Voluntary Segregation?

[the last donut of the night]

In my native Brazil, a complicated law has come into being, involving what some could call the `voluntary segregation´ of train and subway cars in public transportation systems. Train and subway cars here, during roush hours, are tightly packed with people going their respective ways. Due to the ingrained sexist behaviour´s in our country´s men, many women were complaining of offensive language (sexual turn-ons, innuendo, or just gestures) by men in the cars. Not only this, but there were cases of sexual harassment (groping, feeling up, etc). What happened next? A new law was passed, allowing certain cars to be available ONLY to women at certain parts of the day. My question is: is this morally correct? Would it be morally correct to give Blacks their own subway carts to `escape´ ingrained white racism and discrimination? I don´t think so. I believe fighting sexism and mysogyny (not sure if I spelled it right) would be the right solution to this, killing the tree by getting at the root. But that takes time, at least in this society. Thus, I understand why some people would initially prefer this legisçation. Your thoughts?

P.S: The signs for these cars are painted a baby pink. This colour´s historically been applied to females. Or am I being to overreactive?

[Abdul Alhazred]

They had this problem in Tokyo and used gender segregated carriages as the solution. It has worked out well. Divisions are part of nature, they have to be respected, not walked over.

[New Tet]

If I were a woman in Brazil and was often groped or threatened with sexual harassment every time I boarded a bus or train, I'd love the segregated car scheme!

Historically, Latino men have been insensitive and even cruel toward women, especially among the déclassé and lower strata of the working class. This hasn't changed much in many places that share my cultural heritage.

[Module]

Of course dealing with the causes of sexual harrassment should be of greatest importance. But as said in the previous post, if you were being groped when you got on the train, you'd want a space where you were protected from that.

Divisions are part of nature, they have to be respected, not walked over. What do you mean by that?

[Die Rote Fahne]

It should be temporary. What should be worked on his why are the men behaving like this, and what can we do to stop them.

[Abdul Alhazred]

What do you mean by that?That nature does not bow to the values of Western liberalism.

[Revy]

What utter crap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature), Abdul.

How is this even "natural"?

Why should a woman have to take a different bus to feel safe? Fuck that!

[Module]

That nature does not bow to the values of Western liberalism.Values such as what?

[the last donut of the night]

If I were a woman in Brazil and was often groped or threatened with sexual harassment every time I boarded a bus or train, I'd love the segregated car scheme!

It´s not that bad. My sister often uses subways here and has never even complained of people looking at her.


Historically, Latino men have been insensitive and even cruel toward women, especially among the déclassé and lower strata of the working class. This hasn't changed much in many places that share my cultural heritage

I don´t know how you can back that up. Historically, all men, not just Latinos have been discriminatory toward women. This is something that has permeated all classes and most ethnic groups.

[the last donut of the night]

And Abdul, these women would love to take the same cars as the men. Yet they don´t. Because of intolerant remarks and actions. So it´s not natural division -- the women are forced to do this.

[Revy]

That nature does not bow to the values of Western liberalism.

You're also a racist bigot. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/race-really-just-t74090/index.html?p=1518607#post1518607)

[Abdul Alhazred]

Values such as what?Are you some kind of child that demands to be fed answers?

[New Tet]

It´s not that bad. My sister often uses subways here and has never even complained of people looking at her.



I don´t know how you can back that up. Historically, all men, not just Latinos have been discriminatory toward women. This is something that has permeated all classes and most ethnic groups.

Yeah, and the word that describes being bigoted ('discriminatory', you call it) toward women is 'machismo'. Have you ever wondered why?

[Abdul Alhazred]

You are also a racist bigotIf you think your bullshit, cowardly accusations are going to cut any ice with me then think again. You might wet your pants at the thought of being called a racist but that's only evidence of what a conformist little mind you have.

[Revy]

If you think your bullshit accusations are going to cut any ice with me then think again. You might wet your pants at the thought of being called a racist but that's only evidence of what a conformist little mind you have.

I called you a racist bigot because you implied that blacks "naturally" have a lower IQ than other races. Has the bar for racism been lowered so low that such a thing is not racism?

[Abdul Alhazred]

I called you a racist bigot because you implied that blacks "naturally" have a lower IQ than other races. Has the bar for racism been lowered so low that such a thing is not racism?But what about the fact that blacks out perform whites physically, you didn't call me on that, even though I suspect that may be what really irked you.

You also imply some kind of 'bar' being raised and lowered to determine what is socially acceptable or otherwise. Presumably you are happy to jump over this like some performing animal in a show. I would urge you to do your own thinking rather than blindly obeying the mouth piece of authority.

Finally, none of that is my subjective opinion. It's all supported by scientific data.

[Revy]

But what about the fact that blacks out perform whites physically, you didn't call me on that, even though I suspect that may be what really irked you.

You also imply some kind of 'bar' being raised and lowered to determine what is socially acceptable or otherwise. Presumably you are happy to jump over this like some performing animal in a show. I would urge you to do your own thinking rather than blindly obeying the mouth piece of authority.

Finally, none of that is my subjective opinion. It's all supported by scientific data.

So because you gave some positive traits to blacks, that somehow makes the fact you deemed them to be mentally inferior irrelevant?

What scientific data supports the idea that blacks have biologically less intelligence than other races? None.

[New Tet]

Hey boys! Boys! BOYS!

We were discussing segregated buses & trains which should have interested you since you probably ride the school bus every Monday through Friday.

[the last donut of the night]

Yeah, and the word that describes being bigoted ('discriminatory', you call it) toward women is 'machismo'. Have you ever wondered why?


That smells of straw. Just because the word comes from a Spanish source, that means Latino men are more bigoted? Also note that Latinos also speak Portuguese.

[the last donut of the night]

Hey boys! Boys! BOYS!

We were discussing segregated buses & trains which should have interested you since you probably ride the school bus every Monday through Friday.


Agreed. Let´s at least try to not be like the rest of RevLeft and actually stay on topic for this thread? Thanks.

[Revy]

That smells of straw. Just because the word comes from a Spanish source, that means Latino men are more bigoted? Also note that Latinos also speak Portuguese.

Agreed. I suppose we should just say that a coup d'etat would be limited to French-speaking countries because it's a French term.:rolleyes:

[Module]

Are you some kind of child that demands to be fed answers?
:rolleyes:
You should be prepared to explain yourself if you say something so purposely vague.
Values such as what?

[Agrippa]

Yeah, and the word that describes being bigoted ('discriminatory', you call it) toward women is 'machismo'. Have you ever wondered why?

It's also called 'misogyny', a Greek term. I'm sure there are terms for it in every language, since evey culture is impacted by our global patriarchal system.

Don't be so hard on your own ethnicity, Anglos are patriarchal as hell, too, we're just less honest and up-front about it.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I don't think it's right that women should feel like they need to segregate themselves, or that men should be kept off certain train cars just because some of them are perverted jerks. Honestly, it doesn't seem like a very practical or constructive solution to the problem.

