Dragons — 8 Comments

  1. It is an act of sexual nature, because it involves the sexual organs.

    You are right about the study, my fault entirely, I was reading “The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism” before replying and just used those figures.

    “Just because there is violence perpetrated by men against other men or women against women or women against men does not mean that we cannot call out specific types of violence.”

    And I agreed with that.

  2. You really need to update your knowledge of the Fiske & Glick research because we’ve been here before:

    The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, first validated in U.S. samples, has been administered to over 15,000 men and women in 19 nations.

    We can quibble about individual ads but even “jokes” that perpetuate stereotypes contribute to the climate in which women are discounted and discriminated against.

    Just because there is violence perpetrated by men against other men or women against women or women against men does not mean that we cannot call out specific types of violence. There is nothing about “sanctifying” the harm done against women in my post. I was simply reacting to a specific movie that portrayed a specific form of violence.

    If sex is limited to “the interaction of genitalia” do blowjobs not count as sex?

  3. Thanks for taking the time to answer me. I wasn’t trying to discount your experiences of violence or discrimination but it’s important not to sanctify the harm unto women and hold it as more.. special than other harm humans do unto other humans.

    I don’t necessarily disagree that benevolent sexism might influence women into some jobs more than others but it should be noted that Fiske and Glick’s paper studies were done with mostly university students and also with a larger female representation, which might skew the attitude towards benevolent sexism. On the other hand, sexism, like stereotyping are just symptoms of a deeper underlying problem, the lack of proper education and critical thinking. It is important to acknowledge them but it holds limited relevance for thinking individual, and that’s what I’m interested in.

    I think you might be a bit too intolerant as to what constitutes anti-womanism. That ad is just a bit of humor playing on traditional views. But then again, who am I to judge.

    You can change what the definition of sex but that will not change what it is, i.e. the interaction of genitalia.

  4. Yes, I responded emotional for several reasons: I find it offensive when people discount my experience of violence and discrimination. And because I find it frustrating that people make broad claims out of ignorance (because I don’t look, I don’t see, therefore it doesn’t exist) – even when those claims are phrased as (leading) questions, as in your comment. (It is interesting to consider if my emotional response can therefore be discounted something along the lines of: I am just a hysterical women, nobody has to listen to me.)

    My statement “Take a look at how Kagan was treated before her confirmation. Take a look at how Hillary was/is treated.” did have absolutely nothing to do with politics. It had everything to do with how women who are in the public eye are treated differently than men in the public sphere. You can find that in many other countries – for example, Chancellor Merkel’s wardrobe has been commented on before her policy statements, something that was unthinkable with Chancellor Schroeder. Kagan was scrutinized as to her fitness because she’s a woman and because she’s single. There was a lot of anger directed at Hillary Clinton that had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that she’s a politician and everything to do with her being a woman. I mentioned Kagan and Clinton because these were the two women who popped into my mind. There are other examples.

    There is lots of research on benevolent sexism – check out the work of Susan Fiske and Peter Glick, for example. These are real attitudes people have about women that create a climate of disadvantage for women. Women are considered “nurturant,” for example, which stereotypes them into certain roles and jobs, which pay less. Benevolent sexism, just like “advertisements [that] play on stereotypes and gross exaggeration”, perpetuates inequality and discrimination (read up on stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination if you don’t know what I mean here; an update on Allport’s classic would be a good start).

    No, the theft example is not absurd. It is taking something that we generally experience as positive – like gifting or sex – and adds “without consent” to it to point out that this addendum does not capture what we really mean. Theft includes a violation of rights (ownership rights). Rape includes a violation of rights (ownership rights). Neither has something to do with the positive experiences.

    Any ad that uses a woman in a sexually enticing way is anti-woman (for example). Any act that does not respect us as human beings is anti-woman (for example, holding the door open for me just because I am a woman or claiming that atheist chicks are hot). Any conference that does not include women as their speakers is anti-woman. Take a look at this blog for lots more examples.

