers from the 1950’s were found in the post fire debris, Ibrox- the hideously designed steep staircases. None can be attributable to terracing.
I think the Taylor report and subsequent gentrification was another assault on the working class. Using the wholly false premise that fans were the cause of Hillsborough, it gave the authorities carte blanche to get rid of terracing in favour of easily controllable and easy for surveillance seating. Terracing was a menace to the authorities as the great unwashed could go to a game, turn up at the gate and get in without any id.
There’s got to be some form of balance. I agree that facilities at grounds are light years ahead of what they were and safety has improved immeasurably- Rangers completely ignored recommendations in 1963 when two fans were crushed to death on stairway 13. However fans are no longer treated as scum but something far worse- consumers. And once the dead hand of consumerism takes over, the soul is sucked out. Football is increasingly a lifestyle choice. You can either afford it or you can’t . If you can afford the ridiculous prices you can go to games and sit with sunglasses on your head disinterestedly blackberrying . If you can’t well fuck you, the clubs not interested.
Terracing will never come back. It’s the soul of the game for god’s sake and we can’t let anything like soul back into Mammon. The authorities would never have it- “we can’t identify them” and I don’t think the superannuated rulers of clubs and associations would ever have it either. They want consumers that they can tailor-make packages for who are easily identifiable for marketing purposes. And terracing won’t generate the money required to pay ever more ludicrous wages and agents cuts.
Erm, I'll defer to Dott on this one. (I was just pretending to be all sciencey and that!!)
Although, to be fair, I probably could have come up with 'God did it 'cause of all the bumming' though. Which is somewhat lacking in regards to that whole 'scientific process' malarky!!
Or, alternatively, we could go with my original, catch-all theory, namely that it's:
I remember the Thatcher/Moynihan/Evans idea of ID cards for football fans in the mid-80s, and the fact that this was abandoned only to be revived in a different form when the Taylor report (which didn't insist on all-seater stadiums) came out. Obviously, a numbered seating ticket could much more easily be associated with an individual, and this became even easier when clubs started to insist on a membership card before any tickets could be bought to fit in with electronic gate systems.
I can still wander along to the Withdean to see Brighton if I feel like it; next season, with the new and oxymoronic American Express Community Stadium at Falmer, I won't be able to.
First time I went into the Shed, it was 60p. Those were the days when the Mears family owned Chelsea. We had the fat fuck who refused to break into a trot in attack - Clive Walker, who was still playing in the FA Cup with a non-league club in his 40s, so perhaps he was pacing himself - and the rock our defence was founded upon was Mickey Droy, all 6 foot 5 of him bought from Slough Town for £5,000. We had a borderline barking mad Yugoslavian goalkeeper called Petar Borota, who died last year in Italy aged 56.
It was shit. Our team was shit. But it was our shit.
"God did it because of all the bumming" was the new unifying theory one of my colleagues came up with after I e-mailed around the DADT link. He pointed out that that kind of thinking had the distinct advantage over ecology of not requiring fieldwork in the cold and wet, or any hard sums!
is that seriously what Brighton's new stadium is going to be called? Why not just call it CuntyCorporate Stadium and have done with it.
There's a team in the Dutch second division, Almere City who play at the snappily entitled 'Mitsubishi Forklift Stadium'.
RapidEddie,
It was shit. Our team was shit. But it was our shit
Amen. Celtic are shit now, I went to the boxing day game against St Johnstone, absolutely honking. Except now it costs a fortune to sit and watch honking football.
Oh yes indeed. And if you want to buy a season ticket at the CuntyCorporate Stadium (I like that) you have to book an appointment for a presentation, as though you were buying some shitty timeshare deal. Sordid details here.
Could this be the birth of a new scientific cleavage we're witnessing, along the lines of the heliocentric/non-heliocentric, Darwin/Lamark ones that so divided the 'scientific' communities in the past??
On the one side, those who think that everything is 'Because of all the bumming..., and on the other, those who think it's Because Tony Blair's a cunt!??
This, right here, is the, mostly non-seater stadium of my adopted Brazilian club.
I'm not ashamed to admit that the first time I was on the top tier, and everyone rushed forward after we scored, I not only screamed, but also wet myself a little bit too....
Afternoon all, Two weeks without computer is very good for one!
I looked at Larry Elliott this morning: the Davos mob think that the world situation is unstable, so we need better World Governance or summink, but that looks impossible, haha! GolemXIV more useful. He's been ahead of the pack for two years now, and mostly gave up on CiF as it is so transitory.
Dotterel, yesterday post--- I carefully looked for palm oil in my food stocks, couldn't find any, hehe :-)
Maybe, being just post-ww2 and even remembering ration-queues, I'm immune to advertising, just buying ingredients rather than 'brands and products' conceived by 'food scientists', using the cheapest junk raw material worldwide. If there are more than three ingredients in the small print, I just don't buy it ..
Her (flaneuse) original point was not that men should "come to the rescue", but merely that sometimes she would like to see a few men call some of the other men out on their sexism rather than obsessively blasting the ATL writer over something relatively minor that might not have been expressed very well.
That was also my interpretation.
When I had posting rights on CiF I challenged both male and female posters on their sexism regularly, well over 200 times over 4 years, and suspect it was yet another source of complaints that eventually got me banned.
I called the UK's legal profession, Boards of Directors, Senior Bankers and the BBC sexist, along with Charliepolecat, okeliedokelie, Thunderchild, AllyF, Pretendingtocare, nicknack009, englishhermit, Yohanne, Gordon Brown, Gordon Ramsay, JayReilly, that's enough for now. On each occasion I provided evidence.
Parallax - i didnt know we had access to any stats, i've only ever used my admin function to retrieve spam, post new blogs and, disastrously, tinker with the UT layout. So i dont know what stats there are.
Because, God sed it is, and, as I understand it, he seems to be pretty important in some circles....although, admittedly, not necessarily the same circles what 'do science'...
And here's another example of Jay's sexist attitudes writing about rape, a crime almost exclusively committed by men against women.
JarReilly:
This is 100% nonsense from start to finish, as well as being quite plainly ridiculous: a legal conviction, for any crime, is not "proof" that an event took place, nor is an acquittal proof that it did not.
In rape trials where almost always there are no independent witnesses, the evidence required for conviction is far, far greater than for other crimes. An example might be drunk driving or using a mobile phone while driving.
So while a legal conviction for other crimes might not be "proof" that the convicted actually committed the crime, for the crime of rape, because of the need for such incontrovertible evidence and the historical record of how juries have behaved, it is likely that there have been very few convictions where the convicted did not commit rape.
Indeed some time back both AllyF and I researched this and failed to come up with any evidence in the UK. And of course there are lots of examples where rapists once caught admit to many others.
"We are limiting presentations to no more than 40 people, so everyone gets the personal attention they need - and fans will be able to see the stadium interior, and in particular the view from their chosen seat, using special virtual 3D software......"
".....Because we know without seeing it in 3D, you'll have no idea what you're going to get for your corporate sponso...erm, season ticket- a plastic seat, a view of the pitch, the bald bloke in front of you, and if you turn to the side, the stairs out."
"a crime almost exclusively committed by men against women."
Clearly you've never encountered estimates on the number of rapes in prison, as i recall in the US its estimated at well over 100,000 a year i believe. But i'll excuse your ignorance.
"In rape trials where almost always there are no independent witnesses, the evidence required for conviction is far, far greater than for other crimes. An example might be drunk driving or using a mobile phone while driving."
Well, you need to convince a jury "beyond reasonable doubt" for all crimes. With no witnesses i would hope there was a higher threshold for this crime than DD or driving with mobile as its a far more serious crime with far longer sentences.
"it is likely that there have been very few convictions where the convicted did not commit rape."
Pointless comment. The fact remains, a conviction is plainly not *proof* an event took place, for this or any other crime.
As for being an example of my "sexism", what sheer silliness.
when's your CiF incarceration up? Are you being freed or have you been quietly chiseling away an escape hole hidden by a poster of Bidisha a la Shawshank redemption these last few weeks?
Jay - before you respond to BTH - yep there is a set of stats available to blog administrators - revealing stuff apparently - anyway perhaps the other admin people know .... I remember Montana mentioning how revealing they were - a year or so ago, just before the 'geographic locator' made it's appearance...
PS has anyone watched the Palin "Blood Libel" Video yet?
Absolutely astonishing.
I cannot believe that this woman, who reads her script like a cheerleader running for class president is actually in the running for the 'real presidency'. Surely the American people can do better than that?
Went to Elland Road in the late 70s/early 80s, when Chelsea and Leeds were both in the old Second Division. It was 3-2 to Leeds in the 90th minute and they were having a right old knees up.
Then we equalized in the 90th minute. The away end erupted (fnaar fnaar) and when we quietened down, there was an eerie silence. The guy who was driving the Ford Transit we came up in said quietly "Let's get out here after the game...really, really fucking quickly."
But anyways, the word on the street (or, twitter trending as it is nowadays) reckons that the liberal media have, just now, this minute, redefined what blood libel means, solely to make Palin look bad!!
"The other reason I do it is to inform the Angie124s that they are not representative of most feminists and that they tend to do feminism more harm than good."
It is very, very hard to argue that feminism has shifted a bit since the 70s and 80s when a certain core group of women keep repeating the rhetoric of quite oldfashioned radfem and separatist ideas....
And yes, I also assumed flaneuse and lagrandflaneuse were the same person.
In other news... I'm a stress bunny at the moment, so avoiding places where there are people I actually like, so as to avoid ripping off heads....
God help us in so many ways should Palin get in, La Rit.
For women, she'll prove another Thatcher - it's so bloody hard for women to achieve in politics in the UK, at least partly because they're always fighting the spectre of Thatcher, in one way or another.
And for people more generally - well, god knows if we'll survive. She has a certain manic glint, doesn't she?
RapidEddie, I've been assured that I was placed in premod 'by mistake' and that it took 4 days for them to fish me out because they didn't notice. The fact that I actually commented on my premod state while *in* premod - and presumably whoever was vetting my posts did in fact read those comments remains unexplained. As does the fact that an innocuous post was removed *and* that I was placed in premod - presumably two accidental actions, not one.
Oddly enough, no-one's responding to my email queries about that.
I cannot believe that this woman, who reads her script like a cheerleader running for class president is actually in the running for the 'real presidency'.
Yes, it does seem that politics has become an open institution for the criminally insane, doesn't it?
A cynic might suggest that a mod took an unjustifiable dislike to your comment and decided to put you in premod for it. The Graun then found themselves unable to justify it when you questioned it..........
I might have mentioned this before, but one of the guys I was in booze rehab with, many years ago, was a guy who'd been gang raped by 4 older boys in a young offenders institution in Dublin in the 70s.
He been in and out of mental institutions and lived on the street most of his life. The way he explained his rape was "If you can't defend yourself against something like that, you're not a man."
When someone asked why he hadn't spoken about it before or sought help, he said something along the lines of he didn't want people to think he "was a queer".
CiF - as Bitey/Faux Bitey does - typically tries to frame the debate absolutely along male-on-female gender lines. When someone points out that it's a power issue and includes hundreds of thousands of male victims worldwide, they're treated by some to the kind of derision that the guy I met all those years ago feared. 'What about teh menz', eh? What a hoot they are.
rapideddie, I agree and disagree with you about the male rape issue. Conservative estimates suggest 3% of the male population experience rape. That's a significant number, and it requires very careful and sustained consideration.
But given the current gendered context we operate in, the nature of the experience for men and women is often very very different. And because of the way that gender works, rape is an issue of power, violence and gender for both men and women.
The simpleminded 'what about the men' cry you get in online discussion doesn't help, because it is often a calculated attempt to prevent women from talking about their gendered experience of violence, or to neutralise their gendered experience.
Meerk, I tend to agree with Dott about your pre-mod saga. And I suspect you do too. The first rule of pre-mod is we don't talk about pre-mod. The second rule of pre-mod is that if you make it a big enough issue, it can vanish unexpectedly. Apart from P Brax, obviously, who is mad, bad and dangerous to know. Or perhaps just mad.
Pre-mod is now definitely the Weapon Of Choice. It doesn't create the furore of a life ban - Woolly, Jay, Lord Summerisle etc - and stops the more contentious posts/posters spicing up the bland stew they're trying to create. It shapes debate into conformity.
As I'm sure Jay knows, his problem is that he does a natty line in eviscerating ATL articles and contributors. And we can't have the preachers on the mount looking like they're full of shit, can we?
I share people's reservations about viewing issues from an 'identity' angle, but that said, rape is one of those instances where a gendered perspective seems valid.
You never hear anyone claiming that male victims somehow 'asked for it' by dressing or acting provocatively, for example. Or that men are making false accusations to 'hit out' at their boss or ex partner or whoever.
There's a case to be made that attitudes to male-on-female rape reflect a wider cultural bias, so - in my view - it's legitimate to politicise the issue. Male rape is no doubt as traumatic as any other rape, but I can't see what's to be gained by politicising it.
Vizzo - isnt it "politicising" a crime to ignore an enormous number of incidents due to gender? Cant get my head around this - its apolitical to ignore hundreds of thousands of rapes due to gender, its "politicised" to draw attention to the fact that they are almost entirely absent from public and academic discourse on the issue.
Meerk, I'm not suggesting that rape isn't a tool of humiliation and control by men against women - it very obviously is - but it's used as a similar power device against men.
This isn't to deny gendered experiences - why it happens, how it happens, the societal and personal reactions are different - but to keep the awareness that rape is, at its base, about hatred and humiliation.
The reason you get the simple-minded 'what about the men' cries is because the Guardian in particular will 99% of the time frame rape as a male-on-female issue. 'What about the men?' is a valid question when male rape is ignored, trivialized and cut out of the equation when discussing rape. It's not invalidating gendered experiences, it's about pointing out that by acknowledging that rape is control and our understanding of this is enhanced, not diminished, by acknowledging those of both genders it happens to.
Within the context of CiF, I don't find commenters raising this point typically an attempt to neutralize gendered experience, but shouts of exasperation that, in creating a gendered narrative, 3% of the world's male population ceases to matter. Hang around on CiF waiting for the next article on male rape. It could be a while.
One interesting thing to me, when discussing these very points, was to find that there's an amazing paucity of information on male-on-male rape. Research is surprisingly thin on the ground. As much male rape takes place in prisons, the armed services etc, it's also likely that the incidence of male rape is under-reported perhaps to an even greater extent than with women.
Unwittingly, Bitey/Faux Bitey exemplifies the problem. If we say, as he does, it's barely an issue, what kind of environment is that for survivors to come forward with their experiences? And, with a nod to gendered experiences, with societies that still place a premium on male independence, toughness and emotional containment, how comfortable is it for men to admit to what's happened, and how comfortable is it for other people to listen to it?
its apolitical to ignore hundreds of thousands of rapes due to gender, its "politicised" to draw attention to the fact that they are almost entirely absent from public and academic discourse on the issue.
Not sure what you mean by the first part of that - I'm working on the assumption that male rape is investigated and prosecuted wherever possible, so it's only 'ignored' in the political context. I'm saying that's because there really isn't much of a political dimension to it, it's just a horrible crime.
Whereas male-on-female rape does have a political dimension to it - it relates to the sexualisation of women in the media, to the scepticism accusations are sometimes treated with, to the idea that victims have failed to be sufficiently 'chaste'...none of these things are applied to male victims.
Which is why I don't see what can be gained by bringing male rape into the political sphere - i.e. what can be changed at a societal level to reduce instances of male rape?
The lack of research on any experience of men as victims is dramatic, rapid eddie. I think this is partly because of the difficulty of accessing people who'd be willing to talk.
I've been interested for a while in doing some work around male rape, and a colleague has been trying similarly to look at men's experiences of sexual harrassment. The difficulty is knowing where to even start in accessing the population. For women there are plenty of well established (and appropriately women only) support spaces. Nothing similar, really, for men.
Maybe I should offer to do an article on male rape, just to see what jess et al do.... ?
Sorry, vizzo, but in what sense is there no political dimension to male rape? Unless you're using a very narrow definition of the term 'politics', it's very clearly embedded in a big sociopolitical mess of gender politics, often homophobia, certainly heteronormativity, weird assumptions about male sexuality.... Of course it's political.
i read vizzo's comment as that there is no political "mileage" to be gained from highlighting male rape on political agendas like they do for women...but could be wrong in my interpretation......
I wonder if the 'thoughtful' two-finger cheek-stroking pose is a Klingon-type salute or an ancient masonic code for something very secret?
btw I've felt a bit of a conspiracy theory coming on ever since mardigrasincleethorpes mysteriously disappeared from Cif. It seems that I was right to be suspicious.
The poor little thing was posting like a daemon right up to New Year's Eve and then...plop.
MartyInEwe just seemed to fall off the edge of the world and disappear.
The funny thing is, for all the twelvety gazillion posts he has made over the years, nobody seems to have noticed that he is no longer there or thought to wonder what has become of him.
Perhaps that is what happens when your reputation is just suffused throughout the known universe.
People just think you are always with them - like God, really.
That, or they are glad to see the back of him and the idea that there is any society on CiF beyond JezzeBella and her imaginary friends is jsut complete and utter claptrap.