[Atrus]

In response to the original question, I believe that at the moment it is a good idea, but it must be absolutely temporary, while efforts are made to solve the underlying cause, i.e. stamp out male chauvanism etc.
This is not a permanent solution, and such segregation should be used only as long as absolutely neccessary [which, if the situation is as bad as represented here, it probably is] but for no longer, for fear of it becoming a "usual" part of society, which is obviously very counter-productive to making everyone feel secure in society.

[New Tet]

It's also called 'misogyny', a Greek term. I'm sure there are terms for it in every language, since evey culture is impacted by our global patriarchal system.

Don't be so hard on your own ethnicity, Anglos are patriarchal as hell, too, we're just less honest and up-front about it.

I think I have a right to "be so hard" on my ethnicity; I know it oh, so well!

But you're right about the misogyny of other cultures. I am not discounting them in the catalog of social evils. Some Muslim/Arabic cultures are even worse than us!

But the "Anglo" (actually 'Western') cultures are making great strides in the opposite direction. You can grope a woman in the train in NYC, but you'd better be prepared to face some interesting adventures on the way to the police station.

We are talking here about Brazil, aren't we? A country that is Latin to it's very core. And about how authorities there, instead of addressing the root causes of the sexist abuse going on in trains and subways, have attempted to implement a scheme whereby women who choose to do so, can ride in exclusive cars.

I know that's not a solution and that it poses a great number of problems, but it helps women while at the same admitting that the problem is so deeply rooted in their cultural heritage as to defy any lasting solution short of dismantling the entire social and economic system with all the hierarchies that support it.

[Oswy]

Divisions are part of nature, they have to be respected, not walked over.

This is silly. We are part of nature and what we choose to do is thus part of nature, including whatever social arrangements we make. The idea that there is nature and 'not nature' is philosophically flawed.

[the last donut of the night]

But the "Anglo" (actually 'Western') cultures are making great strides in the opposite direction. You can grope a woman in the train in NYC, but you'd better be prepared to face some interesting adventures on the way to the police station.

That is true -- that kind of behaviour is more taboo than it is here. Yet you can´t really talk about `Western´ culture (and western culture being such a vague thing as well) in such terms. That´s because not all people of anglo-saxonic descent are liberal, moderately progressive people. They have people just as sexist as we do in Brazil; just enter a sports bar, or be part of high school boy clubs (i,e. sport teams). Or talk to many folk. You´ll see that they too also hold sexist ideas. Aside from this, the hip-hop culture is also drenched in sexism (sadly, because it could be such a potent force for social activism). So is advertising (that, for international companies, is produced in the US and distributed for the whole world to see). There is some difference, but not as much as you claim.


And about how authorities there, instead of addressing the root causes of the sexist abuse going on in trains and subways, have attempted to implement a scheme whereby women who choose to do so, can ride in exclusive cars.

On your first post, it seemed you supported the idea of a temporary segregated scheme. So now you´ve changed? Or is this too find some fallacy in my words?


I know that's not a solution and that it poses a great number of problems, but it helps women while at the same admitting that the problem is so deeply rooted in their cultural heritage as to defy any lasting solution short of dismantling the entire social and economic system with all the hierarchies that support it.

On that, my friend, we all agree.

[Agrippa]

Some Muslim/Arabic cultures are even worse than us!

In my mind this is racism and cultural chauvinism. All forms of contemporary political domination are rooted in patriarchy and male supremacy, they're all just variations on the same theme.

Yes, being forced to wear a hijab is sexist oppression. As is women not being allowed to drive. How about breast-implant surgery? How about rhinoplasty? How about cancer-causing toiletries and cosmetics? How about the astronomically high rape statistics in all countries, including those that are "Western"? How about the dependence of the entire capitalist system, including the glorious "progressive" "Westerners", on the sexual division of labor?


But the "Anglo" (actually 'Western') cultures are making great strides in the opposite direction. You can grope a woman in the train in NYC, but you'd better be prepared to face some interesting adventures on the way to the police station.

Needless to say, you have a very overly romanticized notion of life in NYC or any other part of the "Western" world. However, even if that were true, it would only mean the cop was trying to meet his (or her) arrest quota. Just because you percieve the "Western" world as being more advanced or progressive in one specific respect (sexist harassment on public transport) does not mean that "Westerners" (ie: Anglos) are less sexist.


the problem is so deeply rooted in their cultural heritage

And in what region of the world is patriarchy not "rooted" in the "cultural heritage" of the male population? You should abandon your internalized racism. It's not just Arabs and Latinos that are macho, it's everyone.

[Killfacer]

Yes, being forced to wear a hijab is sexist oppression. As is women not being allowed to drive. How about breast-implant surgery? How about rhinoplasty? How about cancer-causing toiletries and cosmetics? How about the astronomically high rape statistics in all countries, including those that are "Western"? How about the dependence of the entire capitalist system, including the glorious "progressive" "Westerners", on the sexual division of labor?


I completely disagree with New Tet and i think he's on pretty dodgy ground with the things he said. However, the reasons you have given a poor.

Rape? A recent study, it can be found in the Opposing Ideologies section, said that 1/4 south african men admitted to raping someone at some point. This is obviously higher than in the "west".

I also don't think getting breast implants in comparable to being stoned to death, being forced to wear a hijab, not being able to drive or vote, not being able to leave the house without your husbands permission or being forced into marraige.


(edit) found the thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/statistic-t111359/index.html?t=111359&highlight=south+africa+rape

[SubcomandanteJames]

What do we consider "voluntary"? The one problem regarding the "voluntary" nature of any form of segregation is that it often ignores the coercion the preceded it. If I beat a person everyday almost to death on his way to work, and another route is provided, is his choice to take the other route "voluntary"? There is no such thing as voluntary segregation, unless perpetuated by stupidity/ignorance. This separate option for women being presented is a reformist one that may present relief to women, but it is reformist nonetheless. It's not addressing the root issue of the problem.

[Agrippa]

Rape? A recent study, it can be found in the Opposing Ideologies section, said that 1/4 south african men admitted to raping someone at some point. This is obviously higher than in the "west".

Yes, that is higher in the west, because in the west, significantly less men would admit to rape.

Which proves what I said, that Anglo-Saxons are less up-front about their misogyny.

For (only slightly*) more accurate statistics, we'd have to look at the number of women who have admitted to being raped. But then again, why should we listen to women? The male perpetrators of sexual violence are much more reliable sources!

*I say only slightly because rape victims everywhere are shamed into silence, especially in regions where public discussion of rape is discouraged.


I also don't think getting breast implants in comparable to being stoned to deathThey're different in that the one is intended to kill you and he other is not. A more fair comparison would be between breast implants and foot-binding in the ancient Chinese empire.

Socially transgressive women are lynched in the "Western" world all the time. They may not have stones thrown at them, but they're still murdered.


being forced to wear a hijabSo having to wear a cloth hair-covering is worse than having your breasts mutilated?

What about the "Western" practice of allowing men to go topless in public but not women?


not being able to driveWomen in the west are allowed to drive because they need to get to work...so they can be economically exploitated. Oh, yeah, the economic totally seperasted and segregated from "social" oppression and "discrimination" such as sexism. I forgot that totally un-Marxian principle prevails on this message board, to the point that our sub-forums are arranged around it.

