During countless classroom discussions, boys have told me that from a very young age, they have been taught that for a "real" man, sex is about the aggressive conquest of female bodies and scoring with as many of them as you can. While these ideas have long been around, they are more socially sanctioned now than ever before.
So what happens when individual risk factors become societal norms? And when pornography, because of its ubiquity and availability, effectively becomes sex ed?...
[Girls are] feeling depressed and worthless as they realize that real-life translations of porn don't make them feel sexy or powerful at all, since the sexual personas they're trying to emulate have been created by - and for - men.
Showing posts with label domestic violence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label domestic violence. Show all posts
"Perhaps that sounds to you like an archaic feminist assertion - the kind of thing that hip women no longer say."
Rachel Henes — a social worker and "youth violence prevention specialist" — takes up the anti-pornography cause:
Caught in a rainstorm, ducking into a small-town libraray, I read the Utne Reader yesterday.
I used to subscribe back in the 80s, when I loved it. But what is it now? I found the cover pretty amusing:
I can't find a bigger picture of that at the site. Too bad! They should show it off. It's funny — Obama biting into a sloppy cheeseburger and cringing as the angry Michelle waves a bunch of carrots much like wives in old comic strips used to wield rolling pins. And you know what it means when a First Lady gets after the President to eat carrots.
Of course, the article inside isn't critical of Michelle Obama and her eat-your-vegetables shtick. It's critical of Obama, but not because he eats cheeseburgers, because he "loves up industrial agriculture." We're supposed to identify with the angry woman swinging her lo-cal phallic symbols at her man. (At least they aren't cut up phallic symbols like the ones Hillary famously foisted on Bill.) The cheeseburger Obama prefers — like the onion rings Bill Clinton preferred — is a symbol, a symbol of what he loves. In Obama's case, according to the article, it's agribusiness. He "loves up" agribusiness, that big sloppy, gooey cheeseburger.
It's Utne Reader, that magazine for aging lefties, and the article assumes you're into the anti-business agenda. The magazine assumes you'll identify with Michelle and her vegetables and is oblivious to the possible revulsion you might feel to the angry face they've given her. You're supposed to think: Yes, Obama, come back to your lefty roots. (Note: Carrots are roots.) Your policies need to kick big business in the ass and embrace the local and sustainable and holistic.
But I didn't get that far into the magazine. The library was closing and the rainstorm was ending, and we needed to get back to the Glacial Drumlin Trail. I only had time to read: 1. a letter from the editor by a subscriber who was sending back an issue of the magazine because it had Sarah Palin on the cover and she didn't want to look at that ever ever ever (though presumably the articles inside assailed the Alaskan), 2. "On Being Fat and Running: Abandoning insecurity for a full life," by Brenton Dickieson, from Geez, and "Sentenced to Life: A man ages in prison and outlives society’s fears," by Kenneth E. Hartman, from Notre Dame. But none of those things are accessible on line, so I can't send Utne Reader some traffic and set up some discussion about that here.
The Hartman article is a reprint, and — unlike the Geez reprint about running while fat — the original is on line, so you can read it.
IN THE COMMENTS: lemondog has a way to get to an enlargement of the cover. Here's a closeup screen grab that shows Michelle's face:
The artist is Jason Seiler. Nice work. I notice the cigarette over the ear now. Ha.
Using lemondog's method, I can get to that letter about Sarah Palin. If you page forward in the magazine, you'll find it. You can see the cover that upset the poor woman so. She complains:
AND: The image of Michelle Obama drives other people nuts. Women's faces. They're so provocative.
I can't find a bigger picture of that at the site. Too bad! They should show it off. It's funny — Obama biting into a sloppy cheeseburger and cringing as the angry Michelle waves a bunch of carrots much like wives in old comic strips used to wield rolling pins. And you know what it means when a First Lady gets after the President to eat carrots.