I think part of the problem (and please don't think I'm blaming men here, because I'm not) is that men are very reluctant to disclose acts of rape, sexual assault, domestic violence against them - there's huge cultural pressure that prevents them from doing so which leaves them in isolated anguish - and yes it is a political issue.
One of the upshots of this is that in comparison with what is known about women - not nearly as much is known about what can happen to men. There have been many fewer studies for example.
I know at least two men who have endured domestic violence from their female partners - one still is. Getting them to recognise and agree that what they are suffering is domestic violence has been almost impossible - they simply refuse to put them selves in that category.
The services for men who are raped and abused are in really short supply too - you only have to look on the net to see the plethora of services for women and the tiny handful there are for men. There are no 24 hour helplines for men in the UK that I'm aware of, for example. It really does need to change - but how to persuade men to disclose?
There was quite a good afternoon play about these issues on R4 on Monday which is worth a listen and a prog in the evening about men who suffer in this way. They'll be up on iplayer if anyone's interested.
i reckon moroseinealing is in self imposed exile...that they had a whip round and got enough 5ps together to send him behind an internet firewall like north korea, alas they hadn't factore into the equation that he will be gathering potential material to bore the shit out of people for eons........
I am not an expert just an interested in insects person.
Some cicadas have a very long life cycle - 17 or 14 years beneath ground for some leaving some years in which there is no above ground activity. Parts of US has suffered losses of these species as building activity has buried the the underground colonies making it impossible for the adults to emerge.
Often these periodic cicadas exist alongside annual types - this explains the apparent 'plague years' when several populations are active above ground at the same time.
I know there is a NZ cicada that operates on a 17 year life cycle - you have now piqued my interest so am off to find out about their Australian cousins.
You have to wonder which one of her advisors thought the 'blood libel' bit was a good idea. The US, as I'm sure everyone knows, has a large and politically well-organised Jewish population. Of course most of them vote Democratic.
On male rape - Sheff, think you are right about it being very difficult for men to speak out about it (and DV).
Getting them to recognise and agree that what they are suffering is domestic violence has been almost impossible - they simply refuse to put them selves in that category.
Am dipping toes into waters I know nothing about, but couldn't this be positive in some cases - as long as they are able to escape the situation? Part of the problem with rape for women is the perception of a raped woman as 'damaged goods' - thankfully far less prevalent today in the West, but still to be seen in a fair few cultures.
So seeing oneself as less a victim and rather as the recipient of the random violence of a nutter removes some of the stigma still attached to rape and DV.
Hope I'm making myself clear on what is obviously a very sensitive subject.
I have only ever discussed in any detail one case of rape against a man - this happened to a friend of mine who was gang raped by men at the age of 17. He had never mentioned it for over 30 years - the night his mother died all his anger and fury spilled out - he told me about it. It has obviously affected him very seriously , his 'shame' gave way to anger and he exploded into a physical anger - breaking things not people I hasten to add.
There are lots of documented cases of boys and teenagers being raped by older men. I think there are several starting places for research - there are also cases of teens who become 'rent boys' for a while and then go on to either marry or develop long term gay partnerships.
Young people - male or female - persuaded/forced into prostitution are often quite wrongly not regarded as victims of rape.
To be seen as 'victim' is to be seen as weak - women for so long seen as the 'weaker vessel' are in many ways more exploitable in terms of violence against them . That women can be hurt, raped etc. - in need of protection - has always been the case and has often - still is - used against them in terms of allowing them personal autonomy and freedom of movement.
Men are strong, self sufficicient etc. - it doesn't suit the social or personal narrative for men to be 'vulnerable' in the same way as women are.
I often keep out of these discussions as I see them as coming from a false premise in many ways.
I was brutalised as a woman cos I married a bastard - his view of his 'rights' over me were strengthened by his received narrative of a 'woman's place'. That is only part of the story - the man was a bully, I was smaller and weaker physically - he needed someone to dominate. Had it not been his wife he would have found someone else to bully.
Problem is Thauma - as Leni shows - the humiliation, shame, anger can have serious long term effects - that frequently interfere with later life and relationships.
Interestingly just been listening to a piece on the news about the Brisbane floods. Eddie Mayer was interviewing a man who was caught up in them - his car was hit by a wall of water and he only barely escaped with his life.
When Mayer suggested he must have been terrified he refused to acknowledge it, saying the Aussies are a tough lot, used to extreme weather. Come on - there must have been a short time when he thought he might well die - don't tell me he wasn't shitting bricks, however briefly but there was no way he'd admit it.
"so it's only 'ignored' in the political context. I'm saying that's because there really isn't much of a political dimension to it"
If a crime is routinely described by media and government as a crime inflicted by men against women, when there is research showing staggering levels of prison rape which are never mentioned - thats an issue isnt it? Ie, its false, massively false. And we would rather grapple with facts rather falsehoods, presumably.
"Whereas male-on-female rape does have a political dimension to it - it relates to the sexualisation of women in the media etc..."
If you believe the primary driver of male-female rape is social problems which can be fixed with the correct re-education then i would say firstly, why are there still enormous levels of male-male rape, which, as you concede, are not caused by any of these political issues?
Secondly, after 30 years of huge work and expense on shifting cultural attitudes on rape and the sexual rights of women, the number of convicted rapes has stayed pretty much the same for that period. The problem hasnt been fixed, or even improved (procedures, police sensitivity etc - yes, but the level of rape doesnt seem to have dropped, which is the primary aim).
"what can be changed at a societal level to reduce instances of male rape?"
Again, this assumes male-female rape can be significantly improved by social changes and efforts. I've seen no evidence of this improvement and the stats are on my side i believe, after 30 years of a lot of work on the issue.
If we rid ourselves (somehow) of these sexist attitudes to women which we have so far been unable to, then presumably the level of rape will fall to that currently seen in the non-political sphere of male-male rape.
Thats still a hell of a lot of rape. Which makes me think that rape is less *political* than many would claim. Thats the relevance of male-male rape figures.
As for "trivialising" - it makes no difference to Jenny Smith whether her rape was 80% "political" or 10%, the crime is the same, and its certainly not lessened.
Leni - you have expressed what I was trying to say, only much more clearly. I am sorry that you had the misfortune to marry a bastard, but you are mentally stronger than he could ever imagine being (and I expect he knew it, hence the need to bully).
a question you can tell me to sod off for being nosey... why stadio flaminio????
have you tried sleazy jet...they fly from gatwick they were doing offers...can't remember if it finishes today or finished yesterday...also slyan air fly once a day....
Problem is Thauma - as Leni shows - the humiliation, shame, anger can have serious long term effects - that frequently interfere with later life and relationships.
Absolutely; I didn't mean to imply otherwise; I'm just expressing myself badly.
As Leni said: "To be seen as 'victim' is to be seen as weak". This is a problem for women in that women are inherently physically weaker, on average, than men, and thus will internalise weakness.
It's also a serious problem for men, as being seen as weak is probably more traumatic than it is for a woman, since men are all supposed to be big, strong hunters who can keep everyone safe.
Jay, maybe you have been polarised, but you must know that although many men have been raped, very, very few men fear that it's going to happen to them. (Unless they are in prison.)
I really don't understand why you shout against any woman who talks about the likelihood of her being raped and the chances of her getting a case brought to court, let alone a conviction.
Meerkatjie "it's so bloody hard for women to achieve in politics in the UK, at least partly because they're always fighting the spectre of Thatcher, in one way or another."
Well, I am sure that she has some part to play, but then you also have to consider: Anne Widdecombe, Theresa May, Hazel Blears, Edwina Currie, Tessa Jowell...
Gandolfo - rugby! But if it's in the sort of area you wouldn't want to stay in, that's valuable info too!
Tried EasyJet but not sure if from Gatwick - Gatwick nightmare to get to from here. RyanAir had some purported offers but when you added in all their sneaky little hidden extras, came to within 20 quid or something of BA.
That it's still such a taboo subject for blokes is a real problem though. Its not the kind of thing men are prepared to disclose to a mate down the pub is it? There'll never be either the understanding or the support thats needed unless we have a clearer picture about what's actually going on.
well it's a bit of a bugger to get to roman public transport it a very distant twin of london......but it's cheap €1.00 valid for 75mins one tube journey and as many buses as you want..
I'm the other side of rome and have a nice B&b close by....near to a huge park...but anyways...
the nearest metro to stadio flaminio is lepanto then bus...i'll do some digging for B&Bs...
i'd go for BA if its only £20 squid at least you get a coffee and biscuit........get a flight that arrives early evening as public transport from the airport disappears after 10.30pm....!
But my point was that it is not just that Thatcher throws a shadow over women politicians. There are plenty of awful ones as well as some decent ones, just like the men. It is reality that throws the shadow. Before Thatcher it could be (and was) claimed that women politicians were somehow better, fairer, less violent and agressive...he he he...
It was really interesting to see my liberal feminist American friends getting excited about the prospect of Hilary Clinton as President a while back, when to me she looks like a swivel eyed loon only slightly preferable to Bush.
We are more aware of male/female rape but that should not invalidate a discussion of male/male rape.
Although I imagine that some of the 'what about the menz' crew might find it a difficult subject for reasons already rehearsed above.
jay has a point it needs to be discussed more but this does not invalidate dealing with it separately if it can be shown to involve different issues related to gender. personal/societal expectations of gender roles.
annetan, have never understood the argument that rape is about power, I have to say. Of course power comes into it. And *sometimes* it is about power, expressing dominance etc. But mostly it is surely about sexual desire.
To say it is about power seems to me like saying that mugging people is about power. You need physical power to be a successful mugger,certainly, but most muggers are after the wallet or the mobile phone, any buzz they get from physically dominating their victim is surely secondary.
Joan Lestor was my old MP in Slough. She had a face that was born to look cross at National Executive Committee meetings. The word 'doughty' was invented just to describe her. And her horny-handed sons-and-daughters-of-toil voters would follow her to the ends of the earth.
My dad made it very simple for me. "Son," he'd say (he wasn't great with names), "The Tories wouldn't piss on you. Remember that." As an immigrant Irish family, we noticed that Labour had names like Callaghan and Healey and the Tories...didn't.
Lestor was one of those MPs that if you went to with a problem, you felt that she'd be ripping someone a fresh one the next day to get it sorted. Strangely, I heard similar things from Catholics who had been voters in Ian Paisley's constituency. Didn't matter what your race or religion you were, these were people who got things done for you. The weaker your voice was, the more you needed a strong one on your behalf.
The only thing that remains from those days is a common loathing of the Tories by many working class people. It ain't because your local Labour MP has life-long commitment to your area and people.
Habib - responses and attitudes like that, *that* is my bugbear. Not the crime, and certainly not the people who've endured it.
"maybe you have been polarised, but you must know that although many men have been raped, very, very few men fear that it's going to happen to them."
Agreed, but that doesnt affect the points made above.
"I really don't understand why you shout against any woman who talks about the likelihood of her being raped and the chances of her getting a case brought to court, let alone a conviction."
I dont "shout" at anyone, i dont even use the dreaded CAPITALS. What i have objected to is knowingly dishonest stats, primarily. And after years of comments like yours above, the Stern review came out and said the exact same thing re attrition/conviction.
The other things i have objected to are attempts to change the fundamentals of our legal system for this one crime only - like reducing the burden of proof. I have objected to the notion that an accusation is as good as a crime committed, for this crime only. I have objected to the idea that "innocent until proven guilty" should be abandoned for this one crime only.
I have no interested in seeing rapists walk free, and have never subscribed to any "she's asking for it" attitude or anything which puts blame for a rape anywhere other than the rapist.
All of the above seem to me pretty straightforward views.
All of them very different but equally tough, successful post 1945 Labour Women MP's who stood on their own two feet in the PLP and made their voices heard.
Peter B was in pre-mod and walked off completely in high dudgeon (but has left the door semi-open to a return). Meerk was in pre-mod but, after some persistent enquiries, was told it was all a teddible mistake. Jay's serving the tail-end of a month's ban for being Jay.
"jay has a point it needs to be discussed more but this does not invalidate dealing with it separately if it can be shown to involve different issues related to gender. personal/societal expectations of gender roles."
Hi Annetan (hope you're well) - i dont think there are no gendered differences, there are quite a few, in attitudes to victims and reasons for committing the crime etc. Important differences at that. And there are political aspects to it in that clearly a significant chunk of male-female rapes will hinge on attitudes which fall under the political sphere.
My point is that i dont believe the crime to be as political as claimed, and its basically claimed to be a 100% political crime that we can "end" with the right social policies. Thats what i disagree with.
And i cant help but think that without our overseers clinging to the '100% political' doctrine, other types of rape that dont fit the mould would be treated more seriously.
Male rape stats - I have some actual ones before me and as some of you know/might hav eguessed, I've worked in the domestic & sexual violence abuse field. As has Montana, btw, so her take on this issue is framed in part by practice.
I can't disclose the source of my data, naturally, but in this data, men reported between 5%-4% of all rapes over a 3 year period.
No gender disaggregated data on this, but I was shaken by the figures for one year, when 8% of reported rapes were made by people with learning difficulties and 17% reported by people with mental health issues.
Also, hate crimes against LGBT people can often involve sexual assault, which is rarely reported.
gandolfo "really? where did you get that idea from?"
Are you serious? Where did I get the idea that forced sex was sexual in nature? Um... let me thing about it.
And why is the comparison with mugging bizarre? I was not comparing them in terms of trauma or seriousness, simply pointing out that in order to commit a mugging or a rape the mugger or rapist needs to have more power than their victim.
But that this does not mean the motivation of the crime is primarily about asserting power over someone else.
These things are actually so obvious that it seems more than a bit ludicrous even having to argue about them. But the idea that "rape is about power" seems to have become some sort of holy writ that even intelligent people subscribe to.
But why they do just mystifies me when it is so bloody obvious that most rape is about the desire for sex.
I think its a much more interesting debate than is assumed, Spencer, Pinker is worth reading on the issue. I also find the idea strange that sex and power are entirely distinct, they arent at all - to have either a dominating or submissive element to sexual desire is exceptionally common in men and women both; ie power differentials are quite a big part of sex.
I can't agree with that at all spencer. Using your prick as a weapon and raping someone is absolutely not about desire - it is an attempt at achieving some power, it is a violent invasion of another persons autonomy, about humiliating the person to whom you are doing it, punishing them through fear, hatred and anger.
The fact that the act happens to be a sexual one is only relevant in so far as it is a truly terrible thing that one person can do to another in terms of the potential for physical, psychological and emotional damage.
Sheff "Using your prick as a weapon and raping someone is absolutely not about desire - it is an attempt at achieving some power"
See, the trouble is that that is an assertion. You don't produce any evidence for this being the motivation of the rapist, which is surely what matters.
And if the guy is going to use his prick that way he has to be aroused, which is forgive me... hard evidence that sexual desire is a central component.
I agree with Jay that the distinction is not that clear cut. And as I said originally I do agree that there are cases where power is clearly the main motivation. Though even then if it is penile rape sexual desire has to be present or it is not going to work.
But there are many, many rape cases where it seems abundantly clear that what happened was some man wanted to have sex and either did not accept that no meant no or did not care whether the person they were raping was consenting.
Well, you need to convince a jury "beyond reasonable doubt" for all crimes. With no witnesses i would hope there was a higher threshold for this crime than DD or driving with mobile as its a far more serious crime with far longer sentences.
Wrong there is the same threshold for all crimes, it's just that rape is almost alone in there frequently being little independent evidence, human or non-human. This is why I've always advocated a different approach to rape trials - an Inquisitorial as opposed to the current Adversarial system.
You say of my comment:
"it is likely that there have been very few convictions where the convicted did not commit rape."
Pointless comment. The fact remains, a conviction is plainly not *proof* an event took place, for this or any other crime.
Jay, in the country where you live, if there is evidence that large, or even small numbers of people are being convicted for crimes they did not commit, there would be outrage in the media, MPs demanding enquiries, and so on.
It is only pointless to someone who wants to suggest that large numbers of accused are being either falsely accused or falsely convicted.
And as rape victims are predominently female, your attitude is pointedly sexist.
But there are many, many rape cases where it seems abundantly clear that what happened was some man wanted to have sex and either did not accept that no meant no or did not care whether the person they were raping was consenting.
As always, Bitey, what makes you tiresome to debate is your stupidity.
In the quote, it makes clear the legal requirement for all crimes is the same. What i meant was a jury will, unquestionably, be less willing to convict a rapist if there is doubt than they would be for much lesser crimes. In theory they shouldnt, in practice they will, same goes for murder.
Your second point is, as usual, seriously lacking in logic - in short, it doesnt make sense. I sincerely hope you are not, at your age, so thick as to be seriously arguing that a conviction is *proof* of a crime. I'm guessing you're neither a scientist nor a mathematician...
As for your laughably tenuous link to this being "sexist", you have ignored some crucial words in my comment - that this applies to every crime, not just rape.
Now, if you have nothing of intelligence to say, whatsoever, its best to be quiet.
Sheff, no. I don't think so. It is about wanting to have sex and not giving a fuck about what anyone else wants.
As I have said right from the start, without power differentials you would not have a problem because rape would be impossible, as would mugging, as would murder. But if you mug someone because you want their rolex that is not *about* power unless we are using about in different senses.
