i saw this comment

"Telling people to be careful is blaming the victim?

Should we all stop locking our doors because it's not our fault if our house is robbed? After all, the only cause of robbery is robbery, which is caused by robbers."

now, i think thats a good point. should we stop being careful? should we not tell people to be careful if going out alone at night? when our mothers tell us to "be careful" should we be like mom "stop being a sexist pig"? i mean taking rape out of it, is it reallly unreasonable to be like "being alone and drunk is potentially dangerous bc you could be mugged"? is THAT as sexist as saying being alone and drunk is dangerous bc you might be raped"?

seriously, i want to understand this better. is it a matter of how the article is written, because i honestly do NOT think that feminist should take the stand of "dont be careful and take precautions while outl bc it you get raped its the rapists fault" that is completely and utterly ludicrous to me, obviously, we should be blaming the rapist, that is kinda, to me anyway, very clear, so where does the line get drawn. whether we like it or not i firmly believe that as feminists, while we actively try to change the dismal reality that is womens rights, we also have to live and work WITH it in a way thats both safe, and upholds our standards.

The compilation at Alternet was great, but the comments section hurts my brain. I wish I could resist scrolling down and expanding the mini-threads, but alas, I am weak.

Katie, I think it's obvious that feminists wouldn't oppose precautions to help keep women safe. But when someone's house is robbed, how often do you hear people click their tongues and suspiciously ask, "Well, you did lock your door, didn't you? Oh, you did? Well, why didn't you have an alarm system? I would never live anywhere in the city without an alarm system!"

I feel like every time a woman is raped, there's always an enormous focus on what she could have done to prevent it--which reads as a long list of things that we, as women, should never really do, unless, of course, we want to get raped. And I'm tired of it. When my friend got her car stolen, the police didn't ask her if she had locked her doors or why she parked her car on the street and not in the lot--they just took the report and tried to recover her vehicle. However, when I was raped, the police who took the report asked me if I was drunk, why I allowed myself to be alone with him, why I didn't fight back more aggressively, and so on--basically implying that it was my fault. That's something we really only do to rape victims, and that's why likening it to basic home security measures doesn't add up.

My god, check out faultroy's response to Alternet's posting. Here are a few gems:

"Then, there is the implication that women are paid less then men for equal work. This also is not true!!!
There is no statistical evidence to support this."

-ya, I guess reports by the federal government don't count: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf

And another, "Rape is a felony. It is a legal definition. For someone to call a crime a rape, someone has to be charged, tried and sentenced.
How many of these 90,000 "rapes" that you keep quoting have been tried?
How many have been convicted? I looked up the study: the answer is none!!!!!!"

-So rape isn't rape unless there is a conviction? What if the perpertrator is never found? Is it not rape then? What if a medical professional determines a woman was raped, but she does not report it? Is it not rape then? But I guess the Center for Disease Control doesn't count as a reliable source either: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm.

Here's quote from that report: "Among acts of SV [sexual violence] committed against women since the age of 18, 100% of rapes, 92% of physical assaults, and 97% of stalking acts were perpetrated by men."

But remember what faultroy said, the protestations we feminists make about sexual violence and economic inequity are just the "whiney ramblings of a bunch of immature kids." Why can't we "ignorant bitches grow up?" I don't know, I guess all this misogyny is just in our heads---we're too infantile, strident, and hormonal to see the truth---that we rape ourselves!

i 100% agree jenny, however to me, while the article was far from perfect, i dont think thats what she was saying. she was saying look, when you are drunk and walking around on a street alone (bc bar owners take advantage of women-not only that, but the whole safety issue didnt seem to be a focus of the aritcle at all, it was moreso how clubs and bars exploit women), its not a safe thing. its really, in all honesty safe for anyone. however, given the fact that women ARE treated like that after a rape (and given the comments teddy enumerated, clearly dont believe it really happens anyway) she should have really been more articulate. poor journalism really. however to say she was blatantly acting in a way that said "its womens fault they are raped" is very premature. after all, she is a feminist, and personally i have yet to meet a feminist (esp one employed by a feminist org) that thinks its a womans fault they are raped.

and personally, i think the sad part is that there IS a long list of things we have to think about in the way of safety and that in and of itself is disgusting to me. the fact is, we shouldnt have to do anything. no is no (among other things) and we should be able to walk on the street as shitfaced as we want to be and not have to worry about rape. what is even more disgusting is that when it does happen, it is our fault.

Katie, I think you're giving Funk too much credit. Calling oneself a feminist does not a feminist make. "Feminists for Life" anyone?

Did you read the article she wrote deriding Feministing, jumping on the Althouse "booblogging" train? She's no feminist, I'm afraid.

well you are talking to someone that believes feminists for life, while misguided and i dont agree with them at all, can still be feminists. thoroughly disagree with the idea that feminism can be attributed to a single ideology. frankly, the current trend for feminists to be as intolerant to differing viewpoints as those who we disagree with is something that is doing a great disservice to the movement.

show me a quote where she derides feministing in her own words and in what is clearly her own opinion in the booblogging article? the fact that she quoted that idiot althouse doesnt count. i am pretty sure she ends her article with

"When we hear Paris Hilton say, "Feminism: that's hot," we'll know feminists are in trouble. In the meantime, it's probably safe with Feministing.".

i agree with the woman from NOW's stance in that, lets save our battles for people who are clearly against feminism (coulter etc etc etc-society in general) and leave a woman who personally i think is pretty clearly a feminist (maybe not one you AGREE with but come on) out of it.

i think a clarification on her part is in order- and if she backs up her stance that women are asking for rape, well then i will admit to defeat. i dont think we would ever see her saying that though.

Katie: I don't believe that labeling myself the Queen of Prussia makes it necessarily so. If you can't critically evaluate an organization's body of work, one which consistently cripples the autonomy and civil liberties of women to remove the label, then the label itself becomes meaningless.

As for the past Funk/Feministing unpleasantness, once again the problem is her incapability of separating news from opinion. In writing the article, the silly non-question becomes something that is open for debate. Quoting a prominent critic ad nauseum may not mean that this is the author's opinion, but you're left with very little else to go on.

As for one's powder and keeping it dry, I redirect you to some Joan Jett lyrics.

