Wednesday, September 26, 2007

How about blaming rape on...rapists!?

The Guardian's Comment is Free section has another gem for us: Feminism's rape fallacy
First read up on the proposals that have been abandoned by the government that would have meant jurors in rape trials would have been briefed on rape myths. Then come back and read David Cox's article.

Dear Mr Cox,

Where to start? Well, how about the beginning?:

Isn't it time to acknowledge that it's beyond the capacity of the judicial process to deal with date-rape?

First of all, I think it's pretty much acknowledged that the judicial process is flawed. Hence why all is ding-bat feminists (and other people who seem to think this is a problem) have been bitching and moaning for so many years. Second of all, don't call it date-rape. Call it rape. There is no legal distinction between date-rape and rape. Do you think in prison date-rapists and 'real' rapists are separated? It's when articles like this are printed with the term 'date-rape' being highlighted as the problem that people start believing there is a distinction between date-rape and 'real' rape. Mr Cox, are you implying by making that distinction that the judicial process knows how to deal with 'real' rape? Wow, all those 'real' rape victims and potential 'real' rape victims must be breathing a sigh of relief: "Well, as long as I'm REALLY raped, I'll be able to get my day in court. I must remember to scream and kick, be wearing granny pants, my tweed jacket and twin set and make sure to get raped by someone I've never met, in a dark alley, on the way home from choir practice. Because then it's REAL rape, not date-rape."

Pardon the sarcasm. But there is alot in this article to keep me going:

In date-rape cases, it's his word against hers.

As opposed to all the other rape cases?

But I've saved the best for last:

When our houses are burgled, we're hardly more likely than rape victims to see the intruder end up behind bars. So what do we do? We fit locks to our doors and windows. We keep our valuables out of sight....Feminists object that even to mention such things constitutes a shift of blame from perpetrator to victim. Yet, when we fit window locks, does this make burglary our fault?

I'm sorry, I wasn't listening to that last part, I was too busy buying my state-of-the-art chastity belt to ensure my 'valuables' are out of sight and not getting burgled.

Actually David, feminists don't object to women protecting themselves. Women should learn self-defence, especially since we know that defending yourself can actually help (and not just further arouse the attacker or endanger your life more). Feminists object to the proposition that somehow it is women's responsibility to stop rape, that somehow women have to learn to engage with men in such a way as to not get raped.

And no David, feminist don't "want a demonstration that the state backs women against men." We want a demonstration that the state backs women against rapists. Am I the only one that is screaming into a pillow over this? Is the distinction really that complicated?

Friday, September 21, 2007

Turning Body-Builder at 51

Pictures courtesy of NYT

This story is great: At 51, Establishing a New Body of Work.

I'm not a fan of body-building and in many ways it has the same principles behind cosmetic surgery, but it is a more male industry. To push oneself to the extreme of what is expected of your sex is off-putting and often unhealthy, not matter which gender you are. But body-building also falls into that strange category of a sport that is pretty much considered off limits to women. Yes, there are thousands of female body builders but they are judged, not because they have entered a sport that is considered somewhat alternative to many, but because in competing and altering their bodies they are defying their gendered physical 'limitations'. Eva talks about how her societal interactions have changed drastically since she started body-building:

One of her former co-workers, upon seeing photographs of her, told Birath that two questions ran through his mind: “Is she on steroids?” and “Is she a lesbian?”

“The hardest part is people’s attitudes,” she says. “You know how you have those circle of people who are your friends? Suddenly, I wasn’t invited to those parties anymore. I think they thought I was strange, but I don’t care.”

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Some Self-Promotion: Dollymix.tv

I'm also now blogging about feminism at Dollymix.tv!

Girlistic accepting submission for Winter Issue

The wonderful Girlistic has opened its doors for submission in the Winter issue:
The issue is themed around fashion. We're open to any and all pitches
Starter ideas:

* Women behind the seams - seamstresses & sweatshop workers: what are their stories?
* Fashionistas - how women determine fashion
* Women's roles as buyers of clothing
* Shopping with a feminist mindset
* How feminism fits into today's fashion trends

If you're interested in submitting work, please visit our Submission Guidelines for details. Submissions can be sent to editor AT Girlistic DOT com.
It's no secret that I'm a fan.

Saturday, September 08, 2007

Gender Role: Breadwinner and Mother: Adjust to It

This article brings up alot of difficult issues concerning how women break out of gender roles and establish equality in terms of how other people view their lives: Breadwinner and Mother: Adjust to It

The fact is work done in the home is not considered to be 'work' no matter whose doing it. The judgments that are made about either gender are different but still usually misplaced:

Housewives:

- What a waste of education! Why isn't she out working, using her brain?

- She's obviously not liberated. A real feminist doesn't clean and cook all day and rely on a man brings home the bacon.

- He probably doesn't let her work, otherwise she's be out there at a 9-5.

Househusbands:

- No job? She supports the family? He's obviously a bum.

- Sure, he's taking care of the kids, but children really benefit more from the mother being at home?

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Prostitution Targeted on Craigslist

The article in the NYT regarding prostitution on Craigslist is slightly annoying. The authorities quoted give the impression that they are cracking down on heavy-hitting sex crime: you imagine doors being broken down in brothels, evil pimps being thrown into the back of cop cars, embarrassed clients trying to hide their faces as the press cameras flash away. Yup, Craiglists is really aiding a huge network of outrageous sex criminals. Except that "most of the arrests are on misdemeanor charges, with convictions resulting in fines of a few hundred dollars;" and as Mr Buckmaster, founder and owner of Craiglists, pointed out it's "no different from old-media publications that have long carried sex-oriented ads".

Considering that the internet is used for a multitude of sex crimes such as rape and paedophilia, crimes that aren't just dealt with fines and misdemeanor charges, I think law enforcement officials are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Full article: Prostitution Targeted on Craigslist - New York Times

Sunday, September 02, 2007