Which I guess we might be.
Where I take exception to the idea of rape not being about power is that the whole slogan is "rape is not about sex, it is about power."
So it is the not about sex bit, rather than the about power bit, that seems absurd to me, really. To be fair to Annetan she did not say "rape is not about sex," though, so I might have been misinterpreting her point.
"Where did I get the idea that forced sex was sexual in nature? Um... let me thing about it."
because i don't consider rape to be "mostly" motivated by sexual desire unlike yourself spencer, because i believe rape is about exerting power using sexual violence...call me old fashioned
jay "ie power differentials are quite a big part of sex"
yeah of course it's normal when it's consensual .....rape isn't consensual
I am being really fick... I am holding my hand up and admitting that your signing off as
Ploz. stumped me... can you explain?? :)
Scherfig:
I really wish I'd not seen that picture of MIE (sorry can't think of any hilarious variation on his name!) I've been pissing myself laughing at each incarnation....
Thauma:
They could use that video of Sarah Palin to terrify small children with!! I couldn't get to the end, it turned my stomach.
"yeah of course it's normal when it's consensual .....rape isn't consensual"
Exactly - it isnt consensual, so the power issue is enormous. My point is that sex and power are not usually alien to one another, they are very close bedfellows. That is why i find it odd to argue whether it is *either* about sex or power, if some people find power (domination) a big part of their sexual preference. The two issues are heavily interlinked in normal sex, and even more so in rape.
sorry spencer I still don't get where you're coming from
You say of course it is about power in that sense. so we're agreed about that.
Rape is an act of violence - sexual yes but a it remains a violent intrusion, enforcing one's will over an unwilling other. I think it's more about the power than the desire for a fuck. Look at it from the point of view of the unwilling other - rather than the perpetrator.
We're not talking about power relations in consensual sex though are we? We're talking about violent assault upon an unconsenting person which is completely different. I think there's a risk of blurring the issues here.
Jay - it seems to me that the gendered differences are:
men less likely to think they might be raped. women routinely avoid lonely places at night, they are more conscious of the possibility. (This difference might be because of social attitudes of course.
The reasons why men don't want to report are different, to do with a man's self image rape could be said to 'unman him'?
Women don't report rape because They don't expect to be believed They may feel they are 'soiled goods' (more often in traditional rather than western cultures)
These are just suggestions - would value comments especially about male attitudes - after all I'm not a man!
Sheff, look at it this way. I have known loads of men who both seethed with sexual desire and had pretty rudimentary ideas about what women meant when they said no, or who did not really think of women as people capable of saying no.
For example with the attitude that if a girl had had sex and was therefore "a slag" then she could have no reasonable reason for refusing any other guy. Now you would seem to be suggesting that they would then force themselves on that girl primarily because they wanted to express their power over women or contempt for them.
Whereas it seems to me that they would do it, first and foremost, because they wanted a shag, and thought that she had no right to refuse them. Ditto much marital rape, date rape etc.
What you do not seem to be acknowledging is that many men are incredibly horny a lot of the time. And if they are, then they will look for a way to slake that lust. Having power and wanting to express it may come into the equation but it is not the driving force.
At least it would seem to me to be astonishing if lust were not often the driving force, given that so many men spend so much time subject to it. What the power and the regressive attitudes do is give them the ability and the permission (in their heads) to commit rape. But the motivation must be sexual or else you need to explain why, given that level of sexual desire, it is not a factor.
Let me put it another way. Given the level of sexual desire that most men experience, how could sex possibly not be a major motivation for sexual assault?
And please note I am not confusing "motivation" with "justification" here (I usually get accused of that at some point).
also by saying rape is mostly about sexual desire is a way of almost finding an excuse for the rapist giving biology the fault rather than the perpetrator ..."well i got the horn couldn't help it,i was full of testosterone, it was me hormones, had to relieve myself blah blah blah...."
LaRit polz is well.....polz ya know polly (see yesterdays thread)
Sheff - there is no blur between sex and rape, one is consensual, one isnt. I am saying the idea that forcing unconsensual sex on someone can only be about power *or* sex doesnt make much sense, it could quite obviously be about both as they are not unrelated.
I've never fully grasped where the insistence that rape is not *at all* about sex comes from. It not only seems counter-intuitive but I dont see what relevance it would have either way to either the policing or treatment of rapists and their victims. Rape is rape whether it was about power or sex, or both. It makes no difference to the victim what the motivation is.
So far none of the blokes have had anything directly to say about their feelings regarding being raped or how they'd feel about disclosing, although us women have been talking about it. It would be very interesting to hear your views guys.
Can't agree Jay - there's a million miles of difference. Simply to say one is consensual and the other isn't is to completely fail to understand the impact of rape and what it means to the person who has suffered it.
gandolfo "also by saying rape is mostly about sexual desire is a way of almost finding an excuse for the rapist"
Oh for fuck's sake! At least I predicted it.
motivation is not justification. How clear can I say it. I might want someone's money. I might feel I really, really, need it. But that does not make it alright for me to kill them and steal it.
Nothing whatsoever that I said can be honestly held to justify rape.
Sheff, I haven't been raped so have not much to contribute except that I agree with Habib's point earlier that most of us do not fear rape which no doubt makes our perspective different to that of many women.
"Simply to say one is consensual and the other isn't is to completely fail to understand the impact of rape and what it means to the person who has suffered it."
It wasnt supposed to be a comprehensive analysis, was just saying i am not arguing for a "blur" between sex and rape, which you said i was in danger of doing.
Actually, when it comes to fear of rape I did use to fear prison quite a lot when I was young and pretty but now I am old and fat, not so much (because I think its mostly sexually motivated).
Spencer, you seem to be missing the violence of rape completely from your account. The conflation of violence / power/ sex is the point. Yes, of course it's a sex act, but you can't distinguish the sex act from the violence that attends it, and that sense it is first and foremost about violence. The thrill - the sexual gratification - is about having forced someone into it.
"It would be very interesting to hear your views guys." What do you want us to say, Sheff? That we can understand that level of fear? That we would be tough enough to fight back? That we would just get on with things?
Don't fall for the bullshit, sheff, rape, or the idea of it, is not a thing many men will ever think about.
"The thrill - the sexual gratification - is about having forced someone into it."
This is what i have been trying to say. If the forceful/power/violent aspect is itself *sexually gratifying*, then how can it make sense to argue about whether rape is about either sex OR power?
But as i said above, i dont see what particular relevance it has to the treatment of the crime, the criminal or the victim regardless.
I feel like i'm speaking a different language here so am going to leave it there for the night, see you all tomorrow.
I haven't been raped so have not much to contribute except that I agree with Habib's point earlier that most of us do not fear rape which no doubt makes our perspective different to that of many women
I think what would be interesting would be a male take on why men are so reluctant to disclose. So far the women on here have just been speculating based on some generalisations around being 'unmanned', an unwillingness to appear weak and/or vulnerable etc. But we're not blokes so how would we actually know, beyond using our imaginations.
What those who think rape is purely about power need to explain is this:
if you agree that many men spend a considerable time being very horny,
and if you agree that many of them have at most a rudimentary understanding of the right of women to choose if, where, when, and who with they have sex (and indeed some societies are less than clear on that issue)
If you agree with those two propositions, then how can it possibly be that there are no rapes that are motivated primarily by the desire to have penetrative sex?
well actually I didn't accuse you of justifying anything spencer
my point was saying that rapists often use sexual desire (she/he led me on he/she was being sexually provocative) as motivation and justifications for what they have done rather than saying that they wanted to exert power, dominance over someone, humiliate them, express hate towards them, degrade them, violate their being, terrorise them etc
Sheff "But we're not blokes so how would we actually know, beyond using our imaginations."
Well, I think the differences are much exaggerated by both sides. Though I think fear of rape may be a serious difference.
But my guess is the experience of it, being rendered helpless and terrified and humiliated, along with physical pain and disgust, would be much the same whatever the gender of the victim.
gandolfo "my point was saying that rapists often use sexual desire (she/he led me on he/she was being sexually provocative) as motivation"
OK, sorry if I misinterpreted you there. But this is interesting because you seem to be saying that what the rapists themselves say is their motivation does not count. Why not?
CiF - as Bitey/Faux Bitey does - typically tries to frame the debate absolutely along male-on-female gender lines.
Had I done so I'd have used the term exclusively, rather than "almost exclusively". Please try to understand.
You illustrate precisely the point that flaneuse makes and of course where a man is the victim of rape it is almost always another man who is the rapist.
Habib. That is true but it is also true that many men simply feel that they have a right to sex, so why should they pay.
Why should the marital rapist who believes (and in many cultures has legal and societal back up for that belief) that his wife is his to fuck when he wants go and pay a prostitute?
Why should the schoolboys who think Shazza is a slag and thus has lost her right to say no to them save up their pocket money?
Why should the half drunk date rapist who has paid for a meal for and (in his head) has already paid one woman for sex go and pay another?
If rape was just about power (completely divorced from desire etc), you'd assume that the power differential had to be 'known' by both parties, right!?
(ie, I'm exerting my power/control over you, and you knowing this is what counts, the 'point', for want of a better word!)
If that is the case, then the whole 'date rape' phenomenon raises interesting questions, doesn't it??
Meerkatjie "You honest to god can't see how this is a statement about power?"
Have you honest to god not read any of my earlier posts?
Unlike the people who are saying that it is only about power I have consistently acknowledged that power is a factor. As I said to Sheff earlier it rather depends what you take "about" to mean.
So I have tried to be clear and talked about motivation being often and largely sexual desire. As I have already said several times if there is no power differential then no one would be able to to rape anyone else because they would not have the ability to do so.
That power is a prerequisite does not make it the motivation though, does it?
Spencer, I don't think rape is 'purely' about power. By that I mean, it's not its sole component. Most women are raped by people they know and you can speculate that a long-standing sexual desire has existed prior to the rapes.
But that doesn't explain, for example, the well-documented rape of men in the Congo by rebel forces - the so-called 'bush wives' as they're known. In war, rape is a method of degradation and a signal of complete control.
Or the rape of elderly women. Is that an expression of desire?
It seems to me that rape isn't purely or exclusively about power, but it is always about power.
speaking for meself i was contesting your view spencer which was "most rapes come from sexual desire"
i said that i didn't agree and that i thought it was (mostly) power.....
what about rape as a weapon in war..why do men that have never raped become rapists during wartime...? heightened sexual desire....? i don't think so......
do men's motivations-justifications count? not if they think it's their bloody right to rape women because they took them out to dinner, bought them a box of choccies, "treated" them good etc etc no it's not accepted by society as being a legitimate reason and motivation to have violent non consensual intercourse it only counts to expose them as not fit to participate in society if that's their warped view......
Anyone who's ever been a 17 year old male knows what it feels like when all the blood vacates your brain, leaving it on standby, and migrates south. It's very hard to imagine that this feeling doesn't play a big part in what rapists think before they act.
I think maybe others here are thinking about what the act symbolises, or how you can interpret it after the event, whereas Spencer's on about what actually motivates a rapist.
I've never met a feminist who doesn't think rape a sexual act and an act of power - and that's how I've read all the other responses on this thread, Spencer. Whilst there might have been the odd feminist in the 80s who thought it was *only* about power, I don't think that's a majority or even a common opinion in feminist writing on the subject of rape. Certainly not anymore.
I'm left puzzled as to quite what it is that you're trying to argue to be honest. But rape isn't one of those issues I particularly enjoy playing semantic games about, so I reckon I'll leave you to it.
"I think maybe others here are thinking about what the act symbolises, or how you can interpret it after the event, whereas Spencer's on about what actually motivates a rapist. "
Perhaps, but what little research there is on perpetrator's perspectives sees the two as fundamentally entwined.
MsChin "exercise self-control or be subject to social control."
Prescriptions for behaviour are something else. I was talking about what seems to me to be the situation, not what should be done about it. But it seems to me that to tackle the problem a realistic understanding of its causes is essential (whoever is right about the motivation).
But the point is in many if not most societies through history, rapists were not necessarily subject to social control at all (unless they chose the "wrong" victim). Rape within marriage only became an offence in the UK in 1991 and is still legal in many countries.
My argument is not that this is OK, but the opposite. I am suggesting that we live in a sexist World that has only recently, and in a very piecemeal way, come to see women as fully autonomous humans.
That a lot of sexist men hate women and might vent that hatred in rape I do not dispute for a moment, or that this might sometimes be primarily a power thing - the example of war that Meerkatjie gave is one, frustrated men who feel like failures or feel that women have some sort of hold over them might rape to try to achieve a feeling of power and control, certainly.
But if we do live in a deeply sexist and unequal world (and I would suggest that that is a no brainer). And if there are men in that world who are lustful and not particularly well socialised, surely it is inevitable that they will rape for sexual gratification?
What we need is a society where everyone grows up learning that everyone else is an autonomous person with every right to say no to them.
I don't think that the argument I am making in any way excuses rapists. I don't believe that men cannot control themselves (though it is certainly true that many believe that they cannot). I just think that the argument that "rape is about power" is a political slogan that has become holy writ.
But is not actually true. At least not much of the time.
My point is that i dont believe the crime to be as political as claimed, and its basically claimed to be a 100% political crime that we can "end" with the right social policies.
I don’t think anyone says that we can end it or that it’s 100% political. But it is more politically charged than other crimes - the way the crime is perceived by juries, judges and the public is bound to have an impact on the verdicts reached, as so often it boils down to one word against another with rape. If the prevailing attitude - in the media, in politics - is that women regularly make up allegations, then the chances are that more rapists walk away.
The failure to meaningfully reduce rape stats as proof that gendered politics are useless is a bit of a red herring argument. It’s possible that more cases are reported and less rapes are committed, the two cancelling each other out...?
But even if not, then all we can do is make the judicial system as unbiased as possible and dish out stiff sentences - all the tools at our disposal, really. Historically the system has been biased towards men So now there’s an effort to redress that by pushing in the other direction, that seems reasonable to me.
But I also understand where you’re coming from - if you go too far the other way, then you give half the population a potent means to ruin other people’s lives by just saying the word. It’s a difficult one...
Blurgh, can anyone explain the appeal of a disgusting bloody film like 'Crank 2'? I've had to leave the room it's so hideous. Can still hear the squelching sounds of death and violence from the dining room, and it's still making me feel a bit sick.
Meerkatjie "What are you actually basing this view on?"
Logic. If lots of men feel horny, and some feel that they have a right to gratify their lust whether or not their partner is consenting, then it seems to me to be inevitable that there will be rapes motivated by sexual desire.
I note that no one has even attempted to explain how this could not be the case, given those two conditions. Nor has anyone disputed that horny men and a sexist society do in fact exist.
I must admit i used to have difficulty getting my head around the idea that a man who is genuinely straight could rape another man.But there is a link between sex and violence with SOME men which combined with their sadistic need to hurt,humiliate and control their victims makes it easier to accept they could potentially target male as opposed to female victims.
I read an article once about male rape in the American prison system and the power dynamic was clearly significant.For the men who raped didn't see it as being in any way compromising their 'straight' masculinity.Whereas the men who got raped were seen as no longer being 'real men' even if the odds against them had made it impossible for them to resist being raped.Plus those men who were either openly gay, perceived to be gay or in any way effeminate were the ones who were most often subjected to the most brutal rapes and thereafter just viewed as being a commodity to be bought and sold within the prison population.
And i think that probably explains why straight men in particular don't report being raped because in many peoples eyes true masculinity is tied up with being straight.Therefore straight men who are raped may have their masculinity as well as their sexuality questioned.Whereas gay men who are raped may be accused of either enjoying it or encouraging it.
meerkatjie never seen or heard of "Crank2" let alone crank1...! i've totally given up watch gratuitous violence films....there's already too much violence in the world without them producing fake stuff in order to try and make the real violence ultimately seem fake....
"If lots of men feel horny, and some feel that they have a right to gratify their lust whether or not their partner is consenting, then it seems to me to be inevitable that there will be rapes motivated by sexual desire."
And again, you can't see how that perception of a 'right' hinges on the power dynamic - the motivation is about ownership. MINE. I FUCK.
I mean, realistically, a lot of sex involves power play - that's built into the who dominance submission interplay of who's on top and who's doing what to whom. Rape is a hideous caricature of that.
I completely agree, gandolfo. I just noticed I was getting massively grumpy sitting in the lounge while this orgy of violence was going on on the screen, and realised that, even though I wasn't watching it, it was seriously winding me up.
Meerkatjie "And again, you can't see how that perception of a 'right' hinges on the power dynamic - the motivation is about ownership. MINE. I FUCK."
How do you get from the power to do something to the motivation to do it. Do you think everything that you do (which by necessity you must have the power to do or you would not be able to do it) you do because you are motivated to express that power?
Presumably you do not eat when you are hungry but because you have the power to get food?
Power is a prequisite but it does not logically follow that it is the motivation.
Of course it may be which I have said all along.
And, by the way, you do not need to tell me that sex involves power play. I am a sadomasochist.
Apols for being so lame in this debate, rape is not about sex, only about power, the difficulty is that from the Congo to the prisons of the UK and US to the brutal public schools of this country, rape is an act, only committed by men. And therein lies the rub.