I think what Katie picked up on is valid. There is a disconnect between the inflammatory nature of the criticism versus the neutral tone of the original article, and as a result the criticism comes off as hyperbolic and hysterical.

The problem is not Funk's conclusions; rather, it's the assumptions upon which Funk's conclusions are based. And Funk doesn't address those assumptions - that women are bait, the men are the real customers, the consequence all of this is rape. Not a word. The reason being perhaps because these assumptions are so widely accepted. So Jessica is not attacking the words of Funk's article, but rather the premises on which it's based, which premises Funk doesn't deem worthy of discussion.

I personally think that the problem with Funk's article could be articulated without the hyperbole and inflammatory rhetoric, but hey that's what journalistic license is about, right? Got my attention.

norbizness- labeling yourself something vs actually having something to back it up are two different things.

if you are pro life but adhering to and fighting for every other feminist tenant is far from "labeling" yourself a feminist yet not living up to it at all. its far from ideal in my mind, but i wont discount a person for that viewpoint alone in regards to feminism. i will argue to the death that they are wrong and defend my belief in pro choice, but to automatically disqualify them from being a "feminist" is something that is unforgiveable. when did we become so judgemental and intolerant? when did we become so much like our enemies?

and yes jane, perfectly put. i think work is having a very detrimental affect on me ability to be articulate and succint whatsoever ;)

But when someone's house is robbed, how often do you hear people click their tongues and suspiciously ask, "Well, you did lock your door, didn't you? Oh, you did? Well, why didn't you have an alarm system? I would never live anywhere in the city without an alarm system!"

After I was mugged, people started asking me questions to see what I was doing to make myself a target. The main foci were a) my getting out of a cab a full 30-40 meters from the entrance to my building, and b) my tinkering with my cell phone out in the open instead of waiting till I was inside to set up an alarm clock.

I agree that reacting with inflammatory remarks and hyperbole are virtually never a good response, to anything. Even if an emotional response is called for/understandable, people tend to tune you out a bit if you're working from emotions rather than logic (this may be yet another problem with society, in that it undervalues emotions, stereotypically associated with women, relative to logic, stereotypically associated with men, but it is what it is).

As to the problem with the article itself, I think either Funk was saying something disagreeable, or she did not take sufficient care to distance herself from important negative connotations. The fact that she cites Gary Miller does not help her case much.

The issue is not whether people would be wise to take safety precautions. That one's a big fat "duh." That one is not, or at least should not be, a POLITICAL or SOCIOLOGICAL issue. It's a personal one. Safety is something that gets handled by parents, campus police, and HR. Recommended safety precautions aren't treated as part of a regular courseload, or a prerequisite for a job interview. Blowing them up as a social issue allows safety precautions to take on an added dimension, and when those precautions are recommended only for one gender, it opens up the door for finger wagging. No women deserves to have a finger wagged at her because she went to a club and drank. No woman. Period.

Part of the problem, in addition to the fact that these particular precautions are directed solely at one gender, is that similar precautions aren't directed at men for crimes for which men are at greater risk. As MRAs are so fond of reminding us, men are the primary victims of muggings and murder. So why don't we tell men, "if you don't want to get mugged/murdered, you really ought to stay at home?" It's as though men get a pass on this. As though the freedom to go out is a necessary part of male flourishing, but not female flourishing. As though it's somehow *harder* for men not to go out. As though men somehow have earned more of a right to go out and enjoy themselves.

When we focus on women going out, and when we make our point that women shouldn't go out *at all*, we're making far too sweeping a statement. I mean, as long as we're recommending precautions, why not talk about self-defense? Why not hand out pepper spray? Why not teach women about the male body's most vulnerable parts, should the women be attacked (I'm in fact NOT talking about ballsacks, to be clear)? Obviously these solutions are also less than ideal, but suggesting that women who don't want to be raped should simply "stay home" is irresponsible, unhelpful, and incredibly uncreative.

Alon, that's horrible. I'm sure that having that experience has given you more empathy into the kind of treatment that rape victims frequently get. I think that a lot of the time, cops really couldn't be bothered to give a shit about crimes when we report them, and getting mistreated after a mugging or another type of crime isn't unheard of. I would say that this happens unilaterally to almost ALL victims of rape, though--in a higher occurence than it does for other crimes. Of course, most of my evidence will anecdotal, as police departments don't compile information regarding their officers' dickheadery.

"When we focus on women going out, and when we make our point that women shouldn't go out *at all*, we're making far too sweeping a statement. I mean, as long as we're recommending precautions, why not talk about self-defense? Why not hand out pepper spray? Why not teach women about the male body's most vulnerable parts, should the women be attacked (I'm in fact NOT talking about ballsacks, to be clear)? Obviously these solutions are also less than ideal, but suggesting that women who don't want to be raped should simply "stay home" is irresponsible, unhelpful, and incredibly uncreative."

Ta-da.
Good call.
Telling women to stay home and not go out and to limit their fun because people in the world can be assholes is completely unfair. Its like the gym class where the girl was asked to leave because the teacher was afraid she would be sexually assaulted... Why weren't the boys who were the problem removed as opposed to the girl that was doing absolutely nothing wrong?

Inflammatory responses are just irritating...They end up being filled with so much crap that I never want to read them.

i mean taking rape out of it, is it reallly unreasonable to be like "being alone and drunk is potentially dangerous bc you could be mugged"? is THAT as sexist as saying being alone and drunk is dangerous bc you might be raped"?

I enjoyed Shakes Sis' response to the mugging analogy:

"It's always so charming to see the wanton and unwanted abuse of my body compared to property theft. Honestly, I can't even begin to tell you how much you don't get it if you can construe a woman walking alone and inebriated with a man walking alone with valuables hanging out of his pocket. If you want an honest comparison, here's one: And also in an abstract moral sense, I should be able to walk around those same places in the middle of the night and not expect to have someone incapacitate me and cut my dick off. The reason that doesn't leap to your mind is because men's bodies aren't considered community property for the taking as soon as they get drunk, like women's bodies. Or visible $50 bills."
---
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/01/take-my-cunt-please.html

i think the idea kian is that most of the bloggers responses were inflammatory and didnt match how non inflammatory the original story was. hence why i was a little confused and really had to think about it more. there was nothing that really screamed "anti feminist slut shamer" to me in the way the articles posted here usually do, so the brouhaha made me look a little closer. i still dont agree with the brouhaha, but hey, i understand better what caused it.

