When feminism becomes racism...

[Rad]

Recently, there has been a lot of talk on the horrific rapes in India. Put simply, these are the following remarks I hear (both online and offline) from those countering the feminist position (because they feel the feminist position inadvertently favors the racist view):

1) Rape is a problem all over the world, so why make India the center of this? Isn't that demeaning to the millions of good people in India?

2) Isn't rape essentially a psychological problem (perversion, domination etc.) rather than a patriarchal/social one?

3) When white women complain of sexual harassment in India, is it because they have racist/colonial notions ( like, how dare a nonwhite person look at me as if he's my equal)? Would she call it sexual harassment if say, an Italian man, were to look at her or smile?

4) Should there be interference or should Indians be allowed to solve their own problems?

These are basically the arguments I hear to counter the feminist position that rape is a big issue in India, since Indian men are primitive and patriarchal. They say feminism becomes racism in such instances.

[Ocean Seal]

Recently, there has been a lot of talk on the horrific rapes in India. Put simply, these are the following remarks I hear (both online and offline) from those countering the feminist position (because they feel the feminist position inadvertently favors the racist view):


1) Rape is a problem all over the world, so why make India the center of this? Isn't that demeaning to the millions of good people in India?
You're right, but that doesn't mean that we should ignore the problem in India, or try to disregard the problem by making it seem universal and unsolveable.


2) Isn't rape essentially a psychological problem (perversion, domination etc.) rather than a patriarchal/social one?
No, the way we deal with it makes it a social problem.


3) When white women complain of sexual harassment in India, is it because they have racist/colonial notions ( like, how dare a nonwhite person look at me as if he's my equal)? Would she call it sexual harassment if say, an Italian man, were to look at her or smile?

No there are plenty of Indian women who are harassed by men, and many Indian women who are raped. The base problem never was foreign women getting harassed, but indigenous women getting absolutely terrible treatment.


4) Should there be interference or should Indians be allowed to solve their own problems?
If you think anyone here is going to suggest airstrikes/occupation over India, you are quite mistaken. Although, I wouldn't put it past some of our more trigger happy members....



These are basically the arguments I hear to counter the feminist position that rape is a big issue in India, since Indian men are primitive and patriarchal. They say feminism becomes racism in such instances.
Dude stop. I see what you are trying to do. Racism and sexism are both bad, don't use one to excuse the other. If anyone thinks that this is inherent to Indian men, then they are racists. But believing that rape is not a big issue in India, and that patriarchy is not thoroughly embedded in Indian society is sexist.

[Creative Destruction]

Well, no. Feminism doesn't single out Indian men as "primitive" and patriarchal. Some individual feminists may do this, but I, tbh, haven't heard that criticism articulated by a feminist, where it regards this issue.


4) Should there be interference or should Indians be allowed to solve their own problems?

This depends on what you mean by "interference." If disallowing "interference" in the form of saying we shouldn't point out that there is a huge issue with rape in India, then that's ridiculous. Or saying that outside support can't come to Indian women's rights groups, like the Gulabi Gang, then that is also absurd. Of course we should "interfere" if that's what we mean here. If you mean "interference," like send American combat troops into India, then no, of course not.

[Atsumari]

When it came to racism among feminists from my personal experience, it was always that Muslims are evil and must be destroyed and those poor stupid non-white women need our help. They often found themselves awkwardly agreeing with the right-wing in many cases the same way Christopher Hitchens found himself in agreement with certain people that he found rather distasteful.

[Redistribute the Rep]

2) Isn't rape essentially a psychological problem (perversion, domination etc.) rather than a patriarchal/social one?


Psychological problems can have social origins, our psyches do not exist completely divorced from society. Actually, social psychology is a major field of psychology, and numerous theories for the social origin of psychological problems exist. The fact remains that rates of rape contrast starkly cross culturally and trans historically, too starkly for these differences to be attributed to random chance.