I mean, since we're talking about cars, what about the statistical female predisposition to exposure to environmental toxins, including automobile exhaust? Again, are we supposed to operate under the anarchyist/pseudo-Marxist delusion that various spheres of "opression" such as patriarchy and eco-degredation are concretely seperated and atomizd....


or voteSee Emma Goldman's commentary on women's suffrage. Voting is not a sign of liberty or political emancipation, in any sense.


not being able to leave the house without your husbands permissionThere are plenty of marriages in the West that operate under these principles. There may be nothing written into the letter of the law about it, but the letter of the law is less important than how the laws are enforced, what behaviors, on a real, practical level, the security forces of the bourgeoisie do and do not allow to occur.


being forced into marraige.Westerners have their own way of pressuring their children to marry, but in more "advanced" and "progressive" totalitarian societies, most families now prefer to send their female children into wage-labor. Again, what's the difference between the forced labor of patriarchal marriage and the forced labor of age slavery?

[Killfacer]

Yes, that is higher in the west, because in the west, significantly less men would admit to rape.

Which proves what I said, that Anglo-Saxons are less up-front about their misogyny.

For (only slightly*) more accurate statistics, we'd have to look at the number of women who have admitted to being raped. But then again, why should we listen to women? The male perpetrators of sexual violence are much more reliable sources!

*I say only slightly because rape victims everywhere are shamed into silence, especially in regions where public discussion of rape is discouraged.

They're different in that the one is intended to kill you and he other is not. A more fair comparison would be between breast implants and foot-binding in the ancient Chinese empire.

Socially transgressive women are lynched in the "Western" world all the time. They may not have stones thrown at them, but they're still murdered.

So having to wear a cloth hair-covering is worse than having your breasts mutilated?

What about the "Western" practice of allowing men to go topless in public but not women?

Women in the west are allowed to drive because they need to get to work...so they can be economically exploitated. Oh, yeah, the economic totally seperasted and segregated from "social" oppression and "discrimination" such as sexism. I forgot that totally un-Marxian principle prevails on this message board, to the point that our sub-forums are arranged around it.

I mean, since we're talking about cars, what about the statistical female predisposition to exposure to environmental toxins, including automobile exhaust? Again, are we supposed to operate under the anarchyist/pseudo-Marxist delusion that various spheres of "opression" such as patriarchy and eco-degredation are concretely seperated and atomizd....

See Emma Goldman's commentary on women's suffrage. Voting is not a sign of liberty or political emancipation, in any sense.

There are plenty of marriages in the West that operate under these principles. There may be nothing written into the letter of the law about it, but the letter of the law is less important than how the laws are enforced, what behaviors, on a real, practical level, the security forces of the bourgeoisie do and do not allow to occur.

Westerners have their own way of pressuring their children to marry, but in more "advanced" and "progressive" totalitarian societies, most families now prefer to send their female children into wage-labor. Again, what's the difference between the forced labor of patriarchal marriage and the forced labor of age slavery?

If you think that 1/4 men in western countries rape then you're a fucking moron and it obviously won't be possible to have a discussion about it with you.

I'm not claiming that mysogony doesn't exist in the west, but it's not enshrined in law is is punishable. When woman who is stoned to death in some countries it is perfectly legal and the people who did it are not punished. If you "lynch", as you put it, a woman in the west then you are not only going against the law, you are also likely to be punished and be something of a social pariah.

I think that women are not forced to have breast implants in the west. It may happen because of pressure from society and what it is considered that they should look like but it certainly isn't done under the threat of death and beatings.


I mean, since we're talking about cars, what about the statistical female predisposition to exposure to environmental toxins, including automobile exhaust? Again, are we supposed to operate under the anarchyist/pseudo-Marxist delusion that various spheres of "opression" such as patriarchy and eco-degredation are concretely seperated and atomizdThat is just fucking bizzare and i don't have a clue what you are on about.

I don't understand all this wage slavery nonsense either. I would rather get a job and be independant than have no job, no independance and be forced to do what my husband tells me. It's a bit of a no brainer.

I'm not saying the west is perfect, far from it, but denying that some discrimination is enshrined in certain cultures more so than it is in other is just silly.

[Agrippa]

If you think that 1/4 men in western countries rape then you're a fucking moron and it obviously won't be possible to have a discussion about it with you.

As opposed to having a discussion with me, as opposed to seeking out proof to verify your claims, you resort to making no argument other than calling me a "fucking moron". How constructive is that? Take your pointless flaming to 4chan or LiveJournal.

You're obviously refusing to accept the possibility that as many men are rapists in "the West" (which includes, what, exactly? "Western" values have colonized the entire world) as in Africa for emotional reasons. Are you and most of your friends "Western" males? Are you somehow convinced that Africans have to be more prone towards rape than Europeans, for whatever reason? (I guess because black men are more sex-crazed and primitive. :rolleyes:) Do you not consider date-rape and psychological manipulation as forms of rape?


I'm not claiming that mysogony doesn't exist in the west, but it's not enshrined in law is is punishable.As I said before, what's written into the law is less important than what social conditions are physically enforced. The existence of the US is against all international laws, but it doesn't matter because no one is going to enforce the laws. Regardless of what the official laws are, we live in a pervasive global patriarchy. That means the majority of police are men, the majority of landlords are men, the majority of employers are men, the majority of men are subconsciously indoctrinated to treat women as their property.

Most incidents of murder, in "the West", regardless of whether they're sexually motivated or not, go unpunished by the legal system. Those who are prosecuted for rape, murder, etc. are the unlucky few who are caught, who are used by the ruling-class to trick the masses into thinking the legal system exists to promote justice. The notion that a misogynistic social order can't prosecute misogynists is too simplistic. Afterall, the misogynistic Klan killed all sorts of black men accused of raping white women, some of whom might have actually been rapists...


When woman who is stoned to death in some countries it is perfectly legal and the people who did it are not punished.And in countries where that is illegal, people still do it and are not punished.


If you "lynch", as you put it, a woman in the west then you are not only going against the law, you are also likely to be punished and be something of a social pariah.You're acting as if everyone in "the west" reports all legal and social transgressions to the police. In many urban, working-class communities, especially black, Latino, and redneck communities, snitching to the cops for any reason will also make you "something of a social pariah". The same is definitely true of orthodox/conservative Jewish communities and Old Order Amish/Mennonite communities. While, in my mind, this is mostly a good thing, its also worth pointing out that virtually all communties that exist are built around patriarchal values. The social order of tightly-knit, Xenophobic religious groups such as Orthodox Jews and Old Order Amish, for example, are very patriarchal, as much so as fundamentalist Muslims. and while not as Xenophobic or religiously motivated, tightly-knit social groups in urban areas can be just as male-oriented.

For whatever reason, most people who lynch disobedient women in "the West" don't get caught.


I think that women are not forced to have breast implants in the west.A friend of mine once likened this very argument to locking a child in a basement and not feeding the child for weeks, and then giving the child a bag of Skittles, and using the enthusiatic response from the child as an argument for the nutritional quality of Skittles.

Regardless of whether my friend's analogy is yhyperbole or not, your argument revolving around certain behaviors being "volentary" within capitalist society, a society in which the ruling class forcibly controls the means of mass communication, has too many unchecked capitalist assumptions.


