In his bitter words...

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
In his bitter words...
327
Mon, 09-17-2012 - 7:32pm

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
Sat, 09-22-2012 - 7:51am

"Boy, you are just trying to hang that "rape" tag on anyone that disagrees with you on the subject. It's getting old."

No, I'm responding to actual legislation recently proposed/enacted by actual Republican state legislators that either redefines rape in a way that makes it hard to prosecute, or forces the victim to live with the rapist's choices (like pregnancy caused by the rape).  This legislation is part of a larger pattern of government interference with the reproductive health of women...in fact, women's civil rights in general.  I introduced the idea first in response to those who suggested that female speakers at the DNC were masquerading as victims...I provided several examples of the way in which women's civil rights have been eroded recently (there are many more)...I suggested that when a group is discriminated against in this way, that they do become victims, despite blithe "you don't have to be a victim unless you agree to be one" sentiments...that our protections for the rights of women need to extend beyond those who are not victimized because they  individually are smart and/or lucky enough to escape the net.

The only thing in question here is whether what I say is true or not.  If it is in fact true (a quick Google search will confirm that it is), the important question is if this legislation is appropriate.  Those who claim that it is indeed okay to redefine rape and/or to diminish a woman's choices following rape need to own it (as do those who seek to reduce women's rights in general)  rather than denigrating and misrepresenting those who point out that the Republican/Conservative position at this time is one that shrinks women's civil rights, including a woman's options when/after she is assaulted.  I do not question my friends who choose to live in the role of a "submissive" wife, with a "male headship" of the house.   That is a personal choice, I hope.  But these attitudes do not need to be codified as the law of the land.  I've explained this in great detail in my posts before.  To have a small part of my argument taken out of context and labeled in a way that is basically a personal attack (and false as well) is not helpful to the discussion.  I know it's popular to try to reduce both people and their viewpoints to trivial, easily grasped soundbites...I've seen the sentiment on here often enough that some of us "must spend hours" laboring over long pointless posts to show everyone how smart we are...but in the real world, neither people nor positions are so easily reduced to absurdities that will go away because someone with a different viewpoint doesn't like it .  If there is something of substance to be said, it takes effort to organize and present the argument...if I claim that women's civil rights are being severely degraded and I provide examples, a person who doesn't agree with me needs to prove something along the lines of  a) women's civil rights are not being degraded and the examples are false or b) women's rights have been degraded in some instances but these are pathological cases and do not reflect the opinions of Conservatives as a whole (leaving the problem that the statement is still true in part) or c) it's okay to degrade women's rights because there shouldn't be "special protections" for anyone or d) women's rights have been degraded but it's okay because historically women have always been second class citizens; that's what God intended or e) some argument not seen so far.  If I see someone claiming that women are victims only because they choose to be, and I have clear evidence that women are in fact being intentionally and systematically stripped of their rights (making them potential victims) I will point that out...it's a matter of fact, not me "hanging tags" on someone just "because I disagree" with him/her.  I've spent a fair amount of energy and time over my life in developing the viewpoints I have now...I would hope that others have done so as well.  Public policy should not be left up to those who are incapable of understanding the ramifications/injustice of stripping rights from a segment of the population.  And when they do, we should not accept it, regardless of political orientation.  And when someone claims that the DNC female speakers presented themselves as "victims", we need to ask a) Is this really true and  if so b) Did they portray their situations accurately?...and depending on the answers we find (and we may not be able to find them)...we can go on from there.  I countered the observation by pointing out that the recent trend is to push for laws that will actually victimize women.  I know it's frowned on in some circles, but arguments can be clarified by applying both Facts and Logic...and that is what I did.  If my facts are wrong, give me counterexamples.  If my logic is wrong, show how either my premises are false, or that my conclusion doesn't follow from my premises.  So far in this discussion, I haven't seen any substantive responses to my arguments, only speculation about my motives, and the vague suggestion I'm conflating victims of crime with those of self induced victimhood, when the evidence taken together suggests it's a continuum...that women's rights across the board are being attacked.

(Edited to remove typos and fix conflicts of tenses)

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Fri, 09-21-2012 - 11:27pm
muddymessalonskee wrote:


In other words, rape victims are "asking for it".  

Boy, you are just trying to hang that "rape" tag on anyone that disagrees with you on the subject. It's getting old.

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Fri, 09-21-2012 - 11:24pm
iluvkrat wrote:
For the umpteenth time, NO ONE is asking for free birth control. We want it covered under our insurance, insurance that we pay for! Keep making the false claim that women want others to pay for their birth control doesn't make it true. What's really insulting to women is the constant misrepresentation of what women want. Good thing most women see right through that lame tactic.

You want it "covered", as in when you go to the store and "buy" it, it costs nothing. That about right?

No, not insurance that you pay for, because the insurance that you pay for doesn't cover it. You want it covered, for... free.