No, your posts aren't invisible, Spencer, it's just difficult to discern quite what you think you're arguing.
I saw your post. I toyed with painstakingly explaining why a single line from La Rit wasn't really evidence that all or most feminists thought that rape wasn't a sexual act of violence. But I thought it was rather obvious, and that you might get there by yourself.
sexual act of power and violence, that should have read. My point from the start of this discussion is that, in rape, the issue of sex and power can't be separated out.
"Perhaps, but what little research there is on perpetrator's perspectives sees the two as fundamentally entwined."
I've just read all this..but since...if there's so little research on the perpetrator's perspective..or motivation...why is the 'power formulation' so widely accepted?..in fact that's not true..it's more than accepted...it's a general 'truism'? Surely what's needed is more research? It wouldn't even be hard. If all convicted rapists were asked to fill in a multiple choice questionnaire, you might soon have an answer..provided they didn't already think that the power explanation would buy them quicker remission as the 'desired outcome' of the researcher. I'm pretty sure most criminals know what they're expected to say and respond accordingly...they certainly seem pretty clued up on which answers correspond to the accepted theories and so will win them most brownie points...they're not generally as stupid as is supposed, whatever the figures on learning difficulties among the prison population etc.
I wouldn't reject it entirely..but neither can I fully accept it. In common with most men, I'm quite a bit larger, more powerful and I'd say..if pushed..more aggressive than most women..but that's something I know intrinsically..fundamentally...ultimately it's basic biology and physics...it's not something I have a 'position' on, take pride in or feel isn't sufficiently acknowledged ...the fact doesn't excite or arouse me...why would it..and why would I try to prove the fact?..what would I be proving?
It's got be something else...misogyny?...sexual desire?..If it was purely about power..or even largely about power..why would it manifest itself sexually?...why wouldn't a rapist motivated purely by power spend his time kicking or lording it over hamsters, or kids, or men smaller or weaker than himself instead?
It's surely to do with sexual desire, a pathological rejection of social norms and a degree of low self-esteem or self-loathing. Maybe even thrill seeking or an adrenaline thing?
Crank 1 & 2 are both ludicrously offensive films, with a flimsy premise, ridiculously over-the-top action and brutal violence with little or no regard for basic human decency.
Every instance of rape can be seen and understood as an exercise of power over someone. I think that's (maybe) what meerkat means by saying the two are inextricable, and in that context I'd agree.
If the point is that rapists are solely motivated (separately from how their acts are perceived) by the exercise of power, then I'd disagree. For the reasons you state.
Here, a qual study about the beliefs that support sexually violent behavior. You'll only be able to see the article if you have an athens account, but the abstract is reasonable:
"A qualitative analysis of interview data with 41 rapists determined that five implicit theories (ITs) underlie rapists’ offense supportive beliefs/feelings/motives: (a) dangerous world (DW)—where men have feelings of generalized anger and/or resentment toward others; (b) women are dangerous—where men hold a set of attitudes that are hostile toward women; (c) women as sexual objects (WSO)—where women are seen as primarily sexual objects; (d) male sex drive is uncontrollable—where sexual urges are seen all consuming; (e) entitlement—where men feel that they can do exactly what they want."
http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/21/12/1635.short
This article suggests a tiny minority of sex offender profiles link motive to rape to sexual gratification. The other three types - sadistic, opportunistic (mostly about impulse control) and the controlling type are about power....
Even with the compensatory sexual type, anger is exhibited when victims resist - something that suggests that docile compliance is what they want, and that power, therefore, remains a core component.
I could go on, but I suspect it's reasonably clear that the balance of both mainstream and more critical literature suggests the intertwining of sex and power in the production of rape behaviour.
Been observing the debate, on and off (whilst simultaneously assisting someone with coursework & proofreading something else), and have to say that an inter-disciplinary approach may elicit more about the issues. We're silo'd in our worldviews.
homosexual rape as well as rape against women as a weapon of war has been used for ever.
the sexual humiliation of detainees in AbuGraib prison is said to be part of a deliberate pentagon policy to weaken the resistance of male prisoners by breaking their sense of masculinity. A book written by Raphael Patel in the 50s "The ArabMind" is said to be required reading for some military guys in US.
Patai wrote that in Arab and Turkish culture an aggressive homosexual act (rape) in no way diminished the masculinity of the rapist but did in fact enhance the aggressive 'manly' self whereas the compliant, passive recipient - or victim- of the act was totally diminished both personally and socially.
Patai has been discredited by many as he was seen to have an agenda which sought to diminish Arab men - P. was an Israeli - and it is possible that as a man he was projecting his own fears and prejudices. P was also a Freudian who believed that all people were in fact bisexual by nature.
There seems little doubt that the crimes in Abu Graib and elsewhere were designed to weaken the detainees and break their sense of themselves as men with personal agency. The question arises - and I have seen nothing written on this - did the men and women involved in the sexual humiliation of prisoners get a sexual 'kick' from their behaviour?
The raping of women in war has been interpreted in several ways - one being the straight power thing - we do it because we can - the humiliation of the male enemy and the leaving behind of ones offspring within the hated enemy society.
Well, I'm no expert on the subject but given that "Sheff" asked for a male perspective, here's my two penneth. I can only speak for myself but I agree with "Heyhabib" in that most men don't even contemplate being the victims of rape let alone being the perpertrators of what I consider the most vile and heinous of crimes.
As far as I'm concerned, the motivation is irrelevant; it's just plain wrong and totally reprehensible.
At the risk of muddying the water even further, we have all (male and female) been metaphorically raped by the corruption in the banking system.
Just a thought and it wasn't meant to belittle any of the above comments.
BTW: Spencer mentioned that he was a "sado-masochist" which might explain why his "angle" is slightly skewed.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with "sado-masochism" because from what I can gather it is a consensual activity.
Anyway, I wasn't going to post but my opinion was asked for so there you have it.
I would be interested in the views of the men here on this.
as a woman I see the military as a 'macho' enhancing organisation and wonder if rape or other acts of sexual violence and humiliation are seen by many within the military as being 'ok' when it is their guys doing it as it might suggest an enhanced masculinity . It wouls , in that context, be seen as degrading and debauched if practiced by the enemy against our 'own' men and women.
Sex as a weapon is about both sexual activity and power - perhaps other things too.
Yes, Spencer is an author, IIRC, who writes about SM; meerkatjie is a psychologist; Paul is right about prison culture - we all have different 'takes' on rape.
Is rape a heinous crime if it is your absolute & firm belief that raping a virgin will cure you of HIV? Or that you have an absolute right to rape your wife because your faith tells you that this is right & proper? This shifts the debate, inter alia, to one of rights.
I'd like to thank all the blokes here for contributing so much tonight. It's been very interesting and I would like to have contributed more ... but family came first, as per.
@Ca1eb:
ReplyDeleteWell, I hope you're happy. I took a look at that thread about how hostile Cif is towards women and ended up reading the whole damn thing. So much I wanted to say to so many people.
I'm not sure if you're still perplexed about your exchange with flaneuse, but here's my take on it:
Her original point was not that men should "come to the rescue", but merely that sometimes she would like to see a few men call some of the other men out on their sexism rather than obsessively blasting the ATL writer over something relatively minor that might not have been expressed very well.
The point being (I think), that when men who say they're not sexist ignore sexist BTL comments from men while they're ripping the ATL writer to shreds, it tends to give the impression of not being particularly offended at best and tacit approval at worst. I can think of very few instances where I've seen a male Ciffer call another man out for a sexist remark.
On the other hand, there are quite a few feminist women posters on Cif (including me, when I was more active over there) who make a point of calling out women for sexist or outright misandrist comments. One of the reasons I do it is because I think it's important to remind men that the Bindels, Bidishas and Angie124s are not representative of most feminists. The other reason I do it is to inform the Angie124s that they are not representative of most feminists and that they tend to do feminism more harm than good.
So that's all it really boils down to, I think (obviously I'm speculating and projecting a bit*) -- just a desire to see a few men calling out other men for sexist remarks from time to time.
But I don't think you were out of order with her and I didn't really get the feeling that she did, either.
*That is what it's called, isn't it -- when you attribute to someone else attitudes/desires that you, yourself have -- projection? I only ever took two psych courses and I walked out on the 2nd one when the prof said that women who dress in short skirts were asking to be raped. I decided I'd rather fail the course.
BTW -- was I the only person who assumed that flaneuse was lagrandflaneuse under a slightly different name?
ReplyDeleteApparently, they're totally different women. I just looked at the profiles, thinking that LGF had been banned or something silly like that and came back as just-plain-flaneuse.
I don't recall ever seeing just-plain-flaneuse before.
I'll admit to not having read the whole CiF thread, but I agree with Montana 100% on her point that those who don't call others on their sexist remarks are complicit.
ReplyDeleteI seem to remember flaneuse, don't think she's new to CiF, just appears to comment mainly on certain issues.
And I too would have walked out of a lectture which blamed women's behaviour or dress for sexual violence against them.
Morning, Montana.
ReplyDeleteDo not really look at CiF any more, so cannot really comment on your first point, although we should all stand up and point when we see aliens in the room.
As to the prof - surely, he was trying to foster debate by being provocative? Or just plain crazy, maybe.
Meanwhile, in other news:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8254165/Joanna-Yeatess-killer-could-have-avoided-CCTV.html
Joanna Yeates's killer 'could have avoided CCTV'
The killer of Joanna Yeates could have transported her all the way from her flat to the spot where her body was found without being picked up by CCTV cameras, it was claimed. [...]
But a separate route between the home in the Clifton area of the city and Longwood Lane on the outskirts of the city could reportedly enable a driver to travel undetected by cameras while adding only a few minutes to the journey.
Interesting that we now have an aghast breathlessness when it is discovered that there are areas of Broekn Britain which are not monitored by CCTV 24/7, from the cradle to the grave.
It says, basically, look at what perils beset you when you are not monitored and kept under constant surveillance.
People get away with murder.
In other, other news, it seems that The Yellow Streak, Nick Clegg, may soon be needing his trusty brown trousers and bicycle clips.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/clegg-to-feel-his-partys-wrath-over-scale-of-bankers-pay-2182234.html
Nick Clegg is facing a backlash from Liberal Democrat MPs over the Government's climbdown on bankers' pay and bonuses.
Some backbenchers fear that the Liberal Democrats, already suffering in the polls after a U-turn over tuition fees, may also bear the brunt of public anger if the Coalition fails to live up to the rhetoric of Mr Clegg and the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, on a need to rein in bonuses.
There are growing signs that the Chancellor has the upper hand in his battle with Mr Cable over the banks after the Business Secretary lost part of his empire last month for saying privately that he had "declared war" on the media magnate Rupert Murdoch.
Long live the Coalition of None of the Talents.
Well, for about another six months, anyway.
Atoms
ReplyDeleteThings are working out rather well for the Tories, then - as predicted, its the Lib Dems who are the fall guys. The Mirror had a piece the other day which said that 70 Tory MPs have links to the finaincial sector & 30% of Tory peers have worked in banking. Osbourne has also ignored Sir David Walker's recommendation that banks should be made to disclose all pay packages above £1m.
So that's all right then, at least we're all in this together.
Off to work now.
Thanks Montana *affects a Southern drawl* you're a fine lady (thanks for giving your perspective).
ReplyDeleteI was actually having (what I thought) was a pretty good conversation with her, then she went off at me for 'laughing at women being killed' which got me too mad to respond, mainly because it seemed to come from out of the blue.
She's right though, men do need to point out sexist males as well and I think had she remained polite she might have convinced NormanHadley myself and maybe a couple of others, but as with a debating forum people tend to 'dig in' when the tone drops.
But I'll leave that one there if I may? Just wanted to see if I'd been a bit of a shit.
As for the username, I'll stick with NeonSamurai for now (as that's an alternative persona for my blog) and any changes there might cause problems.
And hello to Chekhov as well as the notable journalist Polly Toynbee. This place has certainly gone 'up market' since I was here last!
Ca1eb
Speaking of the Lib Dems as fall guys: your comment reminded me of a dream I had last night, which I'd forgotten until now.
ReplyDeleteAll I remember is that Nick Clegg was giving a press conference on Sky News and was clearly very drunk, and at one point staggered into the scenery behind him.
If this happens in RL you can say you saw it here first and that I'm some sort of psychic.
Ca1eb
Montana said:
ReplyDelete"I only ever took two psych courses and I walked out on the 2nd one when the prof said that women who dress in short skirts were asking to be raped."
Well some might say that worryingly THAT was also projection on behalf of the professor!
Ca1eb
In other news, probable alien, brain eating lizard henchman, MiliVanilli Snr is now apparently in talks with Sunderland AFC to become a vice-chairman type person.
ReplyDeleteAdmittedly, it's less dangerous than him being leader of the opposition/future PM and that, but, if Steve Bruce suddenly finds an 8 foot tall, super-fast, flying striker to start alongside Darren Bent in this month's transfer window, I think it's safe to say my theory has been proved correct!!
This is a question for Dott and James about cicadas:
ReplyDeletewhat's happened to the cicada waves that used to engulf my back yard?
Ok, you probably need more info: my backyard is 10x5 metres (I've just walked it out) I live in Sydney inner-west and over the last few years I've noticed that around 6-7pm summer-time I can hear the fight-path noise of qantas and myriad other flight-providers which are no longer blocked by the cicada wall-of-sound.
Why have the cicadas deserted the inner-west?
Is this a development issue?
I miss their incessant buzzing...
And - separately - but no less an important issue - I'd like to address the administrators of this blog (I guess that's Montana, Thm, Jay (not Scherf - apparently not)+ others) about the stats available held by blog administrators - can you make these public? Because that would be in the interests of transparency and the collective environment which 'we' espouse. Don't you reckon? that would good - thanks
ReplyDeleteHi parallaxview
ReplyDeleteNot really my area of expertise I'm afraid but a quick search of the scientific literature raises the possibility of a sexually transmitted fungus! Only a possibility, will see if I can find out more when I have a bit more time.
Perhaps Hanman can pop over and explain how acting on the feedback from regulars in relation to admin and moderation of CiF translates into the simultaneous pre-mod or banning of Jay, The Brackenator and Meerk.
ReplyDeleteI'm almost sure that there wasn't a widespread request to crack down on the most readable posters for little or no apparent reason. If you discount MartynInContinent that is.
Of course if we go with the scientific methods discussed yesterday, God did it because of all the bumming........
ReplyDeleteThanks Dott
ReplyDeleteChrist - a sexually transmitted fungus - can I just say that (as far as I know) there's been none of that sort of stuff happening in my back yard recently - I've been o'seas.
However there might be CCTV footage of cicada/qantas inappropriateness ...
rewind
in the meantime thanks Dott for checking this out
Monkeyfish,
ReplyDeleteRe football grounds. I hate sitting down, really fucking hate it and I pine for the days of terracing again. I was at a stag weekend in Bristol last year and we toddled along to watch Bristol Rovers play. Bloody brilliant- terracing, standing up, crush barriers my Dad used to pop me on, the lot.
The interesting thing regarding terracing is that terracing was not responsible for any of the disasters that hit British football in the last few decades- Hillsborough- police criminality and fencing. Bradford Fire- failure to upkeep stands- apparently newspapers from the 1950’s were found in the post fire debris, Ibrox- the hideously designed steep staircases. None can be attributable to terracing.
I think the Taylor report and subsequent gentrification was another assault on the working class. Using the wholly false premise that fans were the cause of Hillsborough, it gave the authorities carte blanche to get rid of terracing in favour of easily controllable and easy for surveillance seating. Terracing was a menace to the authorities as the great unwashed could go to a game, turn up at the gate and get in without any id.
There’s got to be some form of balance. I agree that facilities at grounds are light years ahead of what they were and safety has improved immeasurably- Rangers completely ignored recommendations in 1963 when two fans were crushed to death on stairway 13. However fans are no longer treated as scum but something far worse- consumers. And once the dead hand of consumerism takes over, the soul is sucked out. Football is increasingly a lifestyle choice. You can either afford it or you can’t . If you can afford the ridiculous prices you can go to games and sit with sunglasses on your head disinterestedly blackberrying . If you can’t well fuck you, the clubs not interested.
Terracing will never come back. It’s the soul of the game for god’s sake and we can’t let anything like soul back into Mammon. The authorities would never have it- “we can’t identify them” and I don’t think the superannuated rulers of clubs and associations would ever have it either. They want consumers that they can tailor-make packages for who are easily identifiable for marketing purposes. And terracing won’t generate the money required to pay ever more ludicrous wages and agents cuts.
And all this before we even get on to Sky…..
Parallaxview
ReplyDeleteErm, I'll defer to Dott on this one. (I was just pretending to be all sciencey and that!!)
Although, to be fair, I probably could have come up with 'God did it 'cause of all the bumming' though. Which is somewhat lacking in regards to that whole 'scientific process' malarky!!
Or, alternatively, we could go with my original, catch-all theory, namely that it's:
Because Tony Blair's a Cunt....
@Duke
ReplyDeleteI remember the Thatcher/Moynihan/Evans idea of ID cards for football fans in the mid-80s, and the fact that this was abandoned only to be revived in a different form when the Taylor report (which didn't insist on all-seater stadiums) came out. Obviously, a numbered seating ticket could much more easily be associated with an individual, and this became even easier when clubs started to insist on a membership card before any tickets could be bought to fit in with electronic gate systems.