``i think the idea kian is that most of the bloggers responses were inflammatory and didnt match how non inflammatory the original story was.``

That could be a good reason why I didn`t read half of them. heh. (also my keyboard appears to have just randomly switched to french mode... dòh.) But really - I honestly haven`t even bothered reading the comment threads for half this stuff, because people are getting so bent out of shape. The original article deserved some criticism, for sure, but with that generally follows a shit storm.

ok fine susan or MURDERED. attacked in a non sexual way. anything. by no means is it an analogy, but more just an example of where safety is an issue and whether and what you should or should not be doing to protect yourself and what sort of implications that has.

This is far-off sidenote, but anyone who uses gmail/google calendar will find this amusing.

I sent some exerpts of one the slut-shaming articles to a friend, and since google will automatically pick up any block of text near a time and date, and suggest that you add it to your calendar, i see this on my sidebar:

I started laughing so hard at work some of my coworkers came over to see what the hell was wrong with me.

you didnt write what you saw!

Oops, apparently I can't post images here. In re: to my above post: because of this quote in my email-

"You just dance. Then you meet a guy, he buys you drinks, you go home with him, then you wait by your phone the whole next week; but he doesn't call until he's really drunk at 3 a.m. the following Saturday."

-it suggested that I add exactly that to my calendar, penciled in from 3am to 4am on this coming Saturday. Hah

ok fine susan or MURDERED.

And what precautions do you suggest everyone take to prevent being murdered? Because, you know, the onus is on all of us.

Susan, and men especially, since men are murdered more often than women. So why don't we go around warning men about the dangers of drinking and then walking around late at night? In fact, this makes MORE sense than telling women to stay in, since if I'm not mistaken a much larger percentage of murders than rapes are committed against persons walking alone in poorly-lit areas.

ok you guys are completely missing my point. personally i dont think that telling people to be careful. it was a question that had nothing to do with comparing mugging to rape, just generally unsafe situations. is telling people to be safe sexist. the sad fact is women do have to be more careful, its a fact of reality, and realizing that fact isnt blaming women i dont think. perhaps its in the way its done. i didnt say the onus is ON a person not to be murdered, but that is theoretically and morally true, not realistically. hence my thing about trying to change reality while acknowledgeing and working within it.

really, i find it more then a bit ridikculous to suggest that i was saying its someones fault they are murdered, honestly.

i didnt say the onus is ON a person not to be murdered, but that is theoretically and morally true

What?

is telling people to be safe sexist.

No. But telling *women* "you shouldn't leave the house if you don't want to get raped" is.

the sad fact is women do have to be more careful, its a fact of reality, and realizing that fact isnt blaming women i dont think

I've heard that a lot of black parents tell their children never to run in front of a police officer, to avoid an Amadou Diallo-like incident. But can you imagine if the government or mainstream media started offering this advice, only to African-Americans? When parents tell their children this, it's to keep them safe. From another source, the same advice can turn into an apologia for police shootings of unarmed victims.

the blame can clearly NOT be put on those who are murdered/raped/etc. that is a moral and theoretical fact for me. however, in reality, you must deal with the fact that certain situations are more dangerous then others, and should be avoided. that is the sad state of our world. this is why i believe that, despite the fact that the victim shouldnt be blamed, precautions are still needed because that is reality. its also a reality that women are more in danger then men. telling women (like law fairy) that they need to stay indoors or else they will get raped is most certainly wrong. but that is not what the article said now is it? it simply said look, bad things can happen, take precautions. it should have said, bad things can happen bc men still view women as property, rape is a reality for women, things need to be changed and precautions should be taken, but never, ever think its your fault when someone chooses to violate your fundamental rights as a human no matter what situation you are in.

also, as people have stated, there are many instances where no precaution was needed and shit still happens. in peoples homes, when girls simply wanted to make out and he didnt take no for an answer.

katie dear, funk's article was pointless. the media doesn't tell anyone else to take precautions all the while hinting it will be your fault if something bad happens to you. there aren't any psa's for other groups let alone insinuations of blame if you don't follow the advice.

Part of the problem, in addition to the fact that these particular precautions are directed solely at one gender, is that similar precautions aren't directed at men for crimes for which men are at greater risk. As MRAs are so fond of reminding us, men are the primary victims of muggings and murder. So why don't we tell men, "if you don't want to get mugged/murdered, you really ought to stay at home?" It's as though men get a pass on this. As though the freedom to go out is a necessary part of male flourishing, but not female flourishing. As though it's somehow *harder* for men not to go out. As though men somehow have earned more of a right to go out and enjoy themselves.

Funk's article takes away women's agency and blames the victim while giving men agency and removing blame and responsibility. She's a tool for conservatives.

yes donna, a tool for conservatives on womens enews. talk about hyperbolic. nowhere in her article does she say that, and nowhere does she absolve men of all blame. show me something that definitively means that in her article, without making giant assumptions about what shes saying?

nowhere does she absolve men of all blame

this article should not exist. in its place (on alternet where it also ran), there should be an article telling men not to rape.

that it ran on womens enews is much worse.

DD: this article should not exist
The only good thing about that article was the feminist responses it inspired. I recommend them to katie.

I don't know which bothers me more: The fact that the comments field is full of posts that glorify rape, or the fact that Liz Funk contorted her writing 20 different ways to avoid condemning those kinds of sentiments, and threw in an antifeminist remark about how those awful women "tear each other apart" to boot.

Is this what the Alternet community is really like? I mean, I'm speechless. It all reads like a snootier version of some kind of Maxim forum.

Sorry, Liz, but if it's important to you to "[cooperate] with people you aren't crazy about," even if some of those people are pro-rape, then I'd say that's a bigger tent than I'm interested in sleeping in, and I hope to God this kind of "we should tolerate misogyny--it's the new black" sentiment isn't the "message" we're supposed to be taking out of the November 2006 election.

Cheers,

TH

when you have an uncle that molested his 12 yr old adopted child (after she experienced years of abuse) and a friend raped by her youth minister at the age of 16, you just don't have words beyond their stories.

when you have an uncle that molested his 12 yr old adopted child (after she experienced years of abuse) and a friend raped by her youth minister at the age of 16, you just don't have words beyond the girls' stories.