It may happen because of pressure from society and what it is considered that they should look like but it certainly isn't done under the threat of death and beatings.Then these are just different forms of exploitation, one is not intrinsically worse than the other. Women with larger breasts, for example, are more likely to get hired for certain jobs, and therefore, are more likely to avoid poverty. Is poverty not also a threat to one's physical well-being?


I don't understand all this wage slavery nonsense either. I would rather get a job and be independant than have no job, no independance and be forced to do what my husband tells me. It's a bit of a no brainer.And yet many others choose marriage over wage abor. Thus, you cannot use your personal, subjective preferences to weigh in on which form of exploitation are objectively "better" or "worse". More important than this pointless game of Opression Olympics is whether or not we have to make the choice.


I'm not saying the west is perfect, far from it, but denying that some discrimination is enshrined in certain cultures more so than it is in other is just silly.You're only willing to admit that descrimination is more enshrined than non-Western cultures, because you have chauvinistic, pro-Western biases.

[Killfacer]

As opposed to having a discussion with me, as opposed to seeking out proof to verify your claims, you resort to making no argument other than calling me a "fucking moron". How constructive is that? Take your pointless flaming to 4chan or LiveJournal.

Evidently you disagree then. Do you seriously believe that in England 1/4 people rape someone? Thats frankly ridiculous.


You're obviously refusing to accept the possibility that as many men are rapists in "the West" (which includes, what, exactly? "Western" values have colonized the entire world) as in Africa for emotional reasons. Are you and most of your friends "Western" males? Are you somehow convinced that Africans have to be more prone towards rape than Europeans, for whatever reason? (I guess because black men are more sex-crazed and primitive. :rolleyes:) Do you not consider date-rape and psychological manipulation as forms of rape?
I am not the one who initially used the term "west" and when i do i'm sure to add "". Yes i consider date rape rape obviously, i don't know what you a trying to acheive with that point.

I do however know what you are trying to acheive with your point before that and frankly calling someone racist is childish and seems to be against your anti "flaming" principles which you so happily attacked me with.

I honestly don't know much about rape however i'm pretty sure that 1/4 men in western Europe (i'll just use that as an example) have not committed rape. I admit not to knowing the definate statistics but i'm sure they are lower than 1/4. Like you say however i can't show you all the statistics of those too scared to admit they were raped. However i think it's fair to say that many who took the poll "are you a rapist" may have lied. Come back with some statistics to back yourself up.


As I said before, what's written into the law is less important than what social conditions are physically enforced. The existence of the US is against all international laws, but it doesn't matter because no one is going to enforce the laws. Regardless of what the official laws are, we live in a pervasive global patriarchy. That means the majority of police are men, the majority of landlords are men, the majority of employers are men, the majority of men are subconsciously indoctrinated to treat women as their property.


yes that's all well good but it doesn't change the fact that in one place women are stoned and in one place less of them are policemen. See the difference?


Most incidents of murder, in "the West", regardless of whether they're sexually motivated or not, go unpunished by the legal system. Those who are prosecuted for rape, murder, etc. are the unlucky few who are caught, who are used by the ruling-class to trick the masses into thinking the legal system exists to promote justice. The notion that a misogynistic social order can't prosecute misogynists is too simplistic. Afterall, the misogynistic Klan killed all sorts of black men accused of raping white women, some of whom might have actually been rapists...

Well the whole KKK thing at the end is just completely irrelevant. The point still stands however, yes the police may well be innefficient and not catch everyone. Killing your wife for infidelity however still punishable by life in prison. Can't you see the difference between that and something being legal and going unpunished?


And in countries where that is illegal, people still do it and are not punished.

So if in England you stoned your wife to death you would go unpunished? No.


You're acting as if everyone in "the west" reports all legal and social transgressions to the police. In many urban, working-class communities, especially black, Latino, and redneck communities, snitching to the cops for any reason will also make you "something of a social pariah". The same is definitely true of orthodox/conservative Jewish communities and Old Order Amish/Mennonite communities. While, in my mind, this is mostly a good thing, its also worth pointing out that virtually all communties that exist are built around patriarchal values. The social order of tightly-knit, Xenophobic religious groups such as Orthodox Jews and Old Order Amish, for example, are very patriarchal, as much so as fundamentalist Muslims. and while not as Xenophobic or religiously motivated, tightly-knit social groups in urban areas can be just as male-oriented.

Ok fine.


For whatever reason, most people who lynch disobedient women in "the West" don't get caught.

Sorry how do you know about these lynchings or are you just making baseless assertions?


A friend of mine once likened this very argument to locking a child in a basement and not feeding the child for weeks, and then giving the child a bag of Skittles, and using the enthusiatic response from the child as an argument for the nutritional quality of Skittles.


Great story. You friend sounds like a swell guy. :confused:


Regardless of whether my friend's analogy is yhyperbole or not, your argument revolving around certain behaviors being "volentary" within capitalist society, a society in which the ruling class forcibly controls the means of mass communication, has too many unchecked capitalist assumptions. Your arguments has just as many unchecked assumptions. Oh no? My assumptions are capitalist? But this is revleft for revolutionary leftists, i must be doing something wrong! :glare:


Then these are just different forms of exploitation, one is not intrinsically worse than the other. Women with larger breasts, for example, are more likely to get hired for certain jobs, and therefore, are more likely to avoid poverty. Is poverty not also a threat to one's physical well-being? You think for extremely well payed jobs it's good to have massive tits? I don't think so.


And yet many others choose marriage over wage abor. Thus, you cannot use your personal, subjective preferences to weigh in on which form of exploitation are objectively "better" or "worse". More important than this pointless game of Opression Olympics is whether or not we have to make the choice. I'm not going to argue with you about what is better, being independant or being tied to a man who can tell you to do whatever he wants. I thought it was pretty obvious.


You're only willing to admit that descrimination is more enshrined than non-Western cultures, because you have chauvinistic, pro-Western biases.

And we get to the crux of your argument.

[Agrippa]

Evidently you disagree then. Do you seriously believe that in England 1/4 people rape someone? Thats frankly ridiculous.

Why, because the English are more refined and civilized than Africans?


I do however know what you are trying to acheive with your point before that and frankly calling someone racist is childish and seems to be against your anti "flaming" principles which you so happily attacked me with.

How is illustrating how an opponent's point has racist implications the same as calling someone a "fucking moron" out of the blue? Is it not racist to be so insistent that English men could never rape women as much as African men do? What's "childish" about connecting the dots?


I honestly don't know much about rape

Yes.



I admit not to knowing the definate statistics but i'm sure they are lower than 1/4.

I don't think this is something you can learn about from statistics. However, as I already pointed out, the fact that one fourth of south African men will admit to raping women only proves that Africans are more upfront about being rapists.

If statistics are that important, here is one I found on Google.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/onefifth-of-british-women-were-sexually-abused-as-children-442791.html

One fifth of British women were sexually abused as children - that's not even counting those raped as adults...


Like you say however i can't show you all the statistics of those too scared to admit they were raped. However i think it's fair to say that many who took the poll "are you a rapist" may have lied.