No matter how you want to put it, you can't deny that rape is a social act. In order to rape someone, you have to have some disregard to their bodily autonomy. There is no getting around this, unless you bring up a case where someone is too mentally deranged to understand what they're doing, but such cases are marginal. Social interactions with other people, for example, raping them, are of course influenced by group dynamics. Patriarchal relations cause people to not respect a woman's consent. Is that a psychological problem? Sure, in my view people who don't respect someone's basic rights through that line of patriarchal thought have a problem with their psyche, in the same way that American slaveowners could be said to have "psychological problems" as they were able to view some people as literal property. Obviously, no honest person would deny the social origins of slavery though. Isn't it obvious that any negative social interaction would have its basis in a psychological problem? There's a psychological thought process behind every social interaction, so you're dichotomy of psychological vs social causes makes no sense whatsoever.

Maybe you instead of simply "psychological problem" you meant more specifically a psychological disorder, much more specific and extreme. Even so, these have been empirically proven to have social origins, they do not just pop up randomly and independent of group dynamics.

Of course, we've only discussed rape so far, but patriarchal relations that cause people to ignore womens right to control over ther own bodies manifests itself in numerous other ways (abortion restriction, harassment, etc), making the argument that these views of women are a psychological anomaly even more absurd.

[Illegalitarian]

It's true that some cultures are more patriarchal than others and this could lead to higher rates of rape among those societies, but I dont know enough about this to say either way and it's certainly not racism to point this out. It only becomes racism when we make it about race, which we should not.


The popular narratives against feminism among the libertarian crowd seem to be conflating victim blaming with warning women to try and be safe when traveling alone, as if feminists believe that warning women to take precautions against rape is somehow blaming them when they do go raped. The popular meme is "Are you telling me to lock my door so I don't get my house robbed? Victim blamer!"

They claim their problem with feminism is that feminists want "government legislation against patriarchal acts", which is a product of problematic liberal feminism, but it's also a weak facade used by these libertarians to excuse their defensive white boy bitter baby syndrome.

[Redistribute the Rep]

3) When white women complain of sexual harassment in India, is it because they have racist/colonial notions ( like, how dare a nonwhite person look at me as if he's my equal)?


And also, huh? Being sexually harassed is not being looked at as an equal, it means someone views you as an object for their pleasure, and not as an equal human being worthy of bodily integrity.

[Illegalitarian]

Psychological problems can have social origins, our psyches do not exist completely divorced from society. Actually, social psychology is a major field of psychology, and numerous theories for the social origin of psychological problems exist. The fact remains that rates of rape contrast starkly cross culturally and trans historically, too starkly for these differences to be attributed to random chance.

No matter how you want to put it, you can't deny that rape is a social act. In order to rape someone, you have to have some disregard to their bodily autonomy. There is no getting around this, unless you bring up a case where someone is too mentally deranged to understand what they're doing, but such cases are marginal. Social interactions with other people, for example, raping them, are of course influenced by group dynamics. Patriarchal relations cause people to not respect a woman's consent. Is that a psychological problem? Sure, in my view people who don't respect someone's basic rights through that line of patriarchal thought have a problem with their psyche, in the same way that American slaveowners could be said to have "psychological problems" as they were able to view some people as literal property. Obviously, no honest person would deny the social origins of slavery though. Isn't it obvious that any negative social interaction would have its basis in a psychological problem? There's a psychological thought process behind every social interaction, so you're dichotomy of psychological vs social causes makes no sense whatsoever.

Maybe you instead of simply "psychological problem" you meant more specifically a psychological disorder, much more specific and extreme. Even so, these have been empirically proven to have social origins, they do not just pop up randomly and independent of group dynamics.

Of course, we've only discussed rape so far, but patriarchal relations that cause people to ignore womens right to control over ther own bodies manifests itself in numerous other ways (abortion restriction, harassment, etc), making the argument that these views of women are a psychological anomaly even more absurd.