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Fri, 09-21-2012 - 10:38pm

It's a weird old world when those who have been attacked, are pilloried for being victims; and condemnation of the attackers for the immorality, illogic, or illegality of their actions,  is missing entirely. 

Weird, weird, weird.  But there is a certain twisted logic--if one denies that there were victims, then one can perhaps gloss over the wrongdoer(s) as well.  Still weird though......

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
Fri, 09-21-2012 - 10:27pm
But some Republican legislators are actively persecuting victims of crime...trying to force them to carry the children of rapists, for example. And women's civil rights are being eroded...making their choices illegal, denying them information on human sexuality and contraception, putting them in jail for having miscarriages. These women, whose issues were addressed at the DNC, are the very ones that some posters here have hinted are somehow allowing themselves to be victimized.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Fri, 09-21-2012 - 9:44pm

“Laura Ingraham is no friend to women, and while we disagree with many of her views, the type of language Ed Schultz used, whether accidentally or on purpose, has the effect of legitimizing sexism and undermines the credibility of all women,” explained Women’s Media Center president Julie Burton. “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”  [My sentiments as well]

Schultz agreed, issuing one of the most heartfelt apologies ever aired by a television personality. Decrying his own use of “vile and inappropriate language,” he opened Wednesday night’s Ed Show on MSNBC by saying: “I am deeply sorry, and I apologize. It was wrong, uncalled for, and I recognize the severity of what I said. I apologize to you, Laura, and ask for your forgiveness.”  http://www.thenation.com/blog/160996/ed-schultz-laura-ingraham-crude-word-classy-apology  

The comparison between Ingraham and Fluke is strained by lack of common factors.  Laura Ingraham is a media figure.  Sandra Fluke was not at the time when Limbaugh started his misogynistic rants. 

Ed Schultz apologized immediately for one episode in which he used the word "slut" twice.  Rush Limbaugh railed at Fluke over the course of three days, speculated on her intelligence and sex life in coarse and scurrilous terms;  and only apologized AFTER advertisers started fleeing his sinking ship.  And his apology was noteworthy for being graceless--particularly this part:  My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir.  

You can say that people are only victims if they agree to be, and I find that far far far too exonerating of the person who carried out attacks. One may choose how one reacts to an assault (whether it's verbal or whether it's physical).  Fluke said she was stunned, then angry, then realized that the intent was to make her cringe and fade into the woodwork.  But she didn't buckle, didn't collapse, didn't go away.  She made her point, and made it well. It was her very LACK of victimhood which led her being asked to speak at the Democratic convention.       

I am not sure why you used the word "attack" in quotation marks. The attack may have been verbal rather than physical but nonetheless, it WAS an attack.  I suspect that Ms Fluke would have trounced Mr. Limbaugh in a physical contest--he has that terribly debilitating pilonidal cyst (heavy sarcasm) and a cochlear implant. 

As for your own reaction, maybe nobody has ever suggested that you are a prostitute and demanded to see sex tapes of your performances in payment for contraception--on air, nationwide.  Don't know about you but my mother never mentioned that as a possible hazard for speaking up.  Did yours? 

   

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Fri, 09-21-2012 - 9:06pm
I think Romney may have made the mistake of thinking that a campaign of selling himself is similar to venture capitalism. It's not. Nor is Massachusetts a microcosm of the U.S. as a whole--maybe he tried to set up something fashioned largely on his successful election strategy there.

I don't know what criterion he used in selecting his key campaign personnel, his advisers (the foreign policy staff has me boggling over a selection of people associated with the horribly flawed Iraq war), or his running mate.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
Fri, 09-21-2012 - 7:07pm

"I was taught by my mother that you can only be a victim if you allow yourself to become one."

In other words, rape victims are "asking for it".  It seems to be a common theme here.  Some may slip out of the net, but when sexism is entrenched and given legal protections, some women will be victimized.  Maybe you can escape if you're smart and lucky.  But...one shouldn't have to be lucky and smart so that one to escape institutionalized sexism...legal protections for all should be part of our Rule of Law.

Regarding things learned from our mothers: my mom was the product of a different time and she tried to teach me things that made me recoil at the time and blanch today: things I needed to do to "get a man" (ways of dressing and behaving), what was immoral/moral (sexual chastity is basically the only measure of morality), and so forth.  Needless to say, I'm not teaching my daughters these ways of setting themselves up for victimhood...and I'm making sure that they're well informed about human sexuality, including the practical stuff like STDs and contraception...as well as debunking that old notion that the way to "catch" a man "permanently" is to get him in bed...believed by countless women and almost no men for probably as long as people have had language.  So those "Dreams From My Mother" are stopping with me...some of us are ready for a new paradigm of universal access to knowledge and civil rights...liberty and justice for all.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
Fri, 09-21-2012 - 5:46pm

True... a a creation of their imaginations. The only question I have is why.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
Fri, 09-21-2012 - 5:04pm
Remember, nelle, the right wing has been battling an Obama who doesn't actually exist these past four years.

Pages