So by your own admission the statistics are inaccurate.


yes that's all well good but it doesn't change the fact that in one place women are stoned and in one place less of them are policemen. See the difference?

I don't necessarily support more female police officers.


Well the whole KKK thing at the end is just completely irrelevant.

No it's not. It illustrates that macho assholes often take it upon themselves to punish random rapists.


The point still stands however, yes the police may well be innefficient and not catch everyone. Killing your wife for infidelity however still punishable by life in prison. Can't you see the difference between that and something being legal and going unpunished?

But in most Islamic states there are laws against murdering one's wife. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, however...

As I've been trying to repeat over and over, what's written on the book is not always an accurate reflection of how society operates.


So if in England you stoned your wife to death you would go unpunished?

Probably not stoning, but lots of men murder their wives and go unpunished.


Sorry how do you know about these lynchings or are you just making baseless assertions?


The Rape Movement in Iraq & Men's Anti-War Politics[/I]"] Nor is it only poor societies in the Third World. Since the basic definition of patriarchal society is the ownership of women's bodies by men, even in the most technologically-developed societies changes in women's bodies such as pregnancy can please or displease men...and cause death. For example, a recent report found that "Murder is a surprisingly common cause of death among pregnant women in the United states, U.S. Government researchers reported..."

" 'Homicide is a leading cause of pregnancy-associated injury deaths,' Jeani Chang and colleagues wrote in the latest issue of the American Journal of Public Health. They investigated the deaths of women who died while pregnant or within a year of being pregnant between 1991 and 1999 and found... of the injury-related deaths, 617 or 31 percent were ruled homicide, making murder the second most common cause of injury-related death for pregnant women after car accidents."

It is just as easy for men to harvest women and children in Denver or Seattle as it is in Baghdad, although amerikkka wants you to believe otherwise. The landmark Jessica Gonzales vs. Castle Rock, Colorado case now before the Supremes is so revealing you almost know that something bad is being arranged to retire her (fatal car accident, arrest for drug possession, or maybe remarriage). That's the case where despite a so-called court order of protection, her estranged husband kidnapped her three young daughters and killed them. The police refused, of course, to do anything in response to her increasingly alarmed reports of the kidnapping. So the husband had plenty of time to kill the girl-children as part of a special day for him (first he took them all to the amusement park). Since it turns out that there is no legal right to police protection from male violence, her lawyer is trying the novel tactic of claiming local government violation of Gonzales' "property rights" in her children. After a surprise victory on the lower court level, hostile questioning by the Big Nine made any reasonable outcome look dim. One Man In Black declared that the fundamental right was of police to do whatever they wanted no matter how many court orders women obtained--he said that police had the right to simply say that they were "too busy" or even "didn't want to" protect a woman & her children.

The truth is that u.s. court orders of protection "protect" women in Colorado just like piles of Korans "protect" women in Iraq ( and isn't capitalist men's law only our version of the Koran?). The real meaning is the opposite. A court order of protection for a woman is never enforced against a man because it can't be. Patriarchal law doesn't allow us to do preventative or prophylactic elimination of dangerous men. That's what these court orders really mean, that the capitalist patriarchy has taken over any power of self defense we might have and orders us on pain of imprisonment to remain defenseless. This is in the 21st century!


Great story. You friend sounds like a swell guy. :confused:

Uhh...obviously that example is hypothetical...:laugh:


You think for extremely well payed jobs it's good to have massive tits? I don't think so.

We're no talking about "well paid jobs", which are not available to most people. We're talking about standard jobs - waitresses, secretaries, prostitutes/strippers...


I'm not going to argue with you about what is better, being independant or being tied to a man who can tell you to do whatever he wants. I thought it was pretty obvious.

Why do you think capitalist wage slavery is "independence". And as I said, you may "obviously" prefer one over the other, but you don't sound like you're in the position that actually requires you to choose. Some women choose to become wives, others choose to get jobs. Both choices suck.


And we get to the crux of your argument.

Yet you're unable to refute it, because at it's base it is essentially true. Are all accusations of Euro-chauvinism to be totally discounted?

[Killfacer]

Why, because the English are more refined and civilized than Africans?

Do you really have to say things like this? It's completely pointless and evidently i don't believe that.




How is illustrating how an opponent's point has racist implications the same as calling someone a "fucking moron" out of the blue? Is it not racist to be so insistent that English men could never rape women as much as African men do? What's "childish" about connecting the dots?

I never called you a fucking moron. It's fully possible but to me it seems unlikely. I'm not sure about the societal reasons for rape but it may have something to do with poverty etc



I don't think this is something you can learn about from statistics. However, as I already pointed out, the fact that one fourth of south African men will admit to raping women only proves that Africans are more upfront about being rapists.

Like i said, i don't believe that the rape rates will be as high in europe as they are in south africa. South Africa also has higher crime rates, this doesn't mean i think that all Africans are dumb. It's simply stating fact. It's probably to do with the grinding poverty, although i'm open to suggestions.


If statistics are that important, here is one I found on Google.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/onefifth-of-british-women-were-sexually-abused-as-children-442791.html

Nasty stuff to be sure. Can't really comment on this and it is an extremely interesting article. However sexual abuse and rape are different matters, although equally vile.


One fifth of British women were sexually abused as children - that's not even counting those raped as adults...


Or in other words you don't have statistics for rape so you got child abuse instead :blink:



So by your own admission the statistics are inaccurate.
Well it's unlikely that polls of this sort can ever be 100% accurate, i would never deny that.



I don't necessarily support more female police officers.
Why were you using it as a point?




No it's not. It illustrates that macho assholes often take it upon themselves to punish random rapists.

Good, i'm glad rapists are punished.


But in most Islamic states there are laws against murdering one's wife. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, however...


As I've been trying to repeat over and over, what's written on the book is not always an accurate reflection of how society operates.

But people ARE punished for this kind of thing.


Probably not stoning, but lots of men murder their wives and go unpunished.
Can you not see the differenced between someone getting away with something and someone doing the same thing perfectly legally? For me there is a clear difference.



Uhh...obviously that example is hypothetical...:laugh:

:lol: I guessed.


We're no talking about "well paid jobs", which are not available to most people. We're talking about standard jobs - waitresses, secretaries, prostitutes/strippers...


Yes perhaps and that is wrong.


Why do you think capitalist wage slavery is "independence". And as I said, you may "obviously" prefer one over the other, but you don't sound like you're in the position that actually requires you to choose. Some women choose to become wives, others choose to get jobs. Both choices suck.


Ok both choices suck.



Yet you're unable to refute it, because at it's base it is essentially true. Are all accusations of Euro-chauvinism to be totally discounted?


I see nothing wrong with pointing out differences in society. Euro-chauvinism? Ok well i don't have stats for many other places but i would be interested to know how the south-african stats compare to other countries, because i guarentee you it's still going to be alot more than most other countries.

[Agrippa]

Do you really have to say things like this? It's completely pointless and evidently i don't believe that.

Obviously you don't, but your insistence that differences in rape statistics can be explained away by "cultural differences" sort of lends that impression...


I never called you a fucking moron.

Yes you did.