My issue with the assertion that rape is strictly a psychological problem lies in the undertones that it's ok to just shrug rape off, then, as a few bad apples.

It's like when people say Hitler, Stalin, etc were psychopaths, or deranged monsters of some type. It's just lazy, dismissive thinking in order to try and avoid actually analyzing these people and the social conditions that caused them to do what they did, along with all other dynamics involved.


I think if rape was strictly a psychological issue and had nothing at all to do with sex, or social dynamics, we would see just as many men and children raped as we do women. Which we do not.

[Rad]

And also, huh? Being sexually harassed is not being looked at as an equal, it means someone views you as an object for their pleasure, and not as an equal human being worthy of bodily integrity.

Correct.

But the white lady visiting India (in whose blog I read this) says that if Italian men did the same these women wouldn't complain. She says this is racism or at least discrimination against Indian men.

EDIT:
Your point about sexual harassment is correct. Merely looking at a person is not sexual harassment. But a racist woman with colonial views may interpret even a casual look as sexual harassment. Let's not forget black men were lynched for even looking at white women not long ago, although the official story was that they sexually abused those women.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Let's not forget black men were lynched for even looking at white women not long ago, although the official story was that they sexually abused those women.

And that had nothing to do with feminism, using it to conflate feminism with racism is pretty flimsy and pathetic

[consuming negativity]

It's true that some cultures are more patriarchal than others and this could lead to higher rates of rape among those societies, but I dont know enough about this to say either way and it's certainly not racism to point this out. It only becomes racism when we make it about race, which we should not.

The popular narratives against feminism among the libertarian crowd seem to be conflating victim blaming with warning women to try and be safe when traveling alone, as if feminists believe that warning women to take precautions against rape is somehow blaming them when they do go raped. The popular meme is "Are you telling me to lock my door so I don't get my house robbed? Victim blamer!"

They claim their problem with feminism is that feminists want "government legislation against patriarchal acts", which is a product of problematic liberal feminism, but it's also a weak facade used by these libertarians to excuse their defensive white boy bitter baby syndrome.

This seems backwards. And the reason it annoys me is that so much emphasis is on women to "be safe", when they're already well aware of the danger that faces them, rather than the emphasis being on men to "not rape", which seems like a much easier and more direct way of confronting the problem that is much less common.


And that had nothing to do with feminism, using it to conflate feminism with racism is pretty flimsy and pathetic

You're right, but to be clear, it is a feminist issue insofar as there's a reason that "protect the white women!" rang so loudly in so many ears.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Its true that the attacks on foreigners receive a lot of attention in the international press, but the most high profile stories have had Indian women at the center. I have no doubt that racism is a big issue for people in India dealing with western tourists and the like, but it seems like a separate issue and trying to combine it comes off as an attempt at dismissing the issue of rape.

Indian men hitting on westerners isn't whats making the news, its gang rapes. Gang rapes that primarily target Indian women.

[Illegalitarian]

This seems backwards. And the reason it annoys me is that so much emphasis is on women to "be safe", when they're already well aware of the danger that faces them, rather than the emphasis being on men to "not rape", which seems like a much easier and more direct way of confronting the problem that is much less common.

There's nothing wrong with equal emphasis being put upon both safety precautions women can take to avoid rape (walk with purpose while alone, avoid dark, dimply lit areas, *carry protection, etc) and upon men to stop raping people.

The problem lies in the fact that the biggest "advice" given to women seems to be "you shouldn't have been drinking/should have been wearing more conservative clothing", which is a completely unfounded piece of "advice" (there is no evidence to support the claim that rapists choose their victims based on how they're dressed. This seems to be based around the misconception that rape is about physical attraction, also a problematic claim) as well as inherently sexist advice, with roots in promiscuity shaming puritanical values.