I think the worst part of that article is how the author manages to relate the story of the woman who was raped and murdered without ever once mentioning the rapist, let alone what punishment, if any, he received. She made it sound like getting raped is just something that happens to you, a risk you take if you get too drunk, like falling down. Oops, gravity! Ooops, rape!

I read a statistic somewhere that something like 99% of rapists are men. Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, all these rape prevention messages are being delivered to the wrong audience?

Just once, I'd like to see an article telling men that they should think twice about going out to clubs and getting drunk, because they might end up raping somebody.

But I'm not holding my breath waiting for it.

You'll never get that from the antifeminists, Vervain. Rape is to them what inner-city crime is to the current generation of white segregationists: An excuse to enforce their agenda by using fear.

Cheers,

TH

Ninety-nine percent of all reported rapists are men. (U.S. Department of Justice)

http://www.mensresourcecenter.org/challenging_rape.html

ok well next time my mother tells me to be careful when i go out i am going to tell her to stop being such a moronic sexists pig and to go tell a bunch of men not to rape.

and thanks for giving us a link for a completely obvious statistic.

and susan, i read those feminists responses, not all of them are nearly as over the top and filled with assumptions as you are.

this article

http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/20316/2007/00/3-172543-1.htm

to me anyway, represents slut shaming and victim blaming far more then Funks article even came close to.

Just once, I'd like to see an article telling men that they should think twice about going out to clubs and getting drunk, because they might end up raping somebody.

I don't even think that's quite enough, really. That still makes it seem like an accident- "Oops, I got drunk, and look what I did!"
Eff that.
Rape isn't an accident that happens because you've done a little too much drinking. It happens when someone makes a choice to violate another person.

Thanks for the cite, DD. I was too lazy to look it up. (Plus I can never remember the HTML to do the link thing.)

I wasn't going to do this. I'm getting tired of making these massive posts. But while I'm here, I'd like to respond to the it's okay to blame stupid victims argument that's so very popular:

Yes, if a man drives his new Mercedes through a bad neighborhood at midnight and gets carjacked, people will probably say, "well that was stupid, he should have known better." And if a girl goes to a frat party alone in a minidress sans underwear and gets so drunk she passes out, and is raped, they'll say the same thing.
The difference is that in the case of rape, there's always something the victim "could have done" or "should have known" that would have prevented him/her getting raped. ALWAYS. Case and point: recently on Feministe (or was it Pandagon?) there was a post about a woman who was anally raped by her boyfriend. She'd told him repeatedly on numerous occasions that she didn't want, and would never want, anal sex. She screamed and cried and begged him to stop the whole time. She ended up so badly injured she passed out from blood loss, needed almost 40 stitches, and had to be hospitalized for a week. And yet, some people in the comments still said that "she shouldn't have trusted him" or that "maybe he didn't realize she didn't want it." And this was in a particularly outrageous case where you'd think the fact that it was rape was fucking obvious.
So maybe Mr. Mercedes in my example was stupid. But most women are not like my hypothetical drunken commando girl. We spend a significant chunk of our lives altering or limiting our behavior in order to "avoid" or "prevent" rape--so really, most rape victims are more comparable to a man who drives through an upperclass neighborhood at high noon in his Pinto and gets carjacked...and is then told he "should have known better." No matter what we do, it's never good enough. There's always something we could have done differently...right down to "she shouldn't have trusted him." Which in the end is what it always comes down to. But rapists don't come with handy labels. They don't give out cards or wear badges that say, "Hi! I'm a rapist! Let me show you how!" But yet we're supposed to know, somehow, who is and who isn't. Who we can trust. We can't. Rapists come in many forms, including authority figures. Women (and men) have been raped by policemen, soldiers, firemen, and countless other men who we're supposed to trust--you know, the guys we're supposed to take along with us when we go out so we don't get raped. And when one of them turns out to be a rapist too, what then? It's still our fault for not "knowing better." In the recent archives on this site alone you'll find articles about rape among firefighters and in the military. And you'll note the victims weren't treated any better in those instancess. There is no safe solution. There is no magic-bullet excuse. There is no scenario in which someone won't blame the victim for their rape, or make excuses for their rapist. And that is what is wrong with our societal perception of rape, and what we need to change. Until we do, it'll just keep happening.

One final note: Next time you think about saying, "She shouldn't have gotten drunk, that was stupid" consider this: what you're really saying is that being stupid means you sacrifice your right to bodily integrity--therefore it's okay to rape you. Expanding on this premise, would you also argue it's okay to rape the mentally retarded, people in vegetative states, and small children? Because none of them are terribly bright, either. They too might find themselves in a situation they lacked the paranoia or pessimistic forethought to recognize as potentially dangerous. (Ok, maybe not the vegetables--they don't get out much.) Is it okay to rape them, too? Is it their fault if someone does? Think about what you're really arguing, here. Stupidity and poor judgement is not, nor has it ever been, a rapeable offense. Okay?

And for katie--no, you shouldn't stop trying to be safe. Nor should you expect to get a whole lot of sympathy when you take every conceiveable precaution and still end up getting raped. Because too many people have attitudes just like yours, and too many think there's nothing wrong with having them. Personally, I think this is a bad thing and would like to see it change. I guess you wouldn't?

Or how about an article examining the sort of events and thinking that lead to a man deciding to rape someone? We have a shitload of articles telling us girls what we "did wrong" that led to us getting raped, but where is examination of the original cause--the rapist?

It seems to me that people must be getting a lot of kicks out of the whole slut-shaming fest for it to perpetuate, so why don't we turn this to our advantage with a series of rapist-shaming articles, for instance? People could get their does of schadenfreude while taking down the whole rape mystique a bit by putting the responsibility where it belongs.

On a slight side-note, has anyone read the book Cunt recently? The author describes forming an organization or women with the aim of exacting "poetic justice" against the perpetrators of rape and other sexual violence by nonviolent means, such as speaking with employers and erm, minor vehicle vandalism. In a culture where rape victims get the lion's share of the public shaming and punishment and rapists are so rarely prosecuted, not to mention convicted, maybe this is a way we as members of the public can bring some attention where it belongs. I think it's pretty obvious that the system is not serving us, and I feel that those with the power to change it have quite a different agenda. Anyway, it's an idea...