If you think that 1/4 men in western countries rape then you're a fucking moron


I'm not sure about the societal reasons for rape but it may have something to do with poverty etc


It's probably to do with the grinding poverty, although i'm open to suggestions.

So only poor people are rapists, now?


However sexual abuse and rape are different matters, although equally vile.

Uhhh...no, they're not. The terms are used interchangeably....


Or in other words you don't have statistics for rape so you got child abuse instead :blink:

Child sexual abuse is rape. You're proving your own claims that you don't know anything about rape.


Good, i'm glad rapists are punished.

That's asinine. It doesn't empower the victim in any way, shape or form. Of course it's a good thing if rapists are punished, but the victims should be the ones empowered to deal out the "punishment", not another gang of macho idiots who are just as likely themselves to be rapists.


But people ARE punished for this kind of thing.

Yeah, and they're punished in Islamic, Latin, African, etc. societies, too....that doesn't mean those societies aren't sexist.


Can you not see the differenced between someone getting away with something and someone doing the same thing perfectly legally?

But in very few circumstances are honor-killings still legal...maybe under Taliban-era Afghanistan....but not under most modern islamic states such as Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, etc.


I see nothing wrong with pointing out differences in society.

But there's a difference between pointing out differences and inventing them.


Euro-chauvinism? Ok well i don't have stats for many other places but i would be interested to know how the south-african stats compare to other countries, because i guarentee you it's still going to be alot more than most other countries.

But how are the "stats" relevant, since most people are not going to be honest about this sort of thing?

It's also worth pointing out that lots of Europeans live in South Africa.

[New Tet]

In my mind this is racism and cultural chauvinism. All forms of contemporary political domination are rooted in patriarchy and male supremacy, they're all just variations on the same theme.

Nonetheless, you'll have to admit that feminism, as we understand it, is not an Arab/Muslim invention.


Yes, being forced to wear a hijab is sexist oppression. As is women not being allowed to drive. How about breast-implant surgery? How about rhinoplasty? How about cancer-causing toiletries and cosmetics? How about the astronomically high rape statistics in all countries, including those that are "Western"? How about the dependence of the entire capitalist system, including the glorious "progressive" "Westerners", on the sexual division of labor?

You mention two relatively minor infractions that some Arab cultures commit against women. There are others, aren't there? No need to list them here, though.

Politically, women in the West are far more empowered than in most Arab countries. I think that is a very important distinction that no amount of cultural 'anti-chauvinist' posturing can gloss over.


Needless to say, you have a very overly romanticized notion of life in NYC or any other part of the "Western" world. However, even if that were true, it would only mean the cop was trying to meet his (or her) arrest quota. Just because you percieve the "Western" world as being more advanced or progressive in one specific respect (sexist harassment on public transport) does not mean that "Westerners" (ie: Anglos) are less sexist.

I would argue that by and large, people in Western capitalist countries are
more liberal when it comes to women rights than in the Middle East. The evolution of their laws and customs speak of that. Reproductive rights, domestic violence laws, equal employment laws and laws guaranteeing women their rights of inheritance may be defectively bourgeois, but any sound-thinking socialist would concede that they are steps in the right direction.

I didn't pull the NYC subway example out of my asshole, I used it consistent with the discussion at hand. The argument about police arrest quotas is as irrelevant as it is false. It implies that laws and police are created primarily to meet that statistical goals.


And in what region of the world is patriarchy not "rooted" in the "cultural heritage" of the male population? You should abandon your internalized racism. It's not just Arabs and Latinos that are macho, it's everyone.

Perhaps you should have saved your insulting summation after you had made a coherent argument, which you have not, macho-man.

You seize upon a remark I make (which in essence is correct) to go off on a tangent about patriarchy. Apparently you forget that all hierarchical society based on sex and rank are outcrops of class-divided society. Moreover you seem little interested in the idea that the only way humanity can abandon its unjust and undemocratic hierarchies is by abolishing class division FIRST.

[New Tet]

The concept of feminism as something that needed to be "invented" is bourgeois.

Maybe, but it's no less true that feminism, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, arises first in Europe.


"Feminism" must exist in any society in which women are oppressed - it emerges organically as a response to oppression.It arises out the material development of society. You have to admit that industrial capitalism and bourgeois society is what gives whatever ideas we have about the the liberation of women a solid material basis.


I'm certainly no Islamic scholar but I'm positive any casual research into the subject will find myriad feminist schools of Islamic thought prior to the emergence of modern European liberalism.You are no Islamic scholar, yet you make things up and declare them with the certainty of an inspired prophet. Bravo!



Yes, and there are others in the case of the "west" as well...we could spend all day composing twin laundry lists of oppression in the "western" and "islamic" worlds. It's irrelevant, the distinction between "western" and "non-western" civilization is non-existent at this point...Maybe you're afraid to admit that there are disparities in social and economic development between societies so you opt for lumping them all in the same pile. Not a very sound approach, I'd say.


As for feminism not being Arabic...patriarchal civilization had to violently impose itself on society in Arabia, just like the rest of the world. It's bizarrely racist to insinuate that feminist culture couldn't emerge in Arabia...is that peninsula cursed? I didn't say feminism couldn't arise; I said It DIDN'T. There's a difference, you know?


What you consider empowerment, I consider more complex and nuanced modes of political control....Are you asserting that universal suffrage was merely a nuanced mode of political control in spite of the many years of struggle and sacrifice on the part of men and women in Europe and America? Sir, you insult our forebears!



It's chauvinistic to assume that this distinction is a product of "cultural differences" - it's no better than the stupid white stereotype that Latinos, Africans, and Arabs are more "aggressive" than Euros.Our cultural evolution is shaped by the advances in our material development. To deny that is ahistorical and defies what we know about historical materialism.


Yes, but liberalism is not intrinsically better....Liberalism was better, while it was revolutionary. Islam, like Christianity is rooted in medieval society. Capitalist liberalism breaks away from that and INVENTS a new morality in which women are seen, at least in theory, as equal participants and beneficiaries in society.


Not necessarily. It only speaks to the eagerness of the bourgeoisie to reflect the impression of egalitarianism and representation. Do any of the laws you mention hurt or impede the aspirations of the bourgeoisie in any way? Do they make women any more autonomous?I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory of history.



Wouldn't be an issue if Christianity, a product of European civilization, hadn't colonized the world.So you're asserting that it was Christianity that made the reproductive rights of women an issue because it allegedly 'colonized' the world?

You talk about my supposed insults to Arabs and yet you freely insult all of those people who, throughout the years, have fought to secure the rights of women to control how, when or if they become pregnant. Incredible.

BTW, Christianity never colonized the world.


Domestic violence laws don't decrease domestic violence, though....No, it penalizes it. That is an important step toward decreasing it.


Equal employment laws don't eliminate economic disparities between the genders...True, but it lays bare the fact of its existence and serves as a tacit admission that capitalist reform cannot resolve it. That, my friend, is a good thing.


Only of relevance to women who come from property-owning families in the first place. Now who is the one who is ignoring class?Not entirely true. Some reforms associated with it empowered all women to own, buy and sell property without requiring the approval or participation of their male companions or family. How many working class women have been able to own their own homes as a result? Millions I am sure.