It also lies in the fact that while thieves are told not to steal while people are advised to lock their doors, while drivers are warned to slow down in school zones while children are told to look both ways before crossing the street, etc, etc, rape is the only crime where the victim is the one immediately put in the hot seat, the issue becomes entirely about the woman in question, with very little focus in the media or among popular perceptions on raped actually put upon the rapists or even the act of rape itself.


So it's clearly not about simply giving women sound safety advice, as sexist-minded individuals seem to believe, and this is not a stereotype we should be giving credence to even if it is an annoyance.



*"Carry a gun" or "take mace with you" is controversial advice. Obviously it could mean the difference between not being raped, or murdered, but a quick assailant that one is not prepared for (which is usually the case) will likely only use whatever weaponry one might be carrying against one, so it's kind of a big risk. I have mixed-feelings on the matter

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Even an emphasis on helpful advice still suggests that women simply need to follow a correct procedure when in public instead addressing the real issue of men committing rape. Women shouldnt have to 'walk with a purpose' at night.

[Illegalitarian]

Well if you want to see it that was, the entire concept rests on the premise that just telling rapists not to rape will somehow make them stop. That's clearly not the issue, though.

Women should not have to walk with purpose at night. Women should not be raped at all, no one should be mugged and murder over petty reasons should be made a thing of the past by scrapping the old base and acquiring a new one, thus gaining a new superstructure.

Unfortunately for now all of these things are realities, and women absolutely should be careful of where they go when alone. This is not an answer to rape, but an answer to, until the conditions are right to effectively stop rape as a social phenomenon, avoiding rape

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Yeah its important to keep people safe in the immediate future, but if all you ever do is remind women not to get too drunk while out alone, how are you ever going to create the conditions to end rape? Eventually you have to address the people doing it or the people who will eventually grow up and do it.

Instead of constantly reminding women to keep an eye on their drinks, what if we constantly reminded young men that getting a woman too drunk to consent to sex is a deviant and criminal act? When is the last time you saw a sign in a mens room reminding you not to rape anyone? Shit even the concept is ridiculous, but should it be?

[Redistribute the Rep]

Well if you want to see it that was, the entire concept rests on the premise that just telling rapists not to rape will somehow make them stop. That's clearly not the issue, though.

Women should not have to walk with purpose at night. Women should not be raped at all, no one should be mugged and murder over petty reasons should be made a thing of the past by scrapping the old base and acquiring a new one, thus gaining a new superstructure.

Unfortunately for now all of these things are realities, and women absolutely should be careful of where they go when alone. This is not an answer to rape, but an answer to, until the conditions are right to effectively stop rape as a social phenomenon, avoiding rape

Except the vast majority of rapes don't occur on the streets at night, so this "advice" doesn't do much other than perpetuate stereotypes and give people a superficial sense of security.

[BIXX]

I kinda want to put up signs in my workplace's bathrooms to remind men not to rape women.

[Illegalitarian]

Except the vast majority of rapes don't occur on the streets at night, so this "advice" doesn't do much other than perpetuate stereotypes and give people a superficial sense of security.

Hmm, true, but it's still generally good advice for anyone to follow, especially in bigger cities.


@EG: Fair enough as well

[Redistribute the Rep]

Hmm, true, but it's still generally good advice for anyone to follow, especially in bigger cities.


@EG: Fair enough as well

Everybody already agrees that people should be careful when walking alone in dangerous places at night, it goes without saying, so you have to look at the context this "advice" is given in. It is almost always used to dismiss or ignore rape victims and the root causes of the problem. Kind of like the Republican voter ID laws: they take something everyone knows is wrong (voter fraud) and use it target specific groups. You can agree with the isolated idea (telling people to take precaution when in potentially dangerous situations) but at least acknowledge the context in which this "advice" is given to women

[TC]

Recently, there has been a lot of talk on the horrific rapes in India. Put simply, these are the following remarks I hear (both online and offline) from those countering the feminist position (because they feel the feminist position inadvertently favors the racist view):

[quote]1) Rape is a problem all over the world, so why make India the center of this? Isn't that demeaning to the millions of good people in India?