Of course, the article inside isn't critical of Michelle Obama and her eat-your-vegetables shtick. It's critical of Obama, but not because he eats cheeseburgers, because he "loves up industrial agriculture." We're supposed to identify with the angry woman swinging her lo-cal phallic symbols at her man. (At least they aren't cut up phallic symbols like the ones Hillary famously foisted on Bill.) The cheeseburger Obama prefers — like the onion rings Bill Clinton preferred — is a symbol, a symbol of what he loves. In Obama's case, according to the article, it's agribusiness. He "loves up" agribusiness, that big sloppy, gooey cheeseburger.
It's Utne Reader, that magazine for aging lefties, and the article assumes you're into the anti-business agenda. The magazine assumes you'll identify with Michelle and her vegetables and is oblivious to the possible revulsion you might feel to the angry face they've given her. You're supposed to think: Yes, Obama, come back to your lefty roots. (Note: Carrots are roots.) Your policies need to kick big business in the ass and embrace the local and sustainable and holistic.
But I didn't get that far into the magazine. The library was closing and the rainstorm was ending, and we needed to get back to the Glacial Drumlin Trail. I only had time to read: 1. a letter from the editor by a subscriber who was sending back an issue of the magazine because it had Sarah Palin on the cover and she didn't want to look at that ever ever ever (though presumably the articles inside assailed the Alaskan), 2. "On Being Fat and Running: Abandoning insecurity for a full life," by Brenton Dickieson, from Geez, and "Sentenced to Life: A man ages in prison and outlives society’s fears," by Kenneth E. Hartman, from Notre Dame. But none of those things are accessible on line, so I can't send Utne Reader some traffic and set up some discussion about that here.
The Hartman article is a reprint, and — unlike the Geez reprint about running while fat — the original is on line, so you can read it.
Prison is a young man’s world, a world of physical violence and posturing, a world of brute strength and primal, unfocused rage. It is not a place to grow old, although more and more of us are doing just that: growing old in prison.But Utne Reader is not a young man's world — or a young woman's world. It feels like an old person's place. I felt too young for it... and I'm old. Or it's for those other aging Americans... the lefties. I see these people in Madison all the time. Do they feel left behind? Do you think the day will come when "lefty" will seem to mean left behind?
IN THE COMMENTS: lemondog has a way to get to an enlargement of the cover. Here's a closeup screen grab that shows Michelle's face:
The artist is Jason Seiler. Nice work. I notice the cigarette over the ear now. Ha.
Using lemondog's method, I can get to that letter about Sarah Palin. If you page forward in the magazine, you'll find it. You can see the cover that upset the poor woman so. She complains:
When the media gives air space, page space, and cover space (albeit in jest or irony) to crazies such as Palin, they are complicit in her plan to lend credence to the climate of ignorance, sensationalism, and just downright muddled thinking that is passed off as a national discourse these days — and which she is one of the most visible muddlers.Jeez, the mere image of Sarah Palin unleashes hysteria.
AND: The image of Michelle Obama drives other people nuts. Women's faces. They're so provocative.
"American Idol."
Discuss the results in the comments. Did they do the right thing?
On a side issue, let me just say: Rhianna was atrocious. That just made me feel really sad. What she did has nothing to do with with rock, though she may be a big star. And that lyric "I never play the victim/I'd rather be a stalker." Utter bullshit. The lesson of abuse is to rise above being either a victim or a stalker, and the fact that you let your people use you with lyrics like that? That makes you still the victim, and that is really, really sad. I don't know why destructive material like that is on the quintessential family show of our era, but I hope you find your way.
On a side issue, let me just say: Rhianna was atrocious. That just made me feel really sad. What she did has nothing to do with with rock, though she may be a big star. And that lyric "I never play the victim/I'd rather be a stalker." Utter bullshit. The lesson of abuse is to rise above being either a victim or a stalker, and the fact that you let your people use you with lyrics like that? That makes you still the victim, and that is really, really sad. I don't know why destructive material like that is on the quintessential family show of our era, but I hope you find your way.
"If I were Elin... man, I would have hit a lot more than she did. I would have kept hitting!"
"You would still be swinging the golf club?" "Yeah, (Elin) stopped. She was respectable. I'd get the baseball bat, I'd get everything out."