I am not a socialist, per se and do not subscribe to the "steps in the right direction" interpretation of history. That's because you probably have a manichean view of reality in which something that is good has to be completely good. That, or you have difficulty thinking dialectically.


Your example was relevant, and consistent with the discussion at hand, but it was false. Not all men who sexually harass women on NYC subways are arrested or punished. Most get away with it. You just want to romanticize Anglo society, because the grass is always greener on the other side. Unfortunately, for women, and for all of us, the grass is pretty brown wherever you go...I never stated or implied that "all men who sexually harass women on NYC subways are arrested or punished." That's something you choose to read into it. The fact is that, unlike Brazil, the chances of getting nailed for groping a woman or otherwise harassing her in NYC subways is very high.
I don't romanticize anything. I am stating the undeniable fact that Western culture, thanks to its material and social development has made greater progress towards a more just society than the backwardness of of countries possessing what Marx called "Asiatic Despotism"


You're implying that laws are not, at least in part, created to meet statistical goals for police. Regardless of why they are created, that is definitely a major factor in terms of how, why, when, and where they are enforced....Has it ever occurred to you that laws against sexual abuse and harassment are made because the crimes they are designed to combat are just plain bad?

You make out capitalist society to have contributed nothing good toward the advancement of civilization. That is just plain wrong.


How am I macho?You said so yourself: "It's not just Arabs and Latinos that are macho, it's everyone."


Not really. Sexual division of labor and socio-economic strata emerged around the same time. There's no conclusive archaeological proof that the one gave birth to the other, there's a good chance they are related symptoms of a greater social problem. The pseudo-Marxist notion that everything must be a product of capitalist class relations is reductionist. Even primitive communist hunter-gatherer societies can be patriarchal, that's how fuedal (and eventually capitalist) patriarchies start...It would be anthropology more than archeology that provides the proof of our social evolution.

Again, you misinterpret what I say. I said class-divided society is what creates the need for social hiearchies. Read what I wrote before you go flying off the handle with accusations of "pseudo-Marxism".


Uhhh...ok. I don't think anything I said explicitly gave that impression. I think going on about what we should abolish "first" is thinking ahead a little bit too much...it's not really a relevant question either way, the point isn't to sieze control of social hegemony and "abolish" random evils, the point is to create autonomous spaces to enforce our values.

Maybe to you. But I'm a little skeptical about creating little escapist utopias where we can "enforce our values" in the midst of a world torn apart by its own contradictions.

[FreeFocus]

If you think that 1/4 men in western countries rape then you're a fucking moron and it obviously won't be possible to have a discussion about it with you.

Actually, I would have to disagree here. I don't think he's a "fucking moron" for arguing that a large percentage of men in western countries engage in acts that could be considered "rape." This is particularly true if you look at college-age men. Ever heard of date rape? It's extremely prevalent.

Sure, a quarter of men in western countries aren't active rapists, but a large percentage have certainly engaged in such behavior.

[Module]

I'm not going to get involved in this thread, but, no, rape is obviously not as prevalent in the West as it is in South Africa. If 1/4 of men in South Africa admit to rape, then there are going to be a hell of a lot more who engage in "that type of behaviour" that FreeFocus says is so 'prevalant' in the West.
I'm sorry, but saying a difference in figures is down to people in a particular part of the world 'admitting' it, and people from another part not 'admitting' it is just absurd.
Really, blatantly absurd.
And no, Agrippa, you really can't compare sexism against Western women to sexism against Arab women.
You really can't. It's useless to try.

[New Tet]

Maybe you're afraid to admit that your way of viewing society is fundamentally racist....


This conversation has turned toxic.

[Pogue]

I think the idea of feminity is a myth anyway. Its like that stereotypical portrayal of what makes a woman attractive, i.e. being attractive (physically), submissive, weak, etc. That was and in some places still is clearly a sexist epectation dating back in centuries.

I don't think its attractive or exists as an actual thing today. I.e. feminity does not mean 'what females are or should be like', its a specific expectation for women. Which I think is largely being fought against. Especially now as alot of women are pursuing careers independent of men, asserting their sexuality, challenging gender roles, etc.

I think there is still that expectation amongst alot of males for a particularly 'feminine' female (using the definition of feminine i outlined above, the chauvinistic expectation). You see it alot in how alot of guys expect their girlfriend to act a certain way, and subtle undertones of 'ownership'. I don't think the majority of people do this. I don't think any of my mates do it. But there is a large culture of this amongst alot of males.

On this issue of 'voluntary segregation' - if the women feel threatened being in a carriage with the males, i.e. if its that widespread a problem, if I assume it is, then I see this idea as a mere expression of self defence. Same as how these women would be entitled to punch any man who groped them, or perved over them proper, or said something invasive, suggestive, etc. I think its said it has to happen but I can understand why and I support it as self defence, as long as it is, as we have said, voluntary.

Obviously it doesn't pose any solid problems, i.e. long term. The problem is why those attitudes of being able to sexually harass those women existed in the first place. Obviously this is something society has to deal with. I don't think this can be top down, I think it has to be done through democratic organisaitons, not top down beurecratic ones, full of militant women asserting their rights and their independence, and thus fighting sexism. I think this could be done in many ways. I think this organisation is best, as opposed to say a government implementing policy to try and encourage the breaking down of discrimination. Because it empowers a group that has traditionally been made ot feel submissive - i.e. females, and thus this experience shows them their true power. This informs my ideas on the power of workers as well, and I think it implies here. Such an organisation would be Mujeres Libres, the anarcha-feminist organisation in the Spanish Revolution.

So yeh I think there needs to be a militant organisation of women doing what it takes to assrt their power - direct actions, self defence, protests, discussing, etc.

[New Tet]

I think the idea of feminity is a myth anyway. Its like that stereotypical portrayal of what makes a woman attractive, i.e. being attractive (physically), submissive, weak, etc. That was and in some places still is clearly a sexist epectation dating back in centuries.

Let me ask you one little question: Must Woman abandon Her femininity in order to become emancipated?

[Pogue]

Let me ask you one little question: Must Woman abandon Her femininity in order to become emancipated?

I don't even know what you mean by feminity or emancipation. I think that defeating sexism is about more than just 'abandoning feminity', alot of women are strong characters who still meet opposition from a still largely sexist society.

I think there is a difference between abandoning their feminity and abandoning being 'female', if thats what you mean.

[New Tet]

I don't even know what you mean by feminity or emancipation. I think that defeating sexism is about more than just 'abandoning feminity', alot of women are strong characters who still meet opposition from a still largely sexist society.

I think there is a difference between abandoning their feminity and abandoning being 'female', if thats what you mean.

Are dictionaries scarce around here or something?

[Pogue]

Are dictionaries scarce around here or something?

No need to get lemon, I'm just saying I can't answer your question meaningfully if I don't know whether we're catching the same vibe, thats all.

[Luís Henrique]

Yeah, and the word that describes being bigoted ('discriminatory', you call it) toward women is 'machismo'. Have you ever wondered why?
Don't know? Perhaps Portuguese speakers become aware of the phenomenon, while it remained "natural" to English speakers?