Rape is a problem all over the world, but there is reason to think that an unusually high portion of Indian men are rapists and spouse beaters:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indian-men-lead-in-sexual-violence-worst-on-gender-equality-Study/articleshow/7643154.cms

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/60-of-men-admit-to-wife-beating-Poll/articleshow/45103653.cms

Moreover in India, the criminal law is so retrograde that if a husband rapes his wife, it does not constitute criminal rape.


2) Isn't rape essentially a psychological problem (perversion, domination etc.) rather than a patriarchal/social one?

No, rape is not "essentially" a psychological problem for the rapist, it is also form of patriarchal terror and contempt for women's humanity.


3) When white women complain of sexual harassment in India, is it because they have racist/colonial notions ( like, how dare a nonwhite person look at me as if he's my equal)? Would she call it sexual harassment if say, an Italian man, were to look at her or smile?

This statement is both wrong and very offensive. Street harassment from white men is regarded as just as offensive as street harassment from non-white men, maybe even moreso since the false trope of accusing women of "racism" for failing to accede to male entitlement is not levied in favor of white sexual harassers.


4) Should there be interference or should Indians be allowed to solve their own problems?

Countries and borders are socio-political constructs of historical chance not morally sacrosanct units that must be preserved for their own sake. A true egalitarian should care as much about someone who, by pure chance, was born in another country as they do about someone who, by pure chance, was born in the same place they were. I can't find any reason why outrage at the oppression of anyone should be withheld just because they are on the other side of an artificial border.


These are basically the arguments I hear to counter the feminist position that rape is a big issue in India, since Indian men are primitive and patriarchal. They say feminism becomes racism in such instances.

I would say that putative "anti-racism" becomes misogyny and male supremacism when it is used to shield rapists and rape enablers from criticism.

[consuming negativity]

women don't need to be told of the danger or given advice to avoid rape

they are well aware that they are in danger. they are not idiots who need to be warned that bad shit happens.

men on the other hand continually rape despite the women knowing this and taking measures to protect themselves

the problem is the rapists. there's just no way around it.

[Comrade Hadrian]

I would say "feminism" becomes 'racism' at the point of denial of culpability. I'm reminded of Wendy Lower's Hitler's Furies: German Women in the Nazi Killing Fields, which methodically details the way German woman participated in the slaughter of Eastern Europeans. To quote from the book:


In the postwar investigations in Germany, Israel, and Austria, Jewish survivors identified German women as persecutors, not only as gleeful onlookers but also as violent tormentors. But by and large these women could not be named by the survivors, or after the war the women married and took on different names and could not be found. Though there were source limits to my inquiry, over time it became clear that the list of teachers and other female Nazi Party activists that I had found in 1992 in Ukraine was the tip of the iceberg. Hundreds of thousands of German women went to the Nazi East—that is, to Poland and the western territories of what was for many years the USSR, including today’s Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia—and were indeed integral parts of Hitler’s machinery of destruction.

One of these women was Erna Petri. I discovered her name in the summer of 2005 in the archives of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The museum had successfully negotiated the acquisition of microfilmed copies from the files of the former East German secret police (Stasi). Among the records were the interrogations and courtroom proceedings in a case against Erna and her husband, Horst Petri, who were both convicted of shooting Jews on their private estate in Nazi-occupied Poland. In credible detail Erna Petri described the half-naked Jewish boys who whimpered as she drew her pistol. When pressed by the interrogator as to how she, a mother, could murder these children, Petri referred to the anti-Semitism of the regime and her own desire to prove herself to the men. Her misdeeds were not those of a social renegade. To me, she looked like the embodiment of the Nazi regime.

[Redistribute the Rep]

... What does this have to do with the thread or feminism?