That's Sandra Bullock, the supposed "girl next door" type, being, presumably, cute and adorable. We're expected to find that especially poignant now because Bullock did not know at the time that her husband was cheating on her too. Poor, darling Sandra!
There will not even be a tiny dent in Bullock's lustrous reputation for her endorsement of — or lighthearted joking about — murderous domestic violence.
That's Sandra Bullock, the supposed "girl next door" type, being, presumably, cute and adorable. We're expected to find that especially poignant now because Bullock did not know at the time that her husband was cheating on her too. Poor, darling Sandra!
There will not even be a tiny dent in Bullock's lustrous reputation for her endorsement of — or lighthearted joking about — murderous domestic violence.
"A 45-year-old woman, charged with ending a domestic dispute by killing her 26-year-old husband of five days, is a registered lobbyist for a group fighting domestic violence."
That story makes me instantly anticipate domestic violence foes scrambling to defend the woman. They'll go for the conventional, reflexive assumption is that she was a longtime victim of domestic violence herself who after much abuse and fear finally resorted to killing. But... the template doesn't fit. The couple were married for only 5 days. And she was 45, and he was 26.
Life with dolphins.
American pop culture has its helpful friend dolphin, Flipper...
That's the delusion, built on the accidental smile.
"To be fair, they should have also had a bad dolphin: Zipper!"
But really, the dolphin is neither "ever so kind and gentle" (Flipper) or "surly" and "uncaring" (Zipper). It has its own ways.
Killer whales — like the one that killed Dawn Brancheau at SeaWorld — are dolphins (the largest dolphins).
In starting to write this post, after that last one, my idea was to develop the theme of dolphin rape, but I got grossed out by many YouTube videos showing people at dolphin shows being set up — legs spread — to receive a dolphin, who — not understanding the lines human beings draw with respect to bodily interactions — leaps up and performs according to its own standards.
And, amongst dolphins, the standard is what we would classify as rape — gang rape:
Presumably, a dolphin who managed to learn our morality would find it repugnant — and he would argue for his position with reasons that would outrage us. Maybe if that learned dolphin were confined to an aquarium — where, like a human prisoner in solitary confinement with nothing to do but read — he might take advantage of his knowledge to create some structure of asceticism around his deprivation. Then it wouldn't be so painful. I'll leave it to you to imagine how that analogy works from the perspective of a human woman who had to live in a society controlled by dolphins.
That's the delusion, built on the accidental smile.
"To be fair, they should have also had a bad dolphin: Zipper!"
But really, the dolphin is neither "ever so kind and gentle" (Flipper) or "surly" and "uncaring" (Zipper). It has its own ways.
Killer whales — like the one that killed Dawn Brancheau at SeaWorld — are dolphins (the largest dolphins).
***
In starting to write this post, after that last one, my idea was to develop the theme of dolphin rape, but I got grossed out by many YouTube videos showing people at dolphin shows being set up — legs spread — to receive a dolphin, who — not understanding the lines human beings draw with respect to bodily interactions — leaps up and performs according to its own standards.
And, amongst dolphins, the standard is what we would classify as rape — gang rape:
In order to coerce the reluctant females, males form groups of two or three – often remaining together in their search for sexual gratification for well over a decade. When they find a suitable female they literally force her to mate with one or more of the group, and have even been known to herd their unwilling consorts for months at a time, basically using them as their personal sex-slaves.
Although dolphins are not alone in the animal world of gang-rapists, research suggests they’ve the perfected the art to a degree unseen in any other species, and it seems they don’t limit their advances to their female partners, either: there are several reports claiming divers and swimmers have also been accosted.
Studies would suggest the behaviour is likely to be undertaken for reasons of pleasure as much as reproduction, as dolphins are known to enjoy sexual activity in cases when reproduction would be physically impossibleIn real life, the dolphin is more Zipper than Flipper. Leave him to the ocean where he can do the things he wants to do — unless you think he's so smart he can be convinced to learn principles of human morality. I would be interested in hearing the dolphin's perspective. Perhaps there is complex dolphin reasoning about the sexual slavery of the female, but I have no interest in considering adopting it for human society.