I can still wander along to the Withdean to see Brighton if I feel like it; next season, with the new and oxymoronic American Express Community Stadium at Falmer, I won't be able to.
First time I went into the Shed, it was 60p. Those were the days when the Mears family owned Chelsea. We had the fat fuck who refused to break into a trot in attack - Clive Walker, who was still playing in the FA Cup with a non-league club in his 40s, so perhaps he was pacing himself - and the rock our defence was founded upon was Mickey Droy, all 6 foot 5 of him bought from Slough Town for £5,000. We had a borderline barking mad Yugoslavian goalkeeper called Petar Borota, who died last year in Italy aged 56.
ReplyDeleteIt was shit. Our team was shit. But it was our shit.
JD
ReplyDelete"God did it because of all the bumming" was the new unifying theory one of my colleagues came up with after I e-mailed around the DADT link. He pointed out that that kind of thinking had the distinct advantage over ecology of not requiring fieldwork in the cold and wet, or any hard sums!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePeter,
ReplyDeleteis that seriously what Brighton's new stadium is going to be called? Why not just call it CuntyCorporate Stadium and have done with it.
There's a team in the Dutch second division, Almere City who play at the snappily entitled 'Mitsubishi Forklift Stadium'.
RapidEddie,
It was shit. Our team was shit. But it was our shit
Amen. Celtic are shit now, I went to the boxing day game against St Johnstone, absolutely honking. Except now it costs a fortune to sit and watch honking football.
@Duke
ReplyDeleteOh yes indeed. And if you want to buy a season ticket at the CuntyCorporate Stadium (I like that) you have to book an appointment for a presentation, as though you were buying some shitty timeshare deal. Sordid details here.
Dott/Parallax
ReplyDeleteCould this be the birth of a new scientific cleavage we're witnessing, along the lines of the heliocentric/non-heliocentric, Darwin/Lamark ones that so divided the 'scientific' communities in the past??
On the one side, those who think that everything is 'Because of all the bumming..., and on the other, those who think it's Because Tony Blair's a cunt!??
Heady days! Heady days indeed!!
On the football thing,
ReplyDeleteThis, right here, is the, mostly non-seater stadium of my adopted Brazilian club.
I'm not ashamed to admit that the first time I was on the top tier, and everyone rushed forward after we scored, I not only screamed, but also wet myself a little bit too....
Afternoon all, Two weeks without computer is very good for one!
ReplyDeleteI looked at Larry Elliott this morning: the Davos mob think that the world situation is unstable, so we need better World Governance or summink, but that looks impossible, haha! GolemXIV more useful. He's been ahead of the pack for two years now, and mostly gave up on CiF as it is so transitory.
Dotterel, yesterday post--- I carefully looked for palm oil in my food stocks, couldn't find any, hehe :-)
Maybe, being just post-ww2 and even remembering ration-queues, I'm immune to advertising, just buying ingredients rather than 'brands and products' conceived by 'food scientists', using the cheapest junk raw material worldwide. If there are more than three ingredients in the small print, I just don't buy it ..
JD,
ReplyDeleteQuite possibly, I favour the latter theory, obviously, as I fail to see how consensual screwing can be a bad thing.....
MontanaWildhack
ReplyDeleteHer (flaneuse) original point was not that men should "come to the rescue", but merely that sometimes she would like to see a few men call some of the other men out on their sexism rather than obsessively blasting the ATL writer over something relatively minor that might not have been expressed very well.
That was also my interpretation.
When I had posting rights on CiF I challenged both male and female posters on their sexism regularly, well over 200 times over 4 years, and suspect it was yet another source of complaints that eventually got me banned.
I called the UK's legal profession, Boards of Directors, Senior Bankers and the BBC sexist, along with Charliepolecat, okeliedokelie, Thunderchild, AllyF, Pretendingtocare, nicknack009, englishhermit, Yohanne, Gordon Brown, Gordon Ramsay, JayReilly, that's enough for now. On each occasion I provided evidence.
Parallax - i didnt know we had access to any stats, i've only ever used my admin function to retrieve spam, post new blogs and, disastrously, tinker with the UT layout. So i dont know what stats there are.
ReplyDeleteDott, Dott, Dott....
ReplyDeleteBecause, God sed it is, and, as I understand it, he seems to be pretty important in some circles....although, admittedly, not necessarily the same circles what 'do science'...
But yeah, I'm all about the TB theory too!!
And here's another example of Jay's sexist attitudes writing about rape, a crime almost exclusively committed by men against women.
ReplyDeleteJarReilly:
This is 100% nonsense from start to finish, as well as being quite plainly ridiculous: a legal conviction, for any crime, is not "proof" that an event took place, nor is an acquittal proof that it did not.
In rape trials where almost always there are no independent witnesses, the evidence required for conviction is far, far greater than for other crimes. An example might be drunk driving or using a mobile phone while driving.
So while a legal conviction for other crimes might not be "proof" that the convicted actually committed the crime, for the crime of rape, because of the need for such incontrovertible evidence and the historical record of how juries have behaved, it is likely that there have been very few convictions where the convicted did not commit rape.
Indeed some time back both AllyF and I researched this and failed to come up with any evidence in the UK. And of course there are lots of examples where rapists once caught admit to many others.
(So while you're here Reilly, can you unspam me, please!!)
ReplyDeleteSorry, I should have typed JayReilly.
ReplyDeletePeter,
ReplyDeletethat is hideous. This part in particular:
"We are limiting presentations to no more than 40 people, so everyone gets the personal attention they need - and fans will be able to see the stadium interior, and in particular the view from their chosen seat, using special virtual 3D software......"
".....Because we know without seeing it in 3D, you'll have no idea what you're going to get for your corporate sponso...erm, season ticket- a plastic seat, a view of the pitch, the bald bloke in front of you, and if you turn to the side, the stairs out."
For fuck sake.
"a crime almost exclusively committed by men against women."
ReplyDeleteClearly you've never encountered estimates on the number of rapes in prison, as i recall in the US its estimated at well over 100,000 a year i believe. But i'll excuse your ignorance.
"In rape trials where almost always there are no independent witnesses, the evidence required for conviction is far, far greater than for other crimes. An example might be drunk driving or using a mobile phone while driving."
Well, you need to convince a jury "beyond reasonable doubt" for all crimes. With no witnesses i would hope there was a higher threshold for this crime than DD or driving with mobile as its a far more serious crime with far longer sentences.
"it is likely that there have been very few convictions where the convicted did not commit rape."
Pointless comment. The fact remains, a conviction is plainly not *proof* an event took place, for this or any other crime.
As for being an example of my "sexism", what sheer silliness.
Checked Stats tab - couldnt load any, error for every option. Montana might be able to provide some insights.
ReplyDeleteWell JD, The flying spaghetti monster favours the Tony Blair theory (he's a friend), so there!
ReplyDeleteBTH really? Defending one discriminated-against-group (women) by dismissing another (men who've been raped)? I thought you were beginning to change!
B&gger, just to be 100% clear, the FSM's a friend, not TB!
ReplyDeleteJay,
ReplyDeletewhen's your CiF incarceration up? Are you being freed or have you been quietly chiseling away an escape hole hidden by a poster of Bidisha a la Shawshank redemption these last few weeks?
Jay - before you respond to BTH - yep there is a set of stats available to blog administrators - revealing stuff apparently - anyway perhaps the other admin people know .... I remember Montana mentioning how revealing they were - a year or so ago, just before the 'geographic locator' made it's appearance...
ReplyDeleteAnyway I'll leave to chat to BTH
ok thanks Jay - xposts - I'll leave the the stat query for MW to respond
ReplyDelete16th, Duke.
ReplyDeleteJust a quick popping in a la Lucia.......
ReplyDeleteDidn't get around to finishing all the thread yesterday. Did Polly Toynbee really turn up?
I'll have to read back.
Just spent the best part of 3 hours cleaning..... just the bloody living room.... still doesn't feel properly spring clean :(
Anyway, I'll be back later with something hopefully more interesting to say. Off to the shops and the charidee shop.... bop bop shoo wop *ting*
PS has anyone watched the Palin "Blood Libel" Video yet?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely astonishing.
I cannot believe that this woman, who reads her script like a cheerleader running for class president is actually in the running for the 'real presidency'. Surely the American people can do better than that?
The woman is completely barking mad.
She does seem to be going down the 'you couldn't make this shit up' route a bit too much, doesn't she!!
ReplyDeleteShe is unspeakable, she really is.
ReplyDeleteWent to Elland Road in the late 70s/early 80s, when Chelsea and Leeds were both in the old Second Division. It was 3-2 to Leeds in the 90th minute and they were having a right old knees up.
ReplyDeleteThen we equalized in the 90th minute. The away end erupted (fnaar fnaar) and when we quietened down, there was an eerie silence. The guy who was driving the Ford Transit we came up in said quietly "Let's get out here after the game...really, really fucking quickly."
But anyways, the word on the street (or, twitter trending as it is nowadays) reckons that the liberal media have, just now, this minute, redefined what blood libel means, solely to make Palin look bad!!
ReplyDeleteSo that's that cleared up then....
"The other reason I do it is to inform the Angie124s that they are not representative of most feminists and that they tend to do feminism more harm than good."
ReplyDeleteIt is very, very hard to argue that feminism has shifted a bit since the 70s and 80s when a certain core group of women keep repeating the rhetoric of quite oldfashioned radfem and separatist ideas....
And yes, I also assumed flaneuse and lagrandflaneuse were the same person.
In other news... I'm a stress bunny at the moment, so avoiding places where there are people I actually like, so as to avoid ripping off heads....
God help us in so many ways should Palin get in, La Rit.
ReplyDeleteFor women, she'll prove another Thatcher - it's so bloody hard for women to achieve in politics in the UK, at least partly because they're always fighting the spectre of Thatcher, in one way or another.
And for people more generally - well, god knows if we'll survive. She has a certain manic glint, doesn't she?
...little or no research DONE in this country...
ReplyDeleteRapidEddie, I've been assured that I was placed in premod 'by mistake' and that it took 4 days for them to fish me out because they didn't notice. The fact that I actually commented on my premod state while *in* premod - and presumably whoever was vetting my posts did in fact read those comments remains unexplained. As does the fact that an innocuous post was removed *and* that I was placed in premod - presumably two accidental actions, not one.
ReplyDeleteOddly enough, no-one's responding to my email queries about that.
La Rit
ReplyDeleteI cannot believe that this woman, who reads her script like a cheerleader running for class president is actually in the running for the 'real presidency'.
Yes, it does seem that politics has become an open institution for the criminally insane, doesn't it?
Signed, er, Polz.
[Will that do?]
Meerkatjie
ReplyDeleteA cynic might suggest that a mod took an unjustifiable dislike to your comment and decided to put you in premod for it. The Graun then found themselves unable to justify it when you questioned it..........
I might have mentioned this before, but one of the guys I was in booze rehab with, many years ago, was a guy who'd been gang raped by 4 older boys in a young offenders institution in Dublin in the 70s.
ReplyDeleteHe been in and out of mental institutions and lived on the street most of his life. The way he explained his rape was "If you can't defend yourself against something like that, you're not a man."
When someone asked why he hadn't spoken about it before or sought help, he said something along the lines of he didn't want people to think he "was a queer".
CiF - as Bitey/Faux Bitey does - typically tries to frame the debate absolutely along male-on-female gender lines. When someone points out that it's a power issue and includes hundreds of thousands of male victims worldwide, they're treated by some to the kind of derision that the guy I met all those years ago feared. 'What about teh menz', eh? What a hoot they are.
Of course, there aren't any cynics 'round 'ere, no sirree!
ReplyDeleterapideddie, I agree and disagree with you about the male rape issue. Conservative estimates suggest 3% of the male population experience rape. That's a significant number, and it requires very careful and sustained consideration.
ReplyDeleteBut given the current gendered context we operate in, the nature of the experience for men and women is often very very different. And because of the way that gender works, rape is an issue of power, violence and gender for both men and women.
The simpleminded 'what about the men' cry you get in online discussion doesn't help, because it is often a calculated attempt to prevent women from talking about their gendered experience of violence, or to neutralise their gendered experience.
Meerk, I tend to agree with Dott about your pre-mod saga. And I suspect you do too. The first rule of pre-mod is we don't talk about pre-mod. The second rule of pre-mod is that if you make it a big enough issue, it can vanish unexpectedly. Apart from P Brax, obviously, who is mad, bad and dangerous to know. Or perhaps just mad.
ReplyDeletePre-mod is now definitely the Weapon Of Choice. It doesn't create the furore of a life ban - Woolly, Jay, Lord Summerisle etc - and stops the more contentious posts/posters spicing up the bland stew they're trying to create. It shapes debate into conformity.
As I'm sure Jay knows, his problem is that he does a natty line in eviscerating ATL articles and contributors. And we can't have the preachers on the mount looking like they're full of shit, can we?
I share people's reservations about viewing issues from an 'identity' angle, but that said, rape is one of those instances where a gendered perspective seems valid.
ReplyDeleteYou never hear anyone claiming that male victims somehow 'asked for it' by dressing or acting provocatively, for example. Or that men are making false accusations to 'hit out' at their boss or ex partner or whoever.
There's a case to be made that attitudes to male-on-female rape reflect a wider cultural bias, so - in my view - it's legitimate to politicise the issue. Male rape is no doubt as traumatic as any other rape, but I can't see what's to be gained by politicising it.
Well said, Vizzo.
ReplyDeleteDoes that mean I have to give my trophy back, then??
ReplyDeleteYou never deserved it, James.
ReplyDeleteVizzo - isnt it "politicising" a crime to ignore an enormous number of incidents due to gender? Cant get my head around this - its apolitical to ignore hundreds of thousands of rapes due to gender, its "politicised" to draw attention to the fact that they are almost entirely absent from public and academic discourse on the issue.
ReplyDeleteHow does that work?
Meerk, I'm not suggesting that rape isn't a tool of humiliation and control by men against women - it very obviously is - but it's used as a similar power device against men.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't to deny gendered experiences - why it happens, how it happens, the societal and personal reactions are different - but to keep the awareness that rape is, at its base, about hatred and humiliation.
The reason you get the simple-minded 'what about the men' cries is because the Guardian in particular will 99% of the time frame rape as a male-on-female issue. 'What about the men?' is a valid question when male rape is ignored, trivialized and cut out of the equation when discussing rape. It's not invalidating gendered experiences, it's about pointing out that by acknowledging that rape is control and our understanding of this is enhanced, not diminished, by acknowledging those of both genders it happens to.
Within the context of CiF, I don't find commenters raising this point typically an attempt to neutralize gendered experience, but shouts of exasperation that, in creating a gendered narrative, 3% of the world's male population ceases to matter. Hang around on CiF waiting for the next article on male rape. It could be a while.
One interesting thing to me, when discussing these very points, was to find that there's an amazing paucity of information on male-on-male rape. Research is surprisingly thin on the ground. As much male rape takes place in prisons, the armed services etc, it's also likely that the incidence of male rape is under-reported perhaps to an even greater extent than with women.
Unwittingly, Bitey/Faux Bitey exemplifies the problem. If we say, as he does, it's barely an issue, what kind of environment is that for survivors to come forward with their experiences? And, with a nod to gendered experiences, with societies that still place a premium on male independence, toughness and emotional containment, how comfortable is it for men to admit to what's happened, and how comfortable is it for other people to listen to it?
(Habib,
ReplyDeleteBless you, but my Mum, for one, would beg to differ....)
Yeah, James but, my mum could beat your mum in a son dissin' match any day! so ner!
ReplyDelete@Jay
ReplyDeleteits apolitical to ignore hundreds of thousands of rapes due to gender, its "politicised" to draw attention to the fact that they are almost entirely absent from public and academic discourse on the issue.
Not sure what you mean by the first part of that - I'm working on the assumption that male rape is investigated and prosecuted wherever possible, so it's only 'ignored' in the political context. I'm saying that's because there really isn't much of a political dimension to it, it's just a horrible crime.
Whereas male-on-female rape does have a political dimension to it - it relates to the sexualisation of women in the media, to the scepticism accusations are sometimes treated with, to the idea that victims have failed to be sufficiently 'chaste'...none of these things are applied to male victims.
Which is why I don't see what can be gained by bringing male rape into the political sphere - i.e. what can be changed at a societal level to reduce instances of male rape?
Off to start a debate with lil' mr and miss Vizzo on why they need to have dinner and a bath instead of watching a DVD. Back later.
ReplyDeleteThe lack of research on any experience of men as victims is dramatic, rapid eddie. I think this is partly because of the difficulty of accessing people who'd be willing to talk.
ReplyDeleteI've been interested for a while in doing some work around male rape, and a colleague has been trying similarly to look at men's experiences of sexual harrassment. The difficulty is knowing where to even start in accessing the population. For women there are plenty of well established (and appropriately women only) support spaces. Nothing similar, really, for men.
Maybe I should offer to do an article on male rape, just to see what jess et al do.... ?
Sorry, vizzo, but in what sense is there no political dimension to male rape?