Feminism is not anything that has to do with women

[Rad]

[QUOTE=Rad;2800767]Recently, there has been a lot of talk on the horrific rapes in India. Put simply, these are the following remarks I hear (both online and offline) from those countering the feminist position (because they feel the feminist position inadvertently favors the racist view):



Rape is a problem all over the world, but there is reason to think that an unusually high portion of Indian men are rapists and spouse beaters:


Moreover in India, the criminal law is so retrograde that if a husband rapes his wife, it does not constitute criminal rape.



No, rape is not "essentially" a psychological problem for the rapist, it is also form of patriarchal terror and contempt for women's humanity.


This statement is both wrong and very offensive. Street harassment from white men is regarded as just as offensive as street harassment from non-white men, maybe even moreso since the false trope of accusing women of "racism" for failing to accede to male entitlement is not levied in favor of white sexual harassers.



Countries and borders are socio-political constructs of historical chance not morally sacrosanct units that must be preserved for their own sake. A true egalitarian should care as much about someone who, by pure chance, was born in another country as they do about someone who, by pure chance, was born in the same place they were. I can't find any reason why outrage at the oppression of anyone should be withheld just because they are on the other side of an artificial border.



I would say that putative "anti-racism" becomes misogyny and male supremacism when it is used to shield rapists and rape enablers from criticism.

India is feudalistic, that's the real issue. So Indian feminism should be different from western feminism. Indian feudalism affects everyone, though not in the same degree.

[Firebrand]

I think that advice telling women to stay safe, not walk alone at night etc is actually harmful.

Hear me out, fundamentally on a biological level there is no reason for women to have to live in fear where men don't. Yes on average men tend to be stronger than women, but that is just an average, a lot of women are stronger than a lot of men, and certainly a lot of men are stronger than a lot of other men, so biologically speaking there is no reason for women to consider themselves vulnerable. be more afraid than men of being attacked. You could say this is because most men prefer to rape women because they find women attractive, but rape isn't really about attraction, it's about power, and men do rape other men. What's interesting is the low numbers of men raped by women. It is entirely possible for a women to rape a man. It doesn't even require much imagination, and yet the statistical difference is staggering.

I suspect that all this can actually be put down to cultural conditioning. We are trained to believe that women are vulnerable and men are not. Therefore, someone with the urge to attack people, will choose to attack what they perceive as the easy target (the woman), and someone who believes they are too physically weak (e.g. a woman) will be less likely to risk attacking someone. Perception feeds reality, people believe that a woman alone is an easy target, so they will target a woman alone.

All these warnings about avoiding dark alleys, and sticking with your friends, only re-enforce these perceptions, making it more likely that a woman alone will be attacked.

I think that rape could be drastically reduced, if when these things are taught in schools, it is treated as a risk for everyone, with both boys and girls told how to stay safe (and preferably given self defence lessons). Boys told constantly not to rape, will grow up with the assumption that it is a possibility, girls told constantly how to not get raped will grow up with the assumption they are a target. If they are all told the truth , that they are all potential targets and potential perpetrators, then maybe it would make it harder for some boys to view women as their natural prey. (bonus it might improve reporting of male rape and help remove the stigma) And maybe it would be easier on a psychological level for women to fight back.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Boys told constantly not to rape, will grow up with the assumption that it is a possibility

Boys told constantly that women are always to be available for a man's satisfaction, and that a woman's consent and right to bodily integrity are secondary to this, will grow up with a higher probability of raping someone, for obvious reasons. I suppose this sentence you wrote is technically correct, if boys are exposed to the concept of rape then they will be aware of the possibility. ...but what is the significance of this with regard to the probability of them committing rape? Everybody will be exposed to the concept of rape at some point, possibly by seeing somebody idolized or rewarded for ignoring a woman's agency and using her as a plaything. The difference being when a boy is "told not to rape," he learns about rape in the context of it being a violation of a humans fundamental right to bodily autonomy, and that nothing, including his sexual gratification, comes before that basic right.