Presumably, a dolphin who managed to learn our morality would find it repugnant — and he would argue for his position with reasons that would outrage us. Maybe if that learned dolphin were confined to an aquarium — where, like a human prisoner in solitary confinement with nothing to do but read — he might take advantage of his knowledge to create some structure of asceticism around his deprivation. Then it wouldn't be so painful. I'll leave it to you to imagine how that analogy works from the perspective of a human woman who had to live in a society controlled by dolphins.
When the whale killed Dawn Brancheau... was it an instance of domestic violence?
"They really develop an interesting intimate relationship with these whales!" That is said about Dawn Brancheau, in this video depicting her with a killer whale, in happier days:
"Animals are real, sensitive to the touch, and they can feel all those things," Brancheau explains as she demonstrates her practice of rubbing the whale. Brancheau was rubbing the whale's nose when he turned on her and dragged her to her death.
Here are 6 theories of why the whale may have killed Brancheau. #3 is:
No, you can't get that far trying to imagine how the whale felt. Animals are real, sensitive to the touch, and they can feel all those things. What things?! We don't really know. And yet we use them, for our purposes, which they cannot possibly understand. We imagine that we provide them love and companionship and touching. But we must know that even if a human being could fully grasp what the whale felt, she could never give him what he really needs.
"Animals are real, sensitive to the touch, and they can feel all those things," Brancheau explains as she demonstrates her practice of rubbing the whale. Brancheau was rubbing the whale's nose when he turned on her and dragged her to her death.
Here are 6 theories of why the whale may have killed Brancheau. #3 is:
He was feeling sexualNow, obviously, I don't know the extent to which the woman and the whale had a sexual relationship. I don't know it either from her perspective or the whale's. But the whale is an intelligent creature with feelings and in need of relationships, and the woman — if we listen to her own words — believed that she was providing a relationship. But think of it from the whale's perspective. Imagine the whale's sexuality. Imagine the frustration, tension, and deep longings.
[Whale expert] Nancy Black has also said it might have been a hormonal outburst from the killer whale. The killer whale was often isolated and encouraged to breed.
"He was used a lot [by SeaWorld] for mating and could have even been enacting a mating behavior during the incident," said Black.
No, you can't get that far trying to imagine how the whale felt. Animals are real, sensitive to the touch, and they can feel all those things. What things?! We don't really know. And yet we use them, for our purposes, which they cannot possibly understand. We imagine that we provide them love and companionship and touching. But we must know that even if a human being could fully grasp what the whale felt, she could never give him what he really needs.
***
The whale's name? Tilikum: 'Til I come.
"We’re hoping to have the females whack the [Nancy Pelosi] piñata and males try their hand at a Harry Reid punching bag."
I love the way CPAC bad taste stops short of symbolic violence against women — except women-on-women violence because — what? — "cat fights" don't count?
Jeez, what idiots. This really undercuts the ability of conservatives to mock those godawful papier maché puppets that animate lefty protests.
Jeez, what idiots. This really undercuts the ability of conservatives to mock those godawful papier maché puppets that animate lefty protests.
France makes "psychological violence" a crime.
But don't get too worried. It's only a crime if you do it to your spouse. This will force verbal-aggressive types to go outside the marriage for release of their pent-up urges.
ADDED: I'm going to have to revise what has long been one of my stock observations about law: Most of the terrible things that people do to other people are not illegal. I just need to add: Except maybe in France.
ADDED: I'm going to have to revise what has long been one of my stock observations about law: Most of the terrible things that people do to other people are not illegal. I just need to add: Except maybe in France.
"Tiger's only choice is to skirt gender equity and opt for chivalry."
(I love the use of the verb "skirt" here!)
Hanna Rosin explains — as I alluded to yesterday — that Tiger Woods must refrain from telling the story of his wife's attack on him — if that's what happened — because, under Florida law, the police would have to arrest her.