ReplyDeleteUnless you're using a very narrow definition of the term 'politics', it's very clearly embedded in a big sociopolitical mess of gender politics, often homophobia, certainly heteronormativity, weird assumptions about male sexuality.... Of course it's political.
evening all
ReplyDeletemeerkatjie
i read vizzo's comment as that there is no political "mileage" to be gained from highlighting male rape on political agendas like they do for women...but could be wrong in my interpretation......
Check out these pictures. Could it be the same person?
ReplyDeletejulian
martyn
I wonder if the 'thoughtful' two-finger cheek-stroking pose is a Klingon-type salute or an ancient masonic code for something very secret?
btw I've felt a bit of a conspiracy theory coming on ever since mardigrasincleethorpes mysteriously disappeared from Cif. It seems that I was right to be suspicious.
Scherfig - what a slander on Julian!
ReplyDeletescherfig
ReplyDeleteThe poor little thing was posting like a daemon right up to New Year's Eve and then...plop.
MartyInEwe just seemed to fall off the edge of the world and disappear.
The funny thing is, for all the twelvety gazillion posts he has made over the years, nobody seems to have noticed that he is no longer there or thought to wonder what has become of him.
Perhaps that is what happens when your reputation is just suffused throughout the known universe.
People just think you are always with them - like God, really.
That, or they are glad to see the back of him and the idea that there is any society on CiF beyond JezzeBella and her imaginary friends is jsut complete and utter claptrap.
Must go and watch the Palin vid.
ReplyDeleteHNY, btw, Scherf!
The truth is out there, folks. You just have to believe.
ReplyDelete"I wonder if the 'thoughtful' two-finger cheek-stroking pose is a Klingon-type salute or an ancient masonic code for something very secret?"
ReplyDeleteDunno, Scherf, but what I can say, conclusively, is that the 'thoughtful' one-finger cheek-stroking pose, means "I am a cunt!!" in ancient Sumerian!!
I think part of the problem (and please don't think I'm blaming men here, because I'm not) is that men are very reluctant to disclose acts of rape, sexual assault, domestic violence against them - there's huge cultural pressure that prevents them from doing so which leaves them in isolated anguish - and yes it is a political issue.
ReplyDeleteOne of the upshots of this is that in comparison with what is known about women - not nearly as much is known about what can happen to men. There have been many fewer studies for example.
I know at least two men who have endured domestic violence from their female partners - one still is. Getting them to recognise and agree that what they are suffering is domestic violence has been almost impossible - they simply refuse to put them selves in that category.
The services for men who are raped and abused are in really short supply too - you only have to look on the net to see the plethora of services for women and the tiny handful there are for men. There are no 24 hour helplines for men in the UK that I'm aware of, for example. It really does need to change - but how to persuade men to disclose?
There was quite a good afternoon play about these issues on R4 on Monday which is worth a listen and a prog in the evening about men who suffer in this way. They'll be up on iplayer if anyone's interested.
i reckon moroseinealing is in self imposed exile...that they had a whip round and got enough 5ps together to send him behind an internet firewall like north korea, alas they hadn't factore into the equation that he will be gathering potential material to bore the shit out of people for eons........
ReplyDeletehehe james....
Hello All
ReplyDeleteParallax
I am not an expert just an interested in insects person.
Some cicadas have a very long life cycle - 17 or 14 years beneath ground for some leaving some years in which there is no above ground activity. Parts of US has suffered losses of these species as building activity has buried the the underground colonies making it impossible for the adults to emerge.
Often these periodic cicadas exist alongside annual types - this explains the apparent 'plague years' when several populations are active above ground at the same time.
I know there is a NZ cicada that operates on a 17 year life cycle - you have now piqued my interest so am off to find out about their Australian cousins.
Palin video predictably cringe-inducing.
ReplyDeleteYou have to wonder which one of her advisors thought the 'blood libel' bit was a good idea. The US, as I'm sure everyone knows, has a large and politically well-organised Jewish population. Of course most of them vote Democratic.
On male rape - Sheff, think you are right about it being very difficult for men to speak out about it (and DV).
Getting them to recognise and agree that what they are suffering is domestic violence has been almost impossible - they simply refuse to put them selves in that category.
Am dipping toes into waters I know nothing about, but couldn't this be positive in some cases - as long as they are able to escape the situation? Part of the problem with rape for women is the perception of a raped woman as 'damaged goods' - thankfully far less prevalent today in the West, but still to be seen in a fair few cultures.
So seeing oneself as less a victim and rather as the recipient of the random violence of a nutter removes some of the stigma still attached to rape and DV.
Hope I'm making myself clear on what is obviously a very sensitive subject.
I have only ever discussed in any detail one case of rape against a man - this happened to a friend of mine who was gang raped by men at the age of 17. He had never mentioned it for over 30 years - the night his mother died all his anger and fury spilled out - he told me about it. It has obviously affected him very seriously , his 'shame' gave way to anger and he exploded into a physical anger - breaking things not people I hasten to add.
ReplyDeleteThere are lots of documented cases of boys and teenagers being raped by older men. I think there are several starting places for research - there are also cases of teens who become 'rent boys' for a while and then go on to either marry or develop long term gay partnerships.
Young people - male or female - persuaded/forced into prostitution are often quite wrongly not regarded as victims of rape.
Evening all
ReplyDeleteToo bleedin tired to say owt much this evening. Reading and nodding in agreement though. x
Thauma
ReplyDeleteTo be seen as 'victim' is to be seen as weak - women for so long seen as the 'weaker vessel' are in many ways more exploitable in terms of violence against them . That women can be hurt, raped etc. - in need of protection - has always been the case and has often - still is - used against them in terms of allowing them personal autonomy and freedom of movement.
Men are strong, self sufficicient etc. - it doesn't suit the social or personal narrative for men to be 'vulnerable' in the same way as women are.
I often keep out of these discussions as I see them as coming from a false premise in many ways.
I was brutalised as a woman cos I married a bastard - his view of his 'rights' over me were strengthened by his received narrative of a 'woman's place'. That is only part of the story - the man was a bully, I was smaller and weaker physically - he needed someone to dominate. Had it not been his wife he would have found someone else to bully.
Hi Gandolfo! Any advice on B&Bs gratefully accepted, especially if it's within easy reach of the Stadio Flaminio.
ReplyDeleteHave not made final decision yet ... flights looking a bit pricey. But I have never been to Rome so may think, 'sod it, I'll pay'.
Problem is Thauma - as Leni shows - the humiliation, shame, anger can have serious long term effects - that frequently interfere with later life and relationships.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly just been listening to a piece on the news about the Brisbane floods. Eddie Mayer was interviewing a man who was caught up in them - his car was hit by a wall of water and he only barely escaped with his life.
When Mayer suggested he must have been terrified he refused to acknowledge it, saying the Aussies are a tough lot, used to extreme weather. Come on - there must have been a short time when he thought he might well die - don't tell me he wasn't shitting bricks, however briefly but there was no way he'd admit it.
Vizzo, not following you too well:
ReplyDelete"so it's only 'ignored' in the political context. I'm saying that's because there really isn't much of a political dimension to it"
If a crime is routinely described by media and government as a crime inflicted by men against women, when there is research showing staggering levels of prison rape which are never mentioned - thats an issue isnt it? Ie, its false, massively false. And we would rather grapple with facts rather falsehoods, presumably.
"Whereas male-on-female rape does have a political dimension to it - it relates to the sexualisation of women in the media etc..."
If you believe the primary driver of male-female rape is social problems which can be fixed with the correct re-education then i would say firstly, why are there still enormous levels of male-male rape, which, as you concede, are not caused by any of these political issues?
Secondly, after 30 years of huge work and expense on shifting cultural attitudes on rape and the sexual rights of women, the number of convicted rapes has stayed pretty much the same for that period. The problem hasnt been fixed, or even improved (procedures, police sensitivity etc - yes, but the level of rape doesnt seem to have dropped, which is the primary aim).
"what can be changed at a societal level to reduce instances of male rape?"
Again, this assumes male-female rape can be significantly improved by social changes and efforts. I've seen no evidence of this improvement and the stats are on my side i believe, after 30 years of a lot of work on the issue.
If we rid ourselves (somehow) of these sexist attitudes to women which we have so far been unable to, then presumably the level of rape will fall to that currently seen in the non-political sphere of male-male rape.
Thats still a hell of a lot of rape. Which makes me think that rape is less *political* than many would claim. Thats the relevance of male-male rape figures.
As for "trivialising" - it makes no difference to Jenny Smith whether her rape was 80% "political" or 10%, the crime is the same, and its certainly not lessened.
Leni - you have expressed what I was trying to say, only much more clearly. I am sorry that you had the misfortune to marry a bastard, but you are mentally stronger than he could ever imagine being (and I expect he knew it, hence the need to bully).
ReplyDeletehi thauma........
ReplyDeletea question you can tell me to sod off for being nosey...
why stadio flaminio????
have you tried sleazy jet...they fly from gatwick they were doing offers...can't remember if it finishes today or finished yesterday...also slyan air fly once a day....
Sheff
ReplyDeleteProblem is Thauma - as Leni shows - the humiliation, shame, anger can have serious long term effects - that frequently interfere with later life and relationships.
Absolutely; I didn't mean to imply otherwise; I'm just expressing myself badly.
As Leni said: "To be seen as 'victim' is to be seen as weak". This is a problem for women in that women are inherently physically weaker, on average, than men, and thus will internalise weakness.
It's also a serious problem for men, as being seen as weak is probably more traumatic than it is for a woman, since men are all supposed to be big, strong hunters who can keep everyone safe.
oh b and bs are around €30-35 a night per person...
ReplyDeleteJay, maybe you have been polarised, but you must know that although many men have been raped, very, very few men fear that it's going to happen to them. (Unless they are in prison.)
ReplyDeleteI really don't understand why you shout against any woman who talks about the likelihood of her being raped and the chances of her getting a case brought to court, let alone a conviction.
Why is this your bugbear?
Evening all.
ReplyDeleteMeerkatjie "it's so bloody hard for women to achieve in politics in the UK, at least partly because they're always fighting the spectre of Thatcher, in one way or another."
Well, I am sure that she has some part to play, but then you also have to consider: Anne Widdecombe, Theresa May, Hazel Blears, Edwina Currie, Tessa Jowell...
Gandolfo - rugby! But if it's in the sort of area you wouldn't want to stay in, that's valuable info too!
ReplyDeleteTried EasyJet but not sure if from Gatwick - Gatwick nightmare to get to from here. RyanAir had some purported offers but when you added in all their sneaky little hidden extras, came to within 20 quid or something of BA.
I didn't mean to imply otherwise;
ReplyDeleteNo I know you didn't Thauma.
That it's still such a taboo subject for blokes is a real problem though. Its not the kind of thing men are prepared to disclose to a mate down the pub is it? There'll never be either the understanding or the support thats needed unless we have a clearer picture about what's actually going on.
ahh.....rugby!
ReplyDeletewell it's a bit of a bugger to get to roman public transport it a very distant twin of london......but it's cheap €1.00 valid for 75mins one tube journey and as many buses as you want..
I'm the other side of rome and have a nice B&b close by....near to a huge park...but anyways...
the nearest metro to stadio flaminio is lepanto then bus...i'll do some digging for B&Bs...
i'd go for BA if its only £20 squid at least you get a coffee and biscuit........get a flight that arrives early evening as public transport from the airport disappears after 10.30pm....!
sheff
ReplyDeletethanks for the tip on R4 just listened to the play.......now the follow up....
Spencer
ReplyDeleteAnne Widdecombe, Theresa May, Hazel Blears, Edwina Currie, Tessa Jowell...
Gruesome list. But don't forget Barbara Castle, Jo Richardson, Joan Lestor and Joan Maynard. There are others but their names escape me at the mo.
Sheff, Mo Mowlem for one.
ReplyDeleteBut my point was that it is not just that Thatcher throws a shadow over women politicians. There are plenty of awful ones as well as some decent ones, just like the men. It is reality that throws the shadow. Before Thatcher it could be (and was) claimed that women politicians were somehow better, fairer, less violent and agressive...he he he...
It was really interesting to see my liberal feminist American friends getting excited about the prospect of Hilary Clinton as President a while back, when to me she looks like a swivel eyed loon only slightly preferable to Bush.
spencer
ReplyDeleteHow could I forget Mo! Shame on me..
Interesting discussion on rape. My take on it is:
ReplyDeleteRape is about power
Politics is about power
So rape, male/female and male/male is political.
We are more aware of male/female rape but that should not invalidate a discussion of male/male rape.
Although I imagine that some of the 'what about the menz' crew might find it a difficult subject for reasons already rehearsed above.
jay has a point it needs to be discussed more but this does not invalidate dealing with it separately if it can be shown to involve different issues related to gender. personal/societal expectations of gender roles.
Comparisons would be useful too of course.
ReplyDeleteGoing to bed now! still want to hibernate! Poss because its not really been light all day down here! :(
annetan, have never understood the argument that rape is about power, I have to say. Of course power comes into it. And *sometimes* it is about power, expressing dominance etc. But mostly it is surely about sexual desire.
ReplyDeleteTo say it is about power seems to me like saying that mugging people is about power. You need physical power to be a successful mugger,certainly, but most muggers are after the wallet or the mobile phone, any buzz they get from physically dominating their victim is surely secondary.
Joan Lestor was my old MP in Slough. She had a face that was born to look cross at National Executive Committee meetings. The word 'doughty' was invented just to describe her. And her horny-handed sons-and-daughters-of-toil voters would follow her to the ends of the earth.
ReplyDeleteMy dad made it very simple for me. "Son," he'd say (he wasn't great with names), "The Tories wouldn't piss on you. Remember that." As an immigrant Irish family, we noticed that Labour had names like Callaghan and Healey and the Tories...didn't.
Lestor was one of those MPs that if you went to with a problem, you felt that she'd be ripping someone a fresh one the next day to get it sorted. Strangely, I heard similar things from Catholics who had been voters in Ian Paisley's constituency. Didn't matter what your race or religion you were, these were people who got things done for you. The weaker your voice was, the more you needed a strong one on your behalf.
The only thing that remains from those days is a common loathing of the Tories by many working class people. It ain't because your local Labour MP has life-long commitment to your area and people.
BTW from looking at Waddya it sounds as if Peter B and Meerkatjie both got banned from CIF, what did I miss?
ReplyDeleteHabib - responses and attitudes like that, *that* is my bugbear. Not the crime, and certainly not the people who've endured it.
ReplyDelete"maybe you have been polarised, but you must know that although many men have been raped, very, very few men fear that it's going to happen to them."
Agreed, but that doesnt affect the points made above.
"I really don't understand why you shout against any woman who talks about the likelihood of her being raped and the chances of her getting a case brought to court, let alone a conviction."
I dont "shout" at anyone, i dont even use the dreaded CAPITALS. What i have objected to is knowingly dishonest stats, primarily. And after years of comments like yours above, the Stern review came out and said the exact same thing re attrition/conviction.
The other things i have objected to are attempts to change the fundamentals of our legal system for this one crime only - like reducing the burden of proof. I have objected to the notion that an accusation is as good as a crime committed, for this crime only. I have objected to the idea that "innocent until proven guilty" should be abandoned for this one crime only.
I have no interested in seeing rapists walk free, and have never subscribed to any "she's asking for it" attitude or anything which puts blame for a rape anywhere other than the rapist.
All of the above seem to me pretty straightforward views.
Bessie Braddock,Jennie Lee,Eirene White,Alice Bacon,Judith Hart,Renee Short,Audrey Wise,Alice Mahan,Gwyneth Dunwoody and Betty Boothroyd.
ReplyDeleteAll of them very different but equally tough, successful post 1945 Labour Women MP's who stood on their own two feet in the PLP and made their voices heard.
Gandolfo - thanks for all the valuable info! Do you mind if I get your e-mail off Montana, if she has it? (She has mine.)
ReplyDeleteRapidEddie - "Son," he'd say (he wasn't great with names)
Hehehe. Interesting about Paisley; hadn't heard that before.
Peter B was in pre-mod and walked off completely in high dudgeon (but has left the door semi-open to a return). Meerk was in pre-mod but, after some persistent enquiries, was told it was all a teddible mistake. Jay's serving the tail-end of a month's ban for being Jay.
ReplyDeleteSame old, same old.
Thanks, Eddie. I knew about Jay as that happened before I went off to the Hebrides.
ReplyDeleteBetty Boothroyd, now she was my idea of a politician!
ReplyDeleteImagine a choice of going to see the Tiller Girls or Tony Blair's rock band!
"jay has a point it needs to be discussed more but this does not invalidate dealing with it separately if it can be shown to involve different issues related to gender. personal/societal expectations of gender roles."
ReplyDeleteHi Annetan (hope you're well) - i dont think there are no gendered differences, there are quite a few, in attitudes to victims and reasons for committing the crime etc. Important differences at that. And there are political aspects to it in that clearly a significant chunk of male-female rapes will hinge on attitudes which fall under the political sphere.
My point is that i dont believe the crime to be as political as claimed, and its basically claimed to be a 100% political crime that we can "end" with the right social policies. Thats what i disagree with.