[Rafiq]

On the contrary, we ought to use this opportunity to shed light not only to the horrific and barbarous rapes committed in the Indian commons - but the mass rape of Indian women and children of rural areas by the Indian ruling classes, in the form of forced prostitution, sexual slavery and sex trafficking.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Hear me out, fundamentally on a biological level there is no reason for women to have to live in fear where men don't.
How exactly is the notion that women shouldn’t be more afraid than men “biological”? This is a social issue, unless you’re suggesting that complete gender equality is built into the brain chemicals of respective men and women. “Power” itself is a social phenomenon, though you could say plenty about a possible connection between aggression, instincts, and prolonged aggravations of unfulfilled social needs under capitalism.

I suspect that all this can actually be put down to cultural conditioning…. All these warnings about avoiding dark alleys, and sticking with your friends, only re-enforce these perceptions, making it more likely that a woman alone will be attacked.
This is poor methodology for a couple of reasons. First, nothing can “all” be pinned onto a single cause, though cultural conditioning is real and a potent force in its own right. Next, the question should be centered on what creates the conditions for such predatory thinking to come into being, and a decent starting point is the historical displacement between men and women in their relations to production, and to one another. Trying to gain an understanding through the intuition of those who commit or are the targets of such acts will not get very far.

A materialist psychology would analyze them on the terms of the individual’s mind, but it would not stop there. It would rigorously subject these perceptions to a critique that starts with how men do not inherently have the power to oppress women, while isolating the societal causes that help to perpetuate and weaken the struggle against sexual assault. The common sense phrase of perception feeding reality fails to investigate what feeds the perceptions.


I think that rape could be drastically reduced, if when these things are taught in schools…that they are all potential targets and potential perpetrators, then maybe it would make it harder for some boys to view women as their natural prey. (bonus it might improve reporting of male rape and help remove the stigma) And maybe it would be easier on a psychological level for women to fight back.
What you are proposing is a reformist program that will not go nearly as far as it has to. The truth is that while everyone is a “potential” target for sexual assault, there are groups of people, especially working class groups that are more likely to be singled out than others. Even if such an education was possible, it would have to curtail its own program if the Indian government were to let it live. Bollywood may be embarrassed for a time, but monstrous class and gender inequality will remain untouched. Only an independent worker’s party has the potential to threaten the existence of both.

[Firebrand]

How exactly is the notion that women shouldn’t be more afraid than men “biological”? This is a social issue, unless you’re suggesting that complete gender equality is built into the brain chemicals of respective men and women. “Power” itself is a social phenomenon, though you could say plenty about a possible connection between aggression, instincts, and prolonged aggravations of unfulfilled social needs under capitalism.

I think I may not have made myself clear. I'm not saying that the idea that women should be more afraid than men is biological. Rather the opposite. I'm saying that there is a cultural assumption that women should be afraid on the basis that they are "biologically more vulnerable", Which I think is inaccurate.



What you are proposing is a reformist program that will not go nearly as far as it has to. The truth is that while everyone is a “potential” target for sexual assault, there are groups of people, especially working class groups that are more likely to be singled out than others. Even if such an education was possible, it would have to curtail its own program if the Indian government were to let it live. Bollywood may be embarrassed for a time, but monstrous class and gender inequality will remain untouched. Only an independent worker’s party has the potential to threaten the existence of both.