The problem I see is that using Megan's Law databases for anything other than...well, I'm not sure, exactly...comes with serious criminal penalties. Which are, ironically enough, probably more likely to be pursued than rape charges. But certainly this is something I'd want to look into. There was a politician who was arrested for domestic violence in 1999, and is now pursuing a major statewide political career. He was never actually convicted, but would mudslinging on that issue--bringing up the arrest, and maybe sinking his political career in the process--discourage men from beating their wives down the road? Maybe.

As far as Katie goes, I hate to issue an ad hominem, but I said after the very first Katie post that I don't believe Katie's name is really Katie. My gut has told me that Katie is a dude. I could easily be wrong; I don't know. All I have to go by is a one-name alias and a constant tendency towards "phallic drift" (where every discussion we have seems, to Katie, to be better oriented around the question of how bad we feminists are, or how X-and-such affects or restricts men).

Cheers,

TH

katie, my mom tells me every time i go out i'll be raped and there is a rapist around every corner. not exactly in those words but you know what i mean. i hate it because i feel like she's told me this every day of my life. it's paternalistic and sexist. and the statistic is not obvious. i didn't know rapist were men 99% of the time. the way men complain about men being raped, i somehow get the impression there are alot of women rapists out there but they're really talking about straight men who raped them.

vervain, i don't know any html either and still use the livejournal faq page!

katie is like a combination of noname and freewmn.

ok well next time my mother tells me to be careful when i go out i am going to tell her to stop being such a moronic sexists pig and to go tell a bunch of men not to rape.

Whatever floats your boat, katie. You're missing the point. Liz Funk is not our mother. She should leave the paternalism to parents.

Oh, hell, Mr. Head - yeah, I read this blog sporadically, and I've noticed the obvious - that Katie is male. It's good trolling, though - pulls back from being too ridiculous, and plays on posters' sympathy by impersonating a sort of illiterate and not-terribly-bright eleven year old girl.

And Vervain, you've said it. Really, it's the old double bind: a woman is paranoid or anti-male or just plain loopy to assume any male she knows is a potential rapist, but if she trusts a guy enough to be alone with him, she's a stupid, naive slut asking for trouble. There truly is no magic bullet - just try to be careful, don't trust anyone male all that much, and never trust a group of males under any circumstances.

Guys like to fuck women, and rape is basically just fucking to a lot of them. It's not gonna change. It is good that it's somewhat illegal in most countries now, of course. But it's never going to stop. There's always going to be a huge percentage of people (male & female) who lack any basic empathy, and don't mind hurting someone to get what they want. Men are just more violent, and aggressive, and hornier, and it's their world.

I am not exactly sure how me truly wanting to understand why this article deserved the response it got=I think women deserve rape.

I took it as, ok there are alot of dangers out there and shit happens because of it. Of course I think she should have addressed the fact that no matter what women do, they should not have to worry about rape, even if they are walking down the street in bed-stuy at 4am wasted out of their mind. I don't think victim blaming is ok Vervain, I was trying to figure out where the hell in her article something like that was stated. Poor journalism is one thing, accusing someone of thinking women bring rape on is something else. personally, i think its a drastic accusation to make to someone. sorry. in the long run, i don't really care, i don't even know the girl. if you people hate her and throw her to the conservatives "wolves" if you will, that is no skin off my back.

however, as i said before, i don't think that is the right thing to do. the reaction that article has received is the same as ones that are FAR more offensive and blatantly sexist. I do not personally think this type of thing does any good for the cause of feminism, but thats just my 2c.

as for you TH, I find it absolutely insulting to members of BOTH sexes that because i write a certain way, or express a certain viewpoint, that i must be a man. if making assumptions such as that aren't sexist, i dont know what is. perhaps you have failed to notice that not all feminists agree on the issues, and in no way does it make one less of a feminist then another. THAT kind of finger pointing and judging most certainly doesnt do anything for our cause. there is no phallic drift here, there is no saying this article restricts men, in fact, i think it doesnt blame men enough. i do not see the things you guys are seeing, but apparently that is cause for just being downright nasty. thats fine, that is pretty common on this board. either you agree with the majority, or you get put down. a simple discussion cannot be had.

donna, i have personally never heard of a man or men complaining about rape, maybe because they realize that i would go off on them for how wrong they are. at the same time, it has happened, and to be like "i hear all these men complaining blah blah blah" would be, i would assume, insulting to men who perhaps have endured something as horrible as rape. the numbers to be sure are far smaller, but nonetheless they exist.

furthermore, i simply do not understand why having a civil disagreement on these boards always ends up in people being flat out mean. donna, i disagreed with you, in no way did i suggest women deserve/should be blame etc for being raped, yet you still insist on saying i am a combo of noname and whoever else, two people who i am certain my ideals are nothing like.

and to clarify, i am a 24 year old WOMAN TH, but thanks for being so concerned.

ksamas. rape is not fucking to men, its an assertion of power. anyone who has taken a first year women's studies course knows that. and how exactly do i play on peoples sympathy? That is a good one.

hey all, i know these are emotinoally and politically loaded topics, but let's please try and play nice, mkay?

I do not personally think this type of thing does any good for the cause of feminism, but thats just my 2c.

Well, katie, this point here is, I think, precisely the point we've all been making, but in reverse. That is to say, we're questioning the motivations and the whole point behind Liz's article. The end of her article carries a strong suggestion that staying home would be a "solution" to the problem of rape. We've been saying, it does not help feminism to make suggestions like this. No one here is saying that a woman's option to take whatever precautions suit her is an option she should not exercise. But we're wary of saying that anyone should take certain precautions, because this carries on its flip side the implication that if you didn't, you have done something "wrong."

Again, the problem is that she focused on women restricting their freedoms and cutting certain activities out of their LIVES to avoid rape. Our point is that these sorts of articles don't help feminism. That some of us may engage in more or less hyperbole in so stating does not diminish the validity of that point.

It sounds like you've ruffled some feathers here, and I don't think people are being entirely fair to you. But at the same time, I think some of us get the sense that you either don't understand or are intentionally misinterpreting what we're saying, and it's frustrating to make an argument only to have someone mis-characterize that argument.