And i cant help but think that without our overseers clinging to the '100% political' doctrine, other types of rape that dont fit the mould would be treated more seriously.
thauma
ReplyDeletefor sure...!if you want my proper proper email and you have BB's she can give it to you.......
spencer
"Of course power comes into it. And *sometimes* it is about power, expressing dominance etc. But mostly it is surely about sexual desire."
really? where did you get that idea from?
and how you can make the comparison of mugging and rape is IMO opinion bizarre....at the very least......
In fairness, shouldn't we link to the Brackenator's blog from the UT? After all, he's fair lashing out the posts there at the moment.
ReplyDeletehttp://peterbracken.wordpress.com/
Male rape stats - I have some actual ones before me and as some of you know/might hav eguessed, I've worked in the domestic & sexual violence abuse field. As has Montana, btw, so her take on this issue is framed in part by practice.
ReplyDeleteI can't disclose the source of my data, naturally, but in this data, men reported between 5%-4% of all rapes over a 3 year period.
No gender disaggregated data on this, but I was shaken by the figures for one year, when 8% of reported rapes were made by people with learning difficulties and 17% reported by people with mental health issues.
Also, hate crimes against LGBT people can often involve sexual assault, which is rarely reported.
gandolfo "really? where did you get that idea from?"
ReplyDeleteAre you serious? Where did I get the idea that forced sex was sexual in nature? Um... let me thing about it.
And why is the comparison with mugging bizarre? I was not comparing them in terms of trauma or seriousness, simply pointing out that in order to commit a mugging or a rape the mugger or rapist needs to have more power than their victim.
But that this does not mean the motivation of the crime is primarily about asserting power over someone else.
These things are actually so obvious that it seems more than a bit ludicrous even having to argue about them. But the idea that "rape is about power" seems to have become some sort of holy writ that even intelligent people subscribe to.
But why they do just mystifies me when it is so bloody obvious that most rape is about the desire for sex.
I think its a much more interesting debate than is assumed, Spencer, Pinker is worth reading on the issue. I also find the idea strange that sex and power are entirely distinct, they arent at all - to have either a dominating or submissive element to sexual desire is exceptionally common in men and women both; ie power differentials are quite a big part of sex.
ReplyDeleteBut mostly it is surely about sexual desire.
ReplyDeleteI can't agree with that at all spencer. Using your prick as a weapon and raping someone is absolutely not about desire - it is an attempt at achieving some power, it is a violent invasion of another persons autonomy, about humiliating the person to whom you are doing it, punishing them through fear, hatred and anger.
The fact that the act happens to be a sexual one is only relevant in so far as it is a truly terrible thing that one person can do to another in terms of the potential for physical, psychological and emotional damage.
Sheff "Using your prick as a weapon and raping someone is absolutely not about desire - it is an attempt at achieving some power"
ReplyDeleteSee, the trouble is that that is an assertion. You don't produce any evidence for this being the motivation of the rapist, which is surely what matters.
And if the guy is going to use his prick that way he has to be aroused, which is forgive me... hard evidence that sexual desire is a central component.
I agree with Jay that the distinction is not that clear cut. And as I said originally I do agree that there are cases where power is clearly the main motivation. Though even then if it is penile rape sexual desire has to be present or it is not going to work.
But there are many, many rape cases where it seems abundantly clear that what happened was some man wanted to have sex and either did not accept that no meant no or did not care whether the person they were raping was consenting.
JayReilly:
ReplyDeleteWell, you need to convince a jury "beyond reasonable doubt" for all crimes. With no witnesses i would hope there was a higher threshold for this crime than DD or driving with mobile as its a far more serious crime with far longer sentences.
Wrong there is the same threshold for all crimes, it's just that rape is almost alone in there frequently being little independent evidence, human or non-human. This is why I've always advocated a different approach to rape trials - an Inquisitorial as opposed to the current Adversarial system.
You say of my comment:
"it is likely that there have been very few convictions where the convicted did not commit rape."
Pointless comment. The fact remains, a conviction is plainly not *proof* an event took place, for this or any other crime.
Jay, in the country where you live, if there is evidence that large, or even small numbers of people are being convicted for crimes they did not commit, there would be outrage in the media, MPs demanding enquiries, and so on.
It is only pointless to someone who wants to suggest that large numbers of accused are being either falsely accused or falsely convicted.
And as rape victims are predominently female, your attitude is pointedly sexist.
But there are many, many rape cases where it seems abundantly clear that what happened was some man wanted to have sex and either did not accept that no meant no or did not care whether the person they were raping was consenting.
ReplyDeleteAnd thats not about power?
As always, Bitey, what makes you tiresome to debate is your stupidity.
ReplyDeleteIn the quote, it makes clear the legal requirement for all crimes is the same. What i meant was a jury will, unquestionably, be less willing to convict a rapist if there is doubt than they would be for much lesser crimes. In theory they shouldnt, in practice they will, same goes for murder.
Your second point is, as usual, seriously lacking in logic - in short, it doesnt make sense. I sincerely hope you are not, at your age, so thick as to be seriously arguing that a conviction is *proof* of a crime. I'm guessing you're neither a scientist nor a mathematician...
As for your laughably tenuous link to this being "sexist", you have ignored some crucial words in my comment - that this applies to every crime, not just rape.
Now, if you have nothing of intelligence to say, whatsoever, its best to be quiet.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletespencer
ReplyDeleteWhat is an assertion of ones will over a non consenting other about if its not about power?
Sheff, no. I don't think so. It is about wanting to have sex and not giving a fuck about what anyone else wants.
ReplyDeleteAs I have said right from the start, without power differentials you would not have a problem because rape would be impossible, as would mugging, as would murder. But if you mug someone because you want their rolex that is not *about* power unless we are using about in different senses.
Which I guess we might be.
Where I take exception to the idea of rape not being about power is that the whole slogan is "rape is not about sex, it is about power."
So it is the not about sex bit, rather than the about power bit, that seems absurd to me, really. To be fair to Annetan she did not say "rape is not about sex," though, so I might have been misinterpreting her point.
Jay, if you go by stats: "What i have objected to is knowingly dishonest stats, primarily." You'll go anywhere they direct you.
ReplyDeleteGo with what you know, not what stats tell you: you won't go far wrong.
indeed sheff......
ReplyDelete"Where did I get the idea that forced sex was sexual in nature? Um... let me thing about it."
because i don't consider rape to be "mostly" motivated by sexual desire unlike yourself spencer, because i believe rape is about exerting power using sexual violence...call me old fashioned
jay
"ie power differentials are quite a big part of sex"
yeah of course it's normal when it's consensual .....rape isn't consensual
Hello Atomboy:
ReplyDeleteI am being really fick... I am holding my hand up and admitting that your signing off as
Ploz. stumped me... can you explain?? :)
Scherfig:
I really wish I'd not seen that picture of MIE (sorry can't think of any hilarious variation on his name!) I've been pissing myself laughing at each incarnation....
Thauma:
They could use that video of Sarah Palin to terrify small children with!! I couldn't get to the end, it turned my stomach.
Sheff of course it is about power in that sense.
ReplyDeleteBut my point is that the motivation of most rapists is not, I believe, primarily to "assert their power" but to fuck someone.
"yeah of course it's normal when it's consensual .....rape isn't consensual"
ReplyDeleteExactly - it isnt consensual, so the power issue is enormous. My point is that sex and power are not usually alien to one another, they are very close bedfellows. That is why i find it odd to argue whether it is *either* about sex or power, if some people find power (domination) a big part of their sexual preference. The two issues are heavily interlinked in normal sex, and even more so in rape.
sorry spencer I still don't get where you're coming from
ReplyDeleteYou say of course it is about power in that sense. so we're agreed about that.
Rape is an act of violence - sexual yes but a it remains a violent intrusion, enforcing one's will over an unwilling other. I think it's more about the power than the desire for a fuck. Look at it from the point of view of the unwilling other - rather than the perpetrator.
jay
ReplyDeleteWe're not talking about power relations in consensual sex though are we? We're talking about violent assault upon an unconsenting person which is completely different. I think there's a risk of blurring the issues here.
my two penneth-worth... rape is only about power, whether perpetrated against a woman or a man.
ReplyDeleteJay - it seems to me that the gendered differences are:
ReplyDeletemen less likely to think they might be raped.
women routinely avoid lonely places at night, they are more conscious of the possibility.
(This difference might be because of social attitudes of course.
The reasons why men don't want to report are different, to do with a man's self image rape could be said to 'unman him'?
Women don't report rape because
They don't expect to be believed
They may feel they are 'soiled goods' (more often in traditional rather than western cultures)
These are just suggestions - would value comments especially about male attitudes - after all I'm not a man!
Sheff, look at it this way. I have known loads of men who both seethed with sexual desire and had pretty rudimentary ideas about what women meant when they said no, or who did not really think of women as people capable of saying no.
ReplyDeleteFor example with the attitude that if a girl had had sex and was therefore "a slag" then she could have no reasonable reason for refusing any other guy. Now you would seem to be suggesting that they would then force themselves on that girl primarily because they wanted to express their power over women or contempt for them.
Whereas it seems to me that they would do it, first and foremost, because they wanted a shag, and thought that she had no right to refuse them. Ditto much marital rape, date rape etc.
What you do not seem to be acknowledging is that many men are incredibly horny a lot of the time. And if they are, then they will look for a way to slake that lust. Having power and wanting to express it may come into the equation but it is not the driving force.
At least it would seem to me to be astonishing if lust were not often the driving force, given that so many men spend so much time subject to it. What the power and the regressive attitudes do is give them the ability and the permission (in their heads) to commit rape. But the motivation must be sexual or else you need to explain why, given that level of sexual desire, it is not a factor.
Let me put it another way. Given the level of sexual desire that most men experience, how could sex possibly not be a major motivation for sexual assault?
And please note I am not confusing "motivation" with "justification" here (I usually get accused of that at some point).
also by saying rape is mostly about sexual desire is a way of almost finding an excuse for the rapist giving biology the fault rather than the perpetrator ..."well i got the horn couldn't help it,i was full of testosterone, it was me hormones, had to relieve myself blah blah blah...."
ReplyDeleteLaRit
polz is well.....polz ya know polly (see yesterdays thread)
Sheff - there is no blur between sex and rape, one is consensual, one isnt. I am saying the idea that forcing unconsensual sex on someone can only be about power *or* sex doesnt make much sense, it could quite obviously be about both as they are not unrelated.
ReplyDeleteI've never fully grasped where the insistence that rape is not *at all* about sex comes from. It not only seems counter-intuitive but I dont see what relevance it would have either way to either the policing or treatment of rapists and their victims. Rape is rape whether it was about power or sex, or both. It makes no difference to the victim what the motivation is.
Annetan - yep, agree on all of that.
ReplyDeleteAnne
ReplyDeleteSo far none of the blokes have had anything directly to say about their feelings regarding being raped or how they'd feel about disclosing, although us women have been talking about it. It would be very interesting to hear your views guys.
there is no blur between sex and rape,
ReplyDeleteCan't agree Jay - there's a million miles of difference. Simply to say one is consensual and the other isn't is to completely fail to understand the impact of rape and what it means to the person who has suffered it.
gandolfo "also by saying rape is mostly about sexual desire is a way of almost finding an excuse for the rapist"
ReplyDeleteOh for fuck's sake! At least I predicted it.
motivation is not justification. How clear can I say it. I might want someone's money. I might feel I really, really, need it. But that does not make it alright for me to kill them and steal it.
Nothing whatsoever that I said can be honestly held to justify rape.
Sheff, I haven't been raped so have not much to contribute except that I agree with Habib's point earlier that most of us do not fear rape which no doubt makes our perspective different to that of many women.
"Simply to say one is consensual and the other isn't is to completely fail to understand the impact of rape and what it means to the person who has suffered it."
ReplyDeleteIt wasnt supposed to be a comprehensive analysis, was just saying i am not arguing for a "blur" between sex and rape, which you said i was in danger of doing.
Actually, when it comes to fear of rape I did use to fear prison quite a lot when I was young and pretty but now I am old and fat, not so much (because I think its mostly sexually motivated).
ReplyDeleteSpencer, you seem to be missing the violence of rape completely from your account. The conflation of violence / power/ sex is the point. Yes, of course it's a sex act, but you can't distinguish the sex act from the violence that attends it, and that sense it is first and foremost about violence. The thrill - the sexual gratification - is about having forced someone into it.
ReplyDeleteSpencer, you might want to try reading a bit about sexual violence in war.
ReplyDeleteYou might also want to check out the stats on how often rape happens to middle aged and older women.
"It would be very interesting to hear your views guys."
ReplyDeleteWhat do you want us to say, Sheff? That we can understand that level of fear? That we would be tough enough to fight back? That we would just get on with things?
Don't fall for the bullshit, sheff, rape, or the idea of it, is not a thing many men will ever think about.
Meerkatjie "Spencer, you seem to be missing the violence of rape completely from your account."
ReplyDeleteNo I don't. It is just that you have not read what I wrote properly.
"The thrill - the sexual gratification - is about having forced someone into it."
ReplyDeleteThis is what i have been trying to say. If the forceful/power/violent aspect is itself *sexually gratifying*, then how can it make sense to argue about whether rape is about either sex OR power?
But as i said above, i dont see what particular relevance it has to the treatment of the crime, the criminal or the victim regardless.
I feel like i'm speaking a different language here so am going to leave it there for the night, see you all tomorrow.
spencer
ReplyDeleteI haven't been raped so have not much to contribute except that I agree with Habib's point earlier that most of us do not fear rape which no doubt makes our perspective different to that of many women
I think what would be interesting would be a male take on why men are so reluctant to disclose. So far the women on here have just been speculating based on some generalisations around being 'unmanned', an unwillingness to appear weak and/or vulnerable etc. But we're not blokes so how would we actually know, beyond using our imaginations.
What those who think rape is purely about power need to explain is this:
ReplyDeleteif you agree that many men spend a considerable time being very horny,
and if you agree that many of them have at most a rudimentary understanding of the right of women to choose if, where, when, and who with they have sex (and indeed some societies are less than clear on that issue)
If you agree with those two propositions, then how can it possibly be that there are no rapes that are motivated primarily by the desire to have penetrative sex?
well actually I didn't accuse you of justifying anything spencer
ReplyDeletemy point was saying that rapists often use sexual desire (she/he led me on he/she was being sexually provocative) as motivation and justifications for what they have done rather than saying that they wanted to exert power, dominance over someone, humiliate them, express hate towards them, degrade them, violate their being, terrorise them etc
Sheff "But we're not blokes so how would we actually know, beyond using our imaginations."
ReplyDeleteWell, I think the differences are much exaggerated by both sides. Though I think fear of rape may be a serious difference.
But my guess is the experience of it, being rendered helpless and terrified and humiliated, along with physical pain and disgust, would be much the same whatever the gender of the victim.
Spencer, most inadequate men can buy sex. Very few can buy power.
ReplyDeletegandolfo "my point was saying that rapists often use sexual desire (she/he led me on he/she was being sexually provocative) as motivation"
ReplyDeleteOK, sorry if I misinterpreted you there. But this is interesting because you seem to be saying that what the rapists themselves say is their motivation does not count. Why not?
RapidEddie
ReplyDeleteCiF - as Bitey/Faux Bitey does - typically tries to frame the debate absolutely along male-on-female gender lines.
Had I done so I'd have used the term exclusively, rather than "almost exclusively". Please try to understand.
You illustrate precisely the point that flaneuse makes and of course where a man is the victim of rape it is almost always another man who is the rapist.
Habib. That is true but it is also true that many men simply feel that they have a right to sex, so why should they pay.
ReplyDeleteWhy should the marital rapist who believes (and in many cultures has legal and societal back up for that belief) that his wife is his to fuck when he wants go and pay a prostitute?
Why should the schoolboys who think Shazza is a slag and thus has lost her right to say no to them save up their pocket money?
Why should the half drunk date rapist who has paid for a meal for and (in his head) has already paid one woman for sex go and pay another?
Ahh, yes, value for money.
ReplyDelete"What those who think rape is purely about power need to explain is this:"
ReplyDeleteSorry, but quite who do you imagine thinks this? you're creating an artificial polarisation here.
It's about both. It's a sexual act of violence. A sexual act of power.
Makes it a point, and not about sex, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteIf rape was just about power (completely divorced from desire etc), you'd assume that the power differential had to be 'known' by both parties, right!?
ReplyDelete(ie, I'm exerting my power/control over you, and you knowing this is what counts, the 'point', for want of a better word!)
If that is the case, then the whole 'date rape' phenomenon raises interesting questions, doesn't it??
"That is true but it is also true that many men simply feel that they have a right to sex, so why should they pay. "
ReplyDeleteYou honest to god can't see how this is a statement about power?
Meerkatjie "Sorry, but quite who do you imagine thinks this?"
ReplyDeleteLet me see. How about La Rit (above)
"rape is only about power,"
Or AnnTan "Rape is about power"
And Gandolfo seemed pretty much in agreement with this line.
Not to mention many feminists I have known over two decades or more.
Meerkatjie "You honest to god can't see how this is a statement about power?"
ReplyDeleteHave you honest to god not read any of my earlier posts?
Unlike the people who are saying that it is only about power I have consistently acknowledged that power is a factor. As I said to Sheff earlier it rather depends what you take "about" to mean.