What i'm pointing out is that the endemic cultural assumption that women are automatically at risk of being raped just because they are women, both marginalises male rape victims and presents women as an easy target, thus putting them at greater risk. I'm not advocating a specific programme. Just exploring a point that I think a lot of people miss when considering why women are more likely to be raped than men

[Firebrand]

Boys told constantly that women are always to be available for a man's satisfaction, and that a woman's consent and right to bodily integrity are secondary to this, will grow up with a higher probability of raping someone, for obvious reasons. I suppose this sentence you wrote is technically correct, if boys are exposed to the concept of rape then they will be aware of the possibility. ...but what is the significance of this with regard to the probability of them committing rape? Everybody will be exposed to the concept of rape at some point, possibly by seeing somebody idolized or rewarded for ignoring a woman's agency and using her as a plaything. The difference being when a boy is "told not to rape," he learns about rape in the context of it being a violation of a humans fundamental right to bodily autonomy, and that nothing, including his sexual gratification, comes before that basic right.

But the fact that boys are told not to rape, and girls are told how to not get raped, is a problem. Boys and girls should both be taught both lessons.

[Redistribute the Rep]

But the fact that boys are told not to rape, and girls are told how to not get raped, is a problem. Boys and girls should both be taught both lessons.

You're operating under the assumption that boys are currently being told not to rape, when it's precisely the opposite.

[synthesis]

I kinda want to put up signs in my workplace's bathrooms to remind men not to rape women.

I like that idea too. We could maybe start a thread where people design fliers to print out and put in bathrooms: "It's still rape if..." with a bullet point list, or something to that effect, along with a reminder of legal consequences.

[Rad]

I like that idea too. We could maybe start a thread where people design fliers to print out and put in bathrooms: "It's still rape if..." with a bullet point list, or something to that effect, along with a reminder of legal consequences.

Good idea ... because rapists often change their minds if they see such pearls of wisdom on the wall.:rolleyes:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Countries and borders are socio-political constructs of historical chance not morally sacrosanct units that must be preserved for their own sake. A true egalitarian should care as much about someone who, by pure chance, was born in another country as they do about someone who, by pure chance, was born in the same place they were. I can't find any reason why outrage at the oppression of anyone should be withheld just because they are on the other side of an artificial border.

i think this raises the question of whether sexism and patriarchal oppression are local or global issues. not to say that local indian matters should be ignored. but is it a particular indian cultural phenomenon or is it part of a system of hegemonic capitalist patriarchy that actually involves us all?

[PhoenixAsh]

This is really the best post in this thread:




Rape is a problem all over the world, but there is reason to think that an unusually high portion of Indian men are rapists and spouse beaters:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indian-men-lead-in-sexual-violence-worst-on-gender-equality-Study/articleshow/7643154.cms

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/60-of-men-admit-to-wife-beating-Poll/articleshow/45103653.cms

Moreover in India, the criminal law is so retrograde that if a husband rapes his wife, it does not constitute criminal rape.

No, rape is not "essentially" a psychological problem for the rapist, it is also form of patriarchal terror and contempt for women's humanity.

This statement is both wrong and very offensive. Street harassment from white men is regarded as just as offensive as street harassment from non-white men, maybe even moreso since the false trope of accusing women of "racism" for failing to accede to male entitlement is not levied in favor of white sexual harassers.

Countries and borders are socio-political constructs of historical chance not morally sacrosanct units that must be preserved for their own sake. A true egalitarian should care as much about someone who, by pure chance, was born in another country as they do about someone who, by pure chance, was born in the same place they were. I can't find any reason why outrage at the oppression of anyone should be withheld just because they are on the other side of an artificial border.

I would say that putative "anti-racism" becomes misogyny and male supremacism when it is used to shield rapists and rape enablers from criticism.



To this I want to make one addition...


White Supremacy, ethnic chauvenism and racism may cause the false mask of feminism levied by proponents of patriarchy against other ethnic groups in order to white wash the "own"problematic approach to the same issues and the "own" patriarchal constructs and sentiments and divert attention.

[synthesis]

Good idea ... because rapists often change their minds if they see such pearls of wisdom on the wall.:rolleyes:

Well, people don't always know what rape is. That's the point. It won't stop Cosby or Polanski, but it might have an effect on someone who would have otherwise not paused to reflect on whether their partner (or random target of affection) is too drunk to consent.