Such kind of linguistic "explanations" are quite dubious; they could mean anything, and they could also mean nothing.

Luís Henrique

[New Tet]

Don't know? Perhaps Portuguese speakers become aware of the phenomenon, while it remained "natural" to English speakers?

Such kind of linguistic "explanations" are quite dubious; they could mean anything, and they could also mean nothing.

Luís Henrique

They're dubious because they're ambiguous.

Let's see how ambiguous this assertion turns out to be: With the possible exception of Cuba, most Latin American countries, including Mexico, have lagged behind United States and Europe in respect to advances toward the emancipation of women. True or False?

****************************************
Aside from being a Marxist, I subscribe to a myth of Pachamama (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachamama) partly of my own invention: The planet is our literal and metaphorical mother; Nature, by accident or design, has created Woman on earth to give itself an outward, physical expression.

You probably already know that the most reliable way of determining human ancestry, indeed the ancestry of most sexual animals, is by tracing the DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA#Female_inheritance) history on the female side of the reproductive equation.

[New Tet]

No need to get lemon, I'm just saying I can't answer your question meaningfully if I don't know whether we're catching the same vibe, thats all.

Please, just take my words at face value. What do you have to lose but a few moments of deep thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4EdJ0tb4Gw

[Luís Henrique]

Some things are doomed to backfire.

One is this kind of measure. Instead of "improving" things, what it does is to create a rationale for abusers: "well, if they didn't want it, they should have taken the pink wagon; they had the option, after all". Knowing our police, I'm afraid this rationale will be adopted by them, too.

Other thing doomed to failure is the kind of hyperbole that equates breast implants to death penalty for adultery. Perhaps breast implants are worse to one's health than wearing a bhurka. But the point is, you won't be stoned to death for not making a breast implant. Probably won't even get weird looks for it. So those things are not remotely comparable, not because of their health effects, but because of the way they are imposed into people, and the sanctions that fall to those who reject such impositions. But the really dangerous thing is that we know very well that women in the "West" are very happy about their breast implants, and even compete to get them. We are then under the risk of believing that Chinese women, before the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil communists took over, had a similar approach to feet mangling. And then, oh, then everything becomes justifiable in the name of "antiimperialism" or "multiculturalism": "how dare we criticise genital mutilations in other people's culture, when we impose into "our" women the monsterous use of high heels?"

And please, "Christianity" hasn't took over the world. On the contrary, it has been abolished in the XVIII century, by those other eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil people, the Jacobins. Or where is the Holy Office of the Inquisition to enforce decency and proper religion at the bonfire's pole, like the Muslism clergy is still able to do with their fatwas? Where are the modern Western John Calvins, burning Michel de Servet at the stake for doctrinary divergences? "Our" civilisation is largely secular, because secularism has been imposed into the clergy by other social forces. What "we" should be ashamed in the "West" is not that our secularism is as barbaric as the clerical reactionarism of the Middle East, but that the "West" has used the reactionarism of local clerics (and military, and landed oligarchy) to better exploit other regions and civilisations, when "we" perfectly know, from "our" own experience, that clergy, military and landed oligarchy are always reactionary forces.

Luís Henrique

[Black Dagger]

I've no problem with providing free, voluntary safe spaces for women - people shouldn't have to feel unsafe using public transport that is a given, but is this a solution?

Whilst schemes like that may draw attention to the issue of sexual assault they aren't a solution for it (it's really an attempt at prevention) - though they do to some extent enforce the idea that women should be afraid and need special protection.

In addition to spaces like this, perhaps a more general safe-space carriage? For anyone who feels vulnerable, afraid, intimidated, harrassed etc. Perhaps one day we can extend this to encompass the whole train!

[sandragnash]

If I were a woman in Brazil and was often groped or threatened with sexual harassment every time I boarded a bus or train, I'd love the segregated car scheme!

Historically, Latino men have been insensitive and even cruel toward women, especially among the déclassé and lower strata of the working class. This hasn't changed much in many places that share my cultural heritage.

Isn't that a racist thing to say? "Latino men have been insensitive and even cruel toward women". I am disgusted, I thought this was a left wing forum, not a party political broadcast for the BNP.

[New Tet]

Isn't that a racist thing to say? "Latino men have been insensitive and even cruel toward women". I am disgusted, I thought this was a left wing forum, not a party political broadcast for the BNP.

I think it's racist to say that Latino is a race. There are white, black and native American people who fall into the Latino category.

I happen to be a white Hispanic man. I know my culture intimately and, although great progress has been made in the formal treatment of women's rights, we still lag behind our european and North American brothers in our informal and social treatment of women. The scheme to provide segregated rail cars in Brazil, misguided as it is, is a response to the deplorable fact that many men in there do not respect women enough to keep from unwanted groping, etc.

BTW, this is not a new idea. In Mexico city there are public buses that serve exclusively women who don't want to risk riding in the regular transports.

[sandragnash]

Okay then - isn't it a HUGE generalisation then? And obviously discriminatory?

"He's a Latino - therefore he is X, Y and Z".

Is that okay because it doesn't specifically involve race, but ethnicity?

[sandragnash]

I think the women should be allowed to GEOGRAPHICALLY segregate from any men they choose to - i.e. any men who they think are undesirable.

Nobody should be allowed to force themselves onto anybody else. That includes geographically too. If I, for example, thought that 'women belong in the kitchen', etc. every woman on Earth should be able to decide whether she wants me anywhere near her (they probably wouldn't want such a man near them!).

So why can't these women be allowed to geographically partition the country, and any DECENT men who don't grope and sexually assault women, would be allowed BY THE WOMEN, into their partition.

[sandragnash]

You're obviously refusing to accept the possibility that as many men are rapists in "the West" (which includes, what, exactly? "Western" values have colonized the entire world) as in Africa for emotional reasons. Are you and most of your friends "Western" males? Are you somehow convinced that Africans have to be more prone towards rape than Europeans, for whatever reason? (I guess because black men are more sex-crazed and primitive. :rolleyes:) Do you not consider date-rape and psychological manipulation as forms of rape?



I don't think anybody considers "psychological manipulation" a "form of rape". Could you define what you mean?

As far as rape statistics by race, look at:


Go to www dot usdoj dot gov
Then type in the search box:
"Personal crimes of violence 2005 table 42"
then view the PDF file cv0542.pdf
then look at the fourth set of results:
"Rape/Sexual assault".
See where it says "Black only"? (Those are the victims' races) Look across to
"Perceived race of offender" - under white it says zero.
Which means no whites raped any blacks in 2005.
Now look at where it says "White only" (those are the victims' races) - look across to "Perceived race of offender" - under black it says
33.6%, and under other (non-whites, in other words), it says 19.6%.
Which means that
In 2005, there were
37,460 white women raped by black men,
21,852 white women raped by other non-white men.
But no black women raped by white men.

Those statistics are astonishing.
Now, my question is, before you come to the 'rescue' of the black rapists in these statistics - who is most vulnerable and who suffers the most? White WOMEN, who are being raped in their tens of thousands every year, or black men, who are merely being 'discriminated' against, according to you no doubt.

I have already provided the solution to end ALL racism in one of my other threads today.