I vote that we all, men, women, and persons of sexes and/or genders without colloquial expressions, take a hot fudge sundae break. Or mac and cheese, or some other comfort food of choice :0)

"No one here is saying that a woman's option to take whatever precautions suit her is an option she should not exercise. But we're wary of saying that anyone should take certain precautions, because this carries on its flip side the implication that if you didn't, you have done something "wrong.""

Yes. Completely. I think I may have found the misunderstanding here. And its mostly my fault.
I do think you should take precautions....BUT....in my view, if you don't and something happens I don't think you have done anything wrong. (let's face it, even when you take rpecautions horrible things can happen and people will still find a way to blame it on the woman) Perhaps I was being optimistic when I figured that well, that is what she meant. However, I realize your point....that is not generally how the world thinks when it comes to rape and other violence against women. Most people believe, and how it is often portrayed in the media, is that if you get raped, somehow going out and having fun isnt taking enough precautions and oh well, thats what happens to little girls who like to go out, drink and have fun. i think perhaps the only thing we disagree on is the amount of ire it drew, and the only reason i am giving this girl the benefit of the doubt is because it is womans enews, so i was like well, maybe she didnt mean it like that, and just really wrote about something in a way that only reinforces the prevalent beliefs in our society. it was most certain a thoughtless and bad idea, and coming from a org. like that, makes it even more dangerous.

ok see, thats all i needed. I think I might have had a different reaction had this come from an other source of information and not a womens news organization. Again, optimism is a bad idea i suppose in cases like this.

Katie, I apologize for assuming you are lying, and are actually a man. But I'm wondering, have you noticed that your voice completely changes in tone from post to post? I don't read this blog every week, yet every time I do, there's an exchange of posts between you and other members where you say something that sort of misses the point of the discussion, then someone gently disagrees and presents their point of view and backs it up from the text, and then you act contrite. Maybe you should spend more time reading the articles and other people's opinions, and then post - just to save yourself the trouble of posting over and over again? Just a suggestion. Of course, everyone is entitled to his own opinion - you may just want to spend some more time formulating how you wish to phrase yours.

Katie, as I said, I have no way of knowing what your gender is. I just see you consistently taking the same positions that I expect MRAs to take, and while there are female MRAs, I haven't run into any on this particular board. I have run into at least one case where a man (who emailed me privately with a "reasonable" post that included the phrase "let's leave the histrionics to the ladies"--ick) later posted under a female-looking alias. So I expect this sort of thing.

If you're actually female, I apologize--but as I said in the first paragraph, I don't really have any way of knowing. I never thought you were 11 or not-too-bright. I just thought you were male because you were making what I took to be the standard male arguments.

Cheers,

TH

(But I'm well aware of the fact that identities can get lost on this medium. Before I put my photo on the civil liberties site, I had gotten racial slurs that were obviously based on the assumption that I was black, due to the way I cover civil rights issues. I took that as a huge compliment.)

That is true Ksmas, however, its usually because I get frustrated that others arent seeing my point. the same way i am sure you were getting frustrated that i wasnt seeing yours. also, almost always, someone gets nasty, and obviously, (esp since i stated from the beginning in this particular thread that i wanted to understand from what viewpoint people were looking at it) i get defensive because it comes out of left field. Also, I really, really don't like it when people (as they did here) assume things like I am some sort of rape apologist, or am defending men. Usually, the insult (and to me it is an insult) anti feminist gets thrown when I simply disagree. frankly, thats what i saw in this instance being done to Funk because I still believe she doesnt mean women should stay inside if they don't want to get raped. However, I absolutely see how a journalist (esp a feminist one) has a moral obligation to NOT further the commonly held and wrong assumptions of society, which is what she did here, even if indeed it is simply her being thoughtless and writing a bad piece. so, that is where i understand the outrage on everyones part.

if you will also notice, i am not the only person whose tone changes from post to post. its called getting fired up and then cooling down and perhaps getting more clarity. in terms of posting and posting over and over, was mostly because the first post that truly brought light to the disagreement and misunderstanding was law fairys, and for the most part the previous ones were just hurling insults and calling me a phallo centric anti feminist male without thinking for a moment about what i was trying to say. the fact that vervain said

"Think about what you're really arguing, here. Stupidity and poor judgement is not, nor has it ever been, a rapeable offense. "

AFTER i posted

"this is why i believe that, despite the fact that the victim shouldnt be blamed, precautions are still needed "

shows this. i clearly state that the woman (or any victim) should not be blamed. precautions=smart but in NO WAY should
no precaution=deserving of any crime, esp one that violates a person in a way that rape does. perhaps i wasnt clear, but maybe you can see why people continually saying stuff like that got me upset, and why maybe, the tone of my posts would change.

what maybe is perhaps most annoying to is that i even get upset at a bunch of people i don't know calling me a rape apologist, or a phallocentric male or a stupid illiterate 11 year old girl (which just makes me laugh since i wrote and orally defended a 110 page thesis combining my majors of womens studies and international relations for my undergrad degree) or what have you, but i guess that is how seriously i do take my feminism . and unless one of you frequent posters wrote something that was horrendously sexist, i would assume that you take your feminism that seriously as well, and wouldnt resort to below the belt intellectual swipes- but thats just me.

I don't recall calling you a rape apologist, or saying that you were necessarily all that much more phallocentric than the norm, or saying that you were stupid, or illiterate, or 11 years old. I just thought you were a dude. Isn't that an understandable mistake?

Look, I like Alon, so I don't mean this as a slam, but he is a classic example of an intelligent and good person who falls right into the phallic drift pattern on a regular basis. I do it occasionally myself, if I'm not careful, because it's something that men do. It's not usually something that women do, so when I see a poster doing it, I assume that poster is a male.

After looking a little harder at your posts, I don't really think you're a dude anymore. I do think you've put it upon yourself to keep us honest, based on whatever your understanding of that might be, and the contrarianism that's part of that is going to resemble phallic drift if it's done on a feminist web site. Understandable mistake, I hope.

As far as the 110-page thesis is concerned, that sounds impressive and I'd like to know more about it, but all I knew before I saw that post was that you posted with the alias Katie.