Glenn Reynolds takes Rosin to task for minimizing domestic violence perpetrated by women:
Hanna Rosin explains — as I alluded to yesterday — that Tiger Woods must refrain from telling the story of his wife's attack on him — if that's what happened — because, under Florida law, the police would have to arrest her.
Glenn Reynolds takes Rosin to task for minimizing domestic violence perpetrated by women:
Rosin ... writes: “It is impossible to imagine Tiger occupying the same cultural brain space as Rihanna, with Nordegren playing Chris Brown. If Tiger had been chasing down his wife with a golf club and she had shown up with bruises, even if she had cheated with, say, K-fed, we would be a lot less ambivalent and complacent.” That’s probably correct, for certain values of the word “we,” but why is that, exactly? Cheating men deserve to be beaten, even with weapons, while cheating women do not?Maybe it's "impossible to imagine" if you are someone who thinks women are weak and men are strong: The poor women, if she struck out, it was probably because the powerful male intimidated her, and even if she was violent, she probably didn't intimidate him. Of course, that template is sexist too.
Or could it be, you know, sexism? But that’s not possible, because Hanna Rosin can’t be sexist, and neither can those who agree with her. If you’re Hanna Rosin, “sexist” is a name you call other people. You know, bad people who believe in stereotypes and stuff.
South Asian men who marry British women... and are abused by them.
BBC reports:
"All they wanted was someone to earn money for them. I was being treated like an animal. All my dignity and self-respect had been taken away and I was also worried about the threats to my sister. I was powerless to do anything to stop it."
Due to feelings of shame Mahmood decided not to tell his family back in Pakistan.
"My wife would wake me up in the middle of the night and beat me, demanding money, and when I did not have any, my brother-in-laws would come and punch me and beat my back with iron bars. It was a living hell."...
Karma Nirvana, a group which helps abused Asian men and women, believes most men do not seek help as many victims marry cousins and can share the same uncles, aunts and even grandparents. Project team leader Shazia Qayum said: "Men would feel embarrassed to admit that they were having problems and choose to suffer in silence for the sake of respect."
Are the police free to attach a GPS device to your car to monitor your whereabouts?
Without your knowledge and without a warrant? An appeals court in Madison, Wisconsin says yes.
The idea is that it's not a search or seizure, because it only lets the police see what they would see if they followed you around watching you. Yes, the car might go into a garage and out of public view, but someone standing outside would get the same information, that the car was in the garage until it emerged.
The idea is that it's not a search or seizure, because it only lets the police see what they would see if they followed you around watching you. Yes, the car might go into a garage and out of public view, but someone standing outside would get the same information, that the car was in the garage until it emerged.
"Often the only way victims can prove that they are being stalked... is through new technologies like GPS."
From a NYT article about the use of GPS technology to monitor individuals who are accused of stalking:
What's the difference between "monitoring" and "stalking"? Monitoring is what the government does.
I'm not trying to say that GPS monitoring is never warranted. Go read the article to see some good examples of persons who deserve monitoring. What bothers me about this article is that there's nothing about excessive government surveillance.
(And when it comes time to write a NYT article about the surveillance of suspected terrorists, I have the feeling that the threat of government abuse will not be forgotten.)
The scope of stalking was revealed in a study released by the Justice Department in January, which found that 3.4 million people had been subjected to stalking over a one-year period...."Subjected to stalking"? Does that mean they believed they are being stalked or that it has been proved? Note how the quote in the title suggests that GPS should be used to substantiate allegations — but you're not supposed to notice the threat to individual privacy, because these allegations aren't called allegations. These are statements by "victims" who have the problem of needing to "prove that they are being stalked." But if it's the "only way" to prove there is stalking, then how do we know whether the accused deserves to be monitored?
What's the difference between "monitoring" and "stalking"? Monitoring is what the government does.
I'm not trying to say that GPS monitoring is never warranted. Go read the article to see some good examples of persons who deserve monitoring. What bothers me about this article is that there's nothing about excessive government surveillance.
(And when it comes time to write a NYT article about the surveillance of suspected terrorists, I have the feeling that the threat of government abuse will not be forgotten.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