So I have tried to be clear and talked about motivation being often and largely sexual desire. As I have already said several times if there is no power differential then no one would be able to to rape anyone else because they would not have the ability to do so.
That power is a prerequisite does not make it the motivation though, does it?
Spencer - too tired to argue properly, but
ReplyDeletemany men simply feel that they have a right to sex, so why should they pay.
They should just be fucking locked up.
Sorry to go all Daily Mail, but if they can't be trusted in civil society not to rape, there it is.
Night all.
*Have just left an invite for Clunie, over on the 'No wonder women are depressed' thread on CiF.
ReplyDeleteWelcome to Clunie, if she decides to join us!
thauma
Inclined to agree with you there, exercise self-control or be subject to social control.
Spencer, I don't think rape is 'purely' about power. By that I mean, it's not its sole component. Most women are raped by people they know and you can speculate that a long-standing sexual desire has existed prior to the rapes.
ReplyDeleteBut that doesn't explain, for example, the well-documented rape of men in the Congo by rebel forces - the so-called 'bush wives' as they're known. In war, rape is a method of degradation and a signal of complete control.
Or the rape of elderly women. Is that an expression of desire?
It seems to me that rape isn't purely or exclusively about power, but it is always about power.
speaking for meself i was contesting your view spencer which was "most rapes come from sexual desire"
ReplyDeletei said that i didn't agree and that i thought it was (mostly) power.....
what about rape as a weapon in war..why do men that have never raped become rapists during wartime...? heightened sexual desire....? i don't think so......
do men's motivations-justifications count? not if they think it's their bloody right to rape women because they took them out to dinner, bought them a box of choccies, "treated" them good etc etc no it's not accepted by society as being a legitimate reason and motivation to have violent non consensual intercourse it only counts to expose them as not fit to participate in society if that's their warped view......
Anyone who's ever been a 17 year old male knows what it feels like when all the blood vacates your brain, leaving it on standby, and migrates south. It's very hard to imagine that this feeling doesn't play a big part in what rapists think before they act.
ReplyDeleteI think maybe others here are thinking about what the act symbolises, or how you can interpret it after the event, whereas Spencer's on about what actually motivates a rapist.
You did ask for a male insight..!
I've never met a feminist who doesn't think rape a sexual act and an act of power - and that's how I've read all the other responses on this thread, Spencer. Whilst there might have been the odd feminist in the 80s who thought it was *only* about power, I don't think that's a majority or even a common opinion in feminist writing on the subject of rape. Certainly not anymore.
ReplyDeleteI'm left puzzled as to quite what it is that you're trying to argue to be honest. But rape isn't one of those issues I particularly enjoy playing semantic games about, so I reckon I'll leave you to it.
"I think maybe others here are thinking about what the act symbolises, or how you can interpret it after the event, whereas Spencer's on about what actually motivates a rapist. "
ReplyDeletePerhaps, but what little research there is on perpetrator's perspectives sees the two as fundamentally entwined.
Actually fuck it, let's try again:
ReplyDelete"So I have tried to be clear and talked about motivation being often and largely sexual desire."
What are you actually basing this view on? A gut feel? Talking to rapists? Reading research on perpetrator accounts?
MsChin "exercise self-control or be subject to social control."
ReplyDeletePrescriptions for behaviour are something else. I was talking about what seems to me to be the situation, not what should be done about it. But it seems to me that to tackle the problem a realistic understanding of its causes is essential (whoever is right about the motivation).
But the point is in many if not most societies through history, rapists were not necessarily subject to social control at all (unless they chose the "wrong" victim). Rape within marriage only became an offence in the UK in 1991 and is still legal in many countries.
My argument is not that this is OK, but the opposite. I am suggesting that we live in a sexist World that has only recently, and in a very piecemeal way, come to see women as fully autonomous humans.
That a lot of sexist men hate women and might vent that hatred in rape I do not dispute for a moment, or that this might sometimes be primarily a power thing - the example of war that Meerkatjie gave is one, frustrated men who feel like failures or feel that women have some sort of hold over them might rape to try to achieve a feeling of power and control, certainly.
But if we do live in a deeply sexist and unequal world (and I would suggest that that is a no brainer). And if there are men in that world who are lustful and not particularly well socialised, surely it is inevitable that they will rape for sexual gratification?
What we need is a society where everyone grows up learning that everyone else is an autonomous person with every right to say no to them.
I don't think that the argument I am making in any way excuses rapists. I don't believe that men cannot control themselves (though it is certainly true that many believe that they cannot). I just think that the argument that "rape is about power" is a political slogan that has become holy writ.
But is not actually true. At least not much of the time.
@Jay
ReplyDeleteMy point is that i dont believe the crime to be as political as claimed, and its basically claimed to be a 100% political crime that we can "end" with the right social policies.
I don’t think anyone says that we can end it or that it’s 100% political. But it is more politically charged than other crimes - the way the crime is perceived by juries, judges and the public is bound to have an impact on the verdicts reached, as so often it boils down to one word against another with rape. If the prevailing attitude - in the media, in politics - is that women regularly make up allegations, then the chances are that more rapists walk away.
The failure to meaningfully reduce rape stats as proof that gendered politics are useless is a bit of a red herring argument. It’s possible that more cases are reported and less rapes are committed, the two cancelling each other out...?
But even if not, then all we can do is make the judicial system as unbiased as possible and dish out stiff sentences - all the tools at our disposal, really. Historically the system has been biased towards men So now there’s an effort to redress that by pushing in the other direction, that seems reasonable to me.
But I also understand where you’re coming from - if you go too far the other way, then you give half the population a potent means to ruin other people’s lives by just saying the word. It’s a difficult one...
Blurgh, can anyone explain the appeal of a disgusting bloody film like 'Crank 2'? I've had to leave the room it's so hideous. Can still hear the squelching sounds of death and violence from the dining room, and it's still making me feel a bit sick.
ReplyDeleteMeerkatjie "What are you actually basing this view on?"
ReplyDeleteLogic. If lots of men feel horny, and some feel that they have a right to gratify their lust whether or not their partner is consenting, then it seems to me to be inevitable that there will be rapes motivated by sexual desire.
I note that no one has even attempted to explain how this could not be the case, given those two conditions. Nor has anyone disputed that horny men and a sexist society do in fact exist.
I must admit i used to have difficulty getting my head around the idea that a man who is genuinely straight could rape another man.But there is a link between sex and violence with SOME men which combined with their sadistic need to hurt,humiliate and control their victims makes it easier to accept they could potentially target male as opposed to female victims.
ReplyDeleteI read an article once about male rape in the American prison system and the power dynamic was clearly significant.For the men who raped didn't see it as being in any way compromising their 'straight' masculinity.Whereas the men who got raped were seen as no longer being 'real men' even if the odds against them had made it impossible for them to resist being raped.Plus those men who were either openly gay, perceived to be gay or in any way effeminate were the ones who were most often subjected to the most brutal rapes and thereafter just viewed as being a commodity to be bought and sold within the prison population.
And i think that probably explains why straight men in particular don't report being raped because in many peoples eyes true masculinity is tied up with being straight.Therefore straight men who are raped may have their masculinity as well as their sexuality questioned.Whereas gay men who are raped may be accused of either enjoying it or encouraging it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMeerkatjie "there might have been the odd feminist in the 80s who thought it was *only* about power"
ReplyDeleteAre my posts invisible? OK I will try again.
LaRit "rape is only about power" (this thread, just a bit further up).
Paul
ReplyDeleteWhat about lesbain women who are raped in order to 'cure' them of their lesbianism?
meerkatjie
ReplyDeletenever seen or heard of "Crank2" let alone crank1...!
i've totally given up watch gratuitous violence films....there's already too much violence in the world without them producing fake stuff in order to try and make the real violence ultimately seem fake....
"If lots of men feel horny, and some feel that they have a right to gratify their lust whether or not their partner is consenting, then it seems to me to be inevitable that there will be rapes motivated by sexual desire."
ReplyDeleteAnd again, you can't see how that perception of a 'right' hinges on the power dynamic - the motivation is about ownership. MINE. I FUCK.
I mean, realistically, a lot of sex involves power play - that's built into the who dominance submission interplay of who's on top and who's doing what to whom. Rape is a hideous caricature of that.
I completely agree, gandolfo. I just noticed I was getting massively grumpy sitting in the lounge while this orgy of violence was going on on the screen, and realised that, even though I wasn't watching it, it was seriously winding me up.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand what's fun about that.
Meerkatjie "And again, you can't see how that perception of a 'right' hinges on the power dynamic - the motivation is about ownership. MINE. I FUCK."
ReplyDeleteHow do you get from the power to do something to the motivation to do it. Do you think everything that you do (which by necessity you must have the power to do or you would not be able to do it) you do because you are motivated to express that power?
Presumably you do not eat when you are hungry but because you have the power to get food?
Power is a prequisite but it does not logically follow that it is the motivation.
Of course it may be which I have said all along.
And, by the way, you do not need to tell me that sex involves power play. I am a sadomasochist.
Apols for being so lame in this debate, rape is not about sex, only about power, the difficulty is that from the Congo to the prisons of the UK and US to the brutal public schools of this country, rape is an act, only committed by men. And therein lies the rub.
ReplyDelete(Gandolfo thanks for the clarification btw)
No, your posts aren't invisible, Spencer, it's just difficult to discern quite what you think you're arguing.
ReplyDeleteI saw your post. I toyed with painstakingly explaining why a single line from La Rit wasn't really evidence that all or most feminists thought that rape wasn't a sexual act of violence. But I thought it was rather obvious, and that you might get there by yourself.
sexual act of power and violence, that should have read.
ReplyDeleteMy point from the start of this discussion is that, in rape, the issue of sex and power can't be separated out.
"Perhaps, but what little research there is on perpetrator's perspectives sees the two as fundamentally entwined."
ReplyDeleteI've just read all this..but since...if there's so little research on the perpetrator's perspective..or motivation...why is the 'power formulation' so widely accepted?..in fact that's not true..it's more than accepted...it's a general 'truism'? Surely what's needed is more research? It wouldn't even be hard. If all convicted rapists were asked to fill in a multiple choice questionnaire, you might soon have an answer..provided they didn't already think that the power explanation would buy them quicker remission as the 'desired outcome' of the researcher. I'm pretty sure most criminals know what they're expected to say and respond accordingly...they certainly seem pretty clued up on which answers correspond to the accepted theories and so will win them most brownie points...they're not generally as stupid as is supposed, whatever the figures on learning difficulties among the prison population etc.
I wouldn't reject it entirely..but neither can I fully accept it. In common with most men, I'm quite a bit larger, more powerful and I'd say..if pushed..more aggressive than most women..but that's something I know intrinsically..fundamentally...ultimately it's basic biology and physics...it's not something I have a 'position' on, take pride in or feel isn't sufficiently acknowledged ...the fact doesn't excite or arouse me...why would it..and why would I try to prove the fact?..what would I be proving?
It's got be something else...misogyny?...sexual desire?..If it was purely about power..or even largely about power..why would it manifest itself sexually?...why wouldn't a rapist motivated purely by power spend his time kicking or lording it over hamsters, or kids, or men smaller or weaker than himself instead?
It's surely to do with sexual desire, a pathological rejection of social norms and a degree of low self-esteem or self-loathing. Maybe even thrill seeking or an adrenaline thing?
Crank 1 & 2 are both ludicrously offensive films, with a flimsy premise, ridiculously over-the-top action and brutal violence with little or no regard for basic human decency.
ReplyDeleteWhich of course makes them awesome.
Ca1eb
Right, we are going round in endless circles
ReplyDeleteSo I am off to bed. Night all.
As usual Jay when you're struggling in an argument you resort to the "stupidy", "thick", "nothing of intelligence" line of crudeness.
ReplyDeleteDid the OU teach you nothing?
And it is your obsession with diminishing the appalling reality of rape for women that renders your entire approach to this issue as sexist.
@MF
ReplyDeleteEvery instance of rape can be seen and understood as an exercise of power over someone. I think that's (maybe) what meerkat means by saying the two are inextricable, and in that context I'd agree.
If the point is that rapists are solely motivated (separately from how their acts are perceived) by the exercise of power, then I'd disagree. For the reasons you state.
Here's a pretty typical mainstream article that indicates how intertwined sex and power are in motivation for sexual violence.
ReplyDeletehttp://dionysus.psych.wisc.edu/lit/Articles/BarabeeH1991a.pdf
Here, a qual study about the beliefs that support sexually violent behavior. You'll only be able to see the article if you have an athens account, but the abstract is reasonable:
"A qualitative analysis of interview data with 41 rapists determined that five implicit theories (ITs) underlie rapists’ offense supportive beliefs/feelings/motives: (a) dangerous world (DW)—where men have feelings of generalized anger and/or resentment toward others; (b) women are dangerous—where men hold a set of attitudes that are hostile toward women; (c) women as sexual objects (WSO)—where women are seen as primarily sexual objects; (d) male sex drive is uncontrollable—where sexual urges are seen all consuming; (e) entitlement—where men feel that they can do exactly what they want."
http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/21/12/1635.short
This article suggests a tiny minority of sex offender profiles link motive to rape to sexual gratification. The other three types - sadistic, opportunistic (mostly about impulse control) and the controlling type are about power....
Even with the compensatory sexual type, anger is exhibited when victims resist - something that suggests that docile compliance is what they want, and that power, therefore, remains a core component.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH7-4N3GFS8-C&_user=10&_coverDate=10/31/2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_origin=search&_cdi=6059&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1605223946&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=02e69ee297236dcbbc4b94532e4e43bb&searchtype=a
I could go on, but I suspect it's reasonably clear that the balance of both mainstream and more critical literature suggests the intertwining of sex and power in the production of rape behaviour.
Been observing the debate, on and off (whilst simultaneously assisting someone with coursework & proofreading something else), and have to say that an inter-disciplinary approach may elicit more about the issues. We're silo'd in our worldviews.
ReplyDeletePaul et al
ReplyDeletehomosexual rape as well as rape against women as a weapon of war has been used for ever.
the sexual humiliation of detainees in AbuGraib prison is said to be part of a deliberate pentagon policy to weaken the resistance of male prisoners by breaking their sense of masculinity. A book written by Raphael Patel in the 50s "The ArabMind" is said to be required reading for some military guys in US.
Patai wrote that in Arab and Turkish culture an aggressive homosexual act (rape) in no way diminished the masculinity of the rapist but did in fact enhance the aggressive 'manly' self whereas the compliant, passive recipient - or victim- of the act was totally diminished both personally and socially.
Patai has been discredited by many as he was seen to have an agenda which sought to diminish Arab men - P. was an Israeli - and it is possible that as a man he was projecting his own fears and prejudices. P was also a Freudian who believed that all people were in fact bisexual by nature.
There seems little doubt that the crimes in Abu Graib and elsewhere were designed to weaken the detainees and break their sense of themselves as men with personal agency. The question arises - and I have seen nothing written on this - did the men and women involved in the sexual humiliation of prisoners get a sexual 'kick' from their behaviour?
The raping of women in war has been interpreted in several ways - one being the straight power thing - we do it because we can - the humiliation of the male enemy and the leaving behind of ones offspring within the hated enemy society.
Well, I'm no expert on the subject but given that "Sheff" asked for a male perspective, here's my two penneth.
ReplyDeleteI can only speak for myself but I agree with "Heyhabib" in that most men don't even contemplate being the victims of rape let alone being the perpertrators of what I consider the most vile and heinous of crimes.
As far as I'm concerned, the motivation is irrelevant; it's just plain wrong and totally reprehensible.
At the risk of muddying the water even further, we have all (male and female) been metaphorically raped by the corruption in the banking system.
Just a thought and it wasn't meant to belittle any of the above comments.
BTW: Spencer mentioned that he was a "sado-masochist" which might explain why his "angle" is slightly skewed.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with "sado-masochism" because from what I can gather it is a consensual activity.
Anyway, I wasn't going to post but my opinion was asked for so there you have it.
The reasons that encourage?????
ReplyDeleteMy writing's getting worse!
I would be interested in the views of the men here on this.
ReplyDeleteas a woman I see the military as a 'macho' enhancing organisation and wonder if rape or other acts of sexual violence and humiliation are seen by many within the military as being 'ok' when it is their guys doing it as it might suggest an enhanced masculinity . It wouls , in that context, be seen as degrading and debauched if practiced by the enemy against our 'own' men and women.
Sex as a weapon is about both sexual activity and power - perhaps other things too.
Paul
ReplyDeleteHave left repy to you which got caught in page change. It relates to my post above.
Hi Leni
ReplyDeleteI'm a bit busy at the moment. I'll try and reply later.Hope you've fully recovered:-)
Back again ...
ReplyDeleteYes, Spencer is an author, IIRC, who writes about SM; meerkatjie is a psychologist; Paul is right about prison culture - we all have different 'takes' on rape.
Is rape a heinous crime if it is your absolute & firm belief that raping a virgin will cure you of HIV? Or that you have an absolute right to rape your wife because your faith tells you that this is right & proper? This shifts the debate, inter alia, to one of rights.
I'd like to thank all the blokes here for contributing so much tonight. It's been very interesting and I would like to have contributed more ... but family came first, as per.
leni
Would be interesting to continue this?
NN
x