And ordinarily I would not have aired my gender suspicions, but to be honest I've spent a lot of time referring people to Women's eNews and Alternet, and I'm humiliated not only by the business with Liz Funk, but also with the comments in response to her article. I mean, did you see that shit? Lots of rape apologia going on over there, and who's Funk going after? Feminists? I mean, give me a friggin' break. I'm outraged by the message I believe her article sends. Why isn't she? Why doesn't she want to make absolutely sure that people know what she meant, and distance herself from the disgusting fratboy commenters posting on Alternet?

Cheers,

TH

Tom,

you definitely did not call me an illiterate 11 year old, that was ksmas. some of what vervain said, while not calling me a rape apologist, was basically saying "ok so its totally cool with you that women are blamed for rape" which is really off the mark.

as for the disgusting comments on alternet, i 100% agree with you there. If i was her, i would have written a clarification article, and also apologized for not taking more care in making sure my point was absolutely clear. in light of the fact that she hasnt responded to said comments or the uproar over her first article, maybe i am totally wrong about her. maybe she does place the blame partly on women for being raped. we may never know.

also, i am not particularly surprised you think i am a male, you wouldnt be the first person. i am not your "typical" (whatever that means!) girl, and to be quite honest, i would say the way i think and express myself (or so people tell me) is more how a male thinks then a female thinks. i dont really want to get into the implications of that, because half the time i dont even know what people mean by it, but i have been told that. but most feminists i know are like that, so it's interesting you don't run into it more.

anyhoo, i almost feel stupid for causing this to turn into such a mess, and really it makes me feel quite infantile, so, i will apologize for that. i just want people to see my point, and realize in no way was it what i was accused of by a select few. i do truly love this site, and this board, and i always learn quite a bit from all of you.

ps tom- the thesis was on women and irish nationalism in the early 20th century .it focused on how upsurges in nationalism not only correlate with a deterioration of womens rights but also how women are used as symbols of the country, and how their behavior becomes indicative of the state of the nation. also, how women are used by men to "violate" the nation, which is usually manifested by using rape as a war crime. it also addressed two militant female irish nationalists, and how they operated within such conditions and how they were viewed.

anyway, have an awesome weekend everyone. i am actually headed off to be deserving and asking for rape because ill be drinking in a bar . hopefully i wont run into any of those frat boys from that alternet board though ;)

I actually get your point katie. If you drink and are around males then you increase the chances of getting raped. Young males have a hard time controlling their hardware.

If the female is not drunk then she can read bad signals or unwanted touching from the male. If she is drunk or druged then she will realize this too late.

No one deserves to be raped and being smart about not getting raped is a better choice since you can't control everyone.

Is that what you are saying?

please keep in mind that none of this is necessarily what i think. but more what i thought Funk meant. I thought that first and foremostly she was enumerating the many ways that clubs/bars take advantage women, and how they treat them as "not the real customers" etc etc, all things i take issue with. then, i thought she was saying, the result of this can be dangerous, bc you have very drunk females with males who may be less then human, and somehow think its ok to rape someone. when you are drunk, you are easier to take advantage of. i looked at it as this can happen, so be careful.

i NOW see that it is what she didnt write that was the problem. she wasnt expressing her outrage that this is even a problem, she wasnt expressing the fact that women should be able to go and drink and do whatever they want without fearing rape or other bodily harm.

i didnt understand peoples outrage at talking about the dangers of being extraordinalrily drunk at a club. but, now i most certainly see it more. it shouldnt be dangerous, it shouldnt be an issue, and she needs to say, in no uncertain terms, that never, ever, no matter what a girl does, or what "bad" decision she makes, is rape justified. to have that on a womans website is particularly bad, since we need to be at the forefront of changing attitudes.

i still dont think its a bad thing that she talks about the tragic murders and rapes that have occured to young women, but she left out the crucial aspect that would make this article something different from the usual "this is what happens when you girls get too drunk" shit we see all the time in mainstream media. i assumed she thought and realized that fact, and thats it not a question. i should have been smarter in realizing that most of society does not view rape the same way a feminist does, which makes it 100% necessary that she state it upfront -look at what is happening to women, LOOK at what we are told to do in order to avoid rape and WHY should we have to modify our behavior in order to avoid rape?

Katie, I think you've nailed it. But what really bothers me about this is not the original article--it's the way she responded to criticism of it.

It's sort of like the Trent Lott situation. At Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, he said that we wouldn't have the problems we have today if Thurmond (who ran on a third-party segregationist ticket in 1948) had won the election, as he had won Lott's home state. Firestorm of controversy. How does Lott respond? Not by saying "Of course I don't want to live in a segregationist hellhole, but Thurmond's a sweet old man and maybe he would have made a good president if he'd updated his views on civil rights by 80 years or so." No, he first refused to apologize, then issued an apology that sounded like it was extracted under torture.

This is not limited to conservatives. I let my membership in Integrity, an Episcopal pro-LGBT activist group, lapse because the organization's president put photos of apes in clerical vestments up on a web site and referred to them as "The Primates," an oblique reference to the African archbishops (archbishops also being called primates) within the Anglican Communion, most of whom are very anti-gay and all of whom are, of course, very black. When called on the imagery, she refused to budge, closed the comments thread, and left the images defiantly up on her blog for the world to see. Do I think she was being intentionally racist? Not really, but the fact that it didn't bother her that what she did looked racist was enough to sink it for me.

Enter Liz Funk. She writes an article that may in fact not have been intended to be a slut-shaming piece--we'll never know--but certainly reads that way. I could have written the same article, I guess, and if I had I like to think I'd respond to criticism by saying up front "I don't mean to say that, and it really depresses me that my article leaves people with that impression. I'll try to do better." Instead, she bashes her critics over the head and refuses to distance herself from that interpretation of the piece. Double plus ungood.

Now, I don't mean to sound ageist, but if she is in fact 18, I'd be inclined to cut her some slack. I was not a particularly good feminist 10 years ago--it wasn't for lack of trying, I was just uneducated and stubborn, which is a bad combination when you're trying to learn how to be an activist. But that said: Unless and until she is willing to distance herself from the "slut-shaming" interpretation of her article and admit that her critics have a valid point, we have every reason to be angry.

Cheers,

TH

"an oblique reference to" --> "arguably an oblique reference to." I don't think it was an oblique reference to the African archbishops specifically, but the racist use of "ape" imagery is very well-documented, and the African archbishops happen to be (understandably, given her primary issue) the archbishops she doesn't care for.