    The problem is that rape is generally defined with the individual perpetrator mindset. Brison suggests to redefine it as “group-based violence.” Sex is an act that involves at least two mostly naked people who respect each other and want to express their lust or love for each other. It involves at minimum consent by the people involved (Robin West suggests that consent is not enough, we need to want it, too).

    For your question about how hatred of women is institutional, I invite you to check out this entry about rape culture. You might find the whole site insightful, too, for getting answers to questions I might not have answered to your satisfaction.

  5. A very emotional response, which is understandable. Still, you haven’t really addressed the points I’ve raised, besides the equality one – which got me into all sorts of interesting places. And you’ve made assumptions on my behalf, like “patriarchy doesn’t exist anymore”.

    “Take a look at how Kagan was treated before her confirmation. Take a look at how Hillary was/is treated.”

    I’m sorry but I have no interest in the political racket, even if I did have it, it’s hard to really be aware of the ‘feel’ of politics when you’re from a different country. Bill Hicks had a great line once: “People ask me what I think about that woman priest thing. What, a woman priest? Women priests. Great, great. Now there’s priests of both sexes I don’t listen to.” I see the same thing in regards to politicians. Great, we can have a more diverse bunch of sociopaths in power now! I’m interested, if you’d like to tell me how Kagan and Hillary were treated, in your view; If I knew, I wouldn’t be asking.

    As far as your theft example, it is simply absurd, which I’m sure you’re aware of. That is unless we somehow got different definitions of what ‘gifting’ presumes.

    I simply want to know what do you see as an anti-women message, provide some examples and why they are anti-women. I don’t watch television so I’m not really up-to-date with advertisements. But usually advertisements play on stereotypes and gross exaggeration, it’s not just misogyny but general ignorance of the generality.

    And, I say this half-jokingly, there’s nothing wrong with doing household chores, in fact, it may very well be a reason for women’s longevity and health. I don’t think this is that much of an issue in states where the middle-class isn’t numerous. At least, in Romania men generally share the household chores too, and I’m willing to bet it’s the same case in the more socialistic states. For the mass of people anyway.

    As for the rape-sex-violence affair, like the wise Voltaire said: “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” Otherwise we might as well be talking in different languages.

  6. Funny. These messages are everywhere. Open your eyes and see (sorry, I get real tired of the “patriarchy doesn’t exist anymore” claims). Take a look at advertising. Take a look at how Kagan was treated before her confirmation. Take a look at how Hillary was/is treated.

    There is no Equal Rights Amendment in the US. Men and women are not equal before the law. That’s aside from the pay equalities, equalities in hiring and firing. The fact that women still spend more time on household chores. No, women are not the only ones who are suffering from bias but “reverse discrimination” against white males is part of the misogynist (and racist!) myths.

    It is an individual act in the sense that there is one individual acting (though in the case of group rape that isn’t the case). However, it reflects hatred against women, which is institutional.

    How can theft not be gift-giving? I think theft is simply gift-giving without consent – from the owner to the thief? It is a very sad statement to claim that rape is sex. It is about power and control and deeply violating.

    The sexes are not really as different as the mythology wants us to believe. That is part of the problem. Carol Tavris has documented this very well in The Mismeasure of Woman. The “dispute of the sexes” is manufactured by exaggerating the differences.

  7. So what are these anti-women messages and where do you find them?

    Also, how are men and women not equal (assuming the definition of equal we’re using is “Having the same privileges, status, or rights”) in the USA? I’m sure there a lot of unspoken imbalances but I’m wondering what’s on paper, legally. It’s not like women are the only ones suffering from bias.

    I disagree with the your point about it not being the act of individuals. Ultimately, irrespective of what pushes people to do such acts, it is an individual act.

    Lastly, how can it not be sexual(=Of, relating to, involving, or characteristic of sex, sexuality, the sexes, or the sex organs and their functions.)? I mean, in the end, the whole dispute of the sexes is because they’re different.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>