Cheers,

TH

TH -- funny you mention the Primates. My mom and I (we're Episcopalian) joke sometimes about what a funny name "primate" is for a religious leader. I can see possibly making a joke like that innocently -- but refusing to acknowledge how it could be taken in a damaging and offensive way crosses the line into pig-headedness. It's really unfortunate she didn't do herself the credit of taking the pictures down.

Thanks for this, TLF. Here's the post in question. I found it distressing when I ran across it.

I once was (and in some places may still be listed as) Mississippi diocesan network coordinator for Integrity. I am a confirmed, albeit lapsed, Episcopalian myself, but it's stuff like this that makes the Mississippi diocese hard for me to swallow sometimes. Very insularly upper-income white--lots of parties where the only people of color in the room are cooking the food or serving the drinks--and seeing an illustration like that, up there on the blog in all of its unrepentant glory, kind of bummed me out.

Cheers,

TH

I should add that Susan+ is not actually in the Mississippi diocese, but that image, coupled with my own experiences, created an effect that I can only describe as painful. Obviously she doesn't find it painful--but it still bugs me that it doesn't bother her.

I mean, in Mississippi we have a Confederate flag hanging from the Capitol because the vast majority of whites don't find it offensive. The fact that 85 percent of the black population does should be enough to warrant a change, but for some reason (three guesses), only a sliver of white voters think so.

Cheers,

TH

katie: i NOW see that it is what she didnt write that was the problem.

Yeah. You were a little over the top and filled with assumptions. I'm glad you wised up!

Thanks for the link, TH. Interesting how she's moderated out all the comments that pointed out that the picture can be taken to be racist... to be honest, from the comments that she left, it certainly appears that no one's brought up a really valid reason to be upset about the picture. Except for her notation about comments she removed that noted the racist connotations, to all appearances it looks like no one brought it up. How very interesting.

Kind of ironic, too, that this "joke" puts LIBERALS on the side of the fence making borderline-racist commentary, and CONSERVATIVES defending the African priests. I have no problem with questioning the priests' morals, or hell, even their intelligence. But you're right that the bottom line is that this picture takes it too far. The fact of the matter is that in our culture's ugly racist history the imagery of primates (of the non-human sort) has been associated with racist put-downs. Rev. Susan can't just ignore that fact simply because it takes some of the "zing" out of her joke.

Agreed... And to be honest, people have been laughing about the word "primate" being applied to archbishops for over 100 years. Susan+ is a seminary graduate. This is not a new joke for her, but for some reason she finds it absolutely HILARIOUS when applied towards archbishops of the Global South. I saw this and was speechless. And very depressed.

I don't know what her line of thinking on this was. I'm not even sure I want to know what her line of thinking on this was.

Cheers,

TH

She is not, by the way, the only progressive Episcopal priest to say stuff along these lines that freaked me out. In So You Think You're Not Religious, the Rev. James R. Adams (founder of the Center for Progressive Christianity) wrote:

Because religion is both a personal and a tribal affair, people find as a rule that worship is most satisfactory when they are worshiping with people much like themselves ... Churches with a racial or cultural mix exist, but by examining them closely the visitor will likely find them to be congregations in transition from one kind of people to another. Most skeptics would be better off in a more stable community with a clear sense of its own identity. (p. 190)

In other words: He's arguing that racial integration equals an identity crisis and a racial struggle for supremacy. By the logic of the paragraph above, if you get a good number of non-white parishioners, well, better drive them out or there goes the neighborhood.

Ross Barnett never knew the friends he had.

Cheers,

TH

You nailed it, Tom @ 9:57am.

I'm convinced there are paid corporate trolls @ Alternet because the inclusion of gender and race related articles are very threatening on a non-feminism-and-anti-racism-specific liberal site. It means white men now have to include women and minorities.

I'm posting late because I took the weekend off, but I wanted to apologize to Katie. After my last post I reread all the comments, and realized I had misread her argument entirely. In her later posts, she said "i think it [the article] doesnt blame men enough." and "I do think you should take precautions....BUT....in my view, if you don't and something happens I don't think you have done anything wrong."
Which is exactly what I was trying to say. I hope you didn't feel I was attacking you, Katie (I try to refute arguments I disagree with but avoid personal attacks, as a rule) and I can understand you becoming frustrated by everyone misinterpreting your comments. I think the message we were all trying to communicate--that the article just feeds into the same old attitudes and assumptions about rape without ever questioning or challenging them, and is thus not very feminist--did eventually get through, finally. It just needed some distillation.
I thought of a better analogy to employ regarding this argument than those from my last comment, (which really better addressed a different point) regarding how rape is treated in the media as the victim's problem: Suppose we treated smoking the way we treat rape. Instead of seeing tons of ads telling smokers to quit, offering them help to do so, and having most public places designated as "No Smoking" areas, we'd be seeing a flood of messages targeting NONsmokers, telling them to buy gas masks, only date/marry/cohabit with other nonsmokers, and avoid going out to bars or public places in order to avoid the risk of being exposed to secondhand smoke and lung cancer. Which would just be silly, because it makes no sense to tell the people who aren't responsible for a risky behavior to alter their lives to avoid being exposed to it while the people who are responsible have no restrictions placed on them whatsoever. It's illogical to the point of nonsensical...yet that's how rape is treated in the media. All I was arguing was that this needs to change, that we need to work on altering how people view rape and the methods we employ in our efforts to prevent it.
Based on what I've read in this thread, I think all the commenters would agree with that. I just hope someone who might not have agreed initially happens to read our comments and is led to change their mind by them. Because that's really the goal, in my mind.

Jess, thank you for writing that Alternet piece. I loved every vowel-ridden word of it.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

first, thanks Jessica for a great response to the original article.

secondly, this is really tangental, but Tom:

According to my brother, removing the Confederate flag from all government buildings was always a suggested, and widely supported, bill in the annual Youth and Goverment conference when he was in high school (about a decade ago now). I don't know how much of that was because it was a national conference, how much of it was the kinds of kids that participate in Y&G, and how much of it was the generation thing, but it does seem like good news since a lot of these kids (unlike school presidents) actually do go into politics. So maybe it will be suggested, and pass, sometime in the next decade as these "kids" start getting into policy roles.