Rhymes with “Rock”
Since Ross really hit upon something with his inaugural post, “I Am Not My Cock”, lemme play devil’s advocate here and see if I can steer this discussion in a different direction. Since I didn’t follow the comment threads that preceded his post, I’m not trying to refute or support anyone here. One thing that kept popping into my mind while reading the two “cock” posts and their comments was the conservative outrage that erupts whenever someone tries to criticize King George’s war on terra[1]Please don’t overanalyze this statement. I’m talking about the broad arguments here, not criticizing Ross, comparing rape to terrorism, or anything else like that.. Granted, the circumstances and motivations are completely different[2]And I do mean completely different. Conservatives who make this argument are trying to deflect criticism from their dear leader while Ross et. al. are trying to push home the point that the personal lives of crime victims are irrelevant to the crime itself and arguments along those lines only serve to justify rape and murder. Then again, I could be wrong, so check the comments to see if anyone complains…, but both arguments have a similar “Have you forgotten who the real villains are here?” thread at its core.
So here’s my question : When it comes to horrible crimes, what are the rules for taking the discussion to tangential issues? Were the arguments about Steve Gilliard’s original post about simply his lack of tact or is there no place to make the point that the women should be extra vigilant these days[3]Or are points like this something that us guys should just shut the hell up about? I’d imagine most women are painfully aware of how dangerous things are by now and these reminders just make guys seem more patronizing than they mean to.? With both rape and terrorism, are there enough apologists out there that we can no longer assume that someone stands against these obvious evils before moving on to side topics? If we can discuss the motivations of terrorists without losing sight of the fact that terrorism is an evil that needs to be confronted and destroyed, can’t we also remind each other to avoid risky behavior without taking the immoral position that victims were “asking for it”.
Like I said previously, I haven’t followed the threads at Pandagon or Steve Gilliard’s, so please don’t assume I’m trying to defend anyone’s particular posts or comments.
1 : Please don’t overanalyze this statement. I’m talking about the broad arguments here, not criticizing Ross, comparing rape to terrorism, or anything else like that.
2 : And I do mean completely different. Conservatives who make this argument are trying to deflect criticism from their dear leader while Ross et. al. are trying to push home the point that the personal lives of crime victims are irrelevant to the crime itself and arguments along those lines only serve to justify rape and murder. Then again, I could be wrong, so check the comments to see if anyone complains…
3 : Or are points like this something that us guys should just shut the hell up about? I’d imagine most women are painfully aware of how dangerous things are by now and these reminders just make guys seem more patronizing than they mean to.
10 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
i guess the difference is:
rape is a real problem
terrorism is a myth
Comment by jes5199 — June 27, 2005 @ 1:36 pm
I can think of at least 3000 people who disagree with you on that one.
Comment by greg — June 27, 2005 @ 2:13 pm
The big difference is that while we most certainly didn’t deserve 9/11 or any other form of terrorism, their grievances against us for meddling in the Middle East are real enough. Whereas the grievances of rapists and rape apologists is that women won’t have sex with them on command. Granted, some men think this is fair–I saw a flash of ass, someone better give me pussy! But most of us see that’s not really a cause for complaint.
Comment by Amanda Marcotte — June 27, 2005 @ 2:35 pm
I think the reaction to the Pandagon, Gilliard and Talent Show posts really attest to an issue that has been brewing in the liberal blogosphere when Kevin asked “why aren’t there any prominent women bloggers?” The responses tend to be that women’s issues aren’t interesting and that women aren’t interested in politics. As far as I’m concerned women’s rights are human rights, after all we make up half of the population. I think the problem is that some people refuse to look at the issue from a woman’s perspective, dismissing responses as “hysterical.” I found it sad that Ross was the only one who seemed to get it and that his response was the exception rather than the rule.
Comment by Unstable Isotope — June 27, 2005 @ 4:39 pm
The problem with “telling [women] to avoid risky behavior” is that “risky behavior”, in the context of being raped, boils down to being a woman. Rape victims have enough guilt without being told “oh, if you just hadn’t (worn that short skirt / worked until after dark / lived alone without getting a big dog / ever associated with anyone male (remember, most rapists are known to the victim)) you wouldn’t have been raped.” It’s not helpful.
Comment by Echidna — June 27, 2005 @ 5:44 pm
I think also the problem is our language of discussion. Let me try to hash it out –
When people talk about rape, they talk about it ONLY in context of the rapist, and the rape victim. If they discuss the larger cultural meaning at all, it’s (almost) never about what the majority population of women feel about rape, but what factors might accidentally cause women to be raped – which leads us back to the subtle and not so subtle justification othe male role in rape.
What we don’t see are presidents and foreign countries decalring that “we” are all rape victims. It would be nice if they did for once.
Terror, on the other hand, is usually described against “us” meaning that an attack against people by a terrorist is an attack on all of “us”. It’s technically true in that terrorism is always meant to send a message.
The problem then is that our very means of description keeps us from having an honest conversation, but here’s the facts: I was not a victim of 911. Neither was Jonah Goldberg, Sully, Greg, or anyone who wasn’t on those planes or in NY or washington on that day.
However, I AM a potential victim of terror. And I think most people see themselves as potential victims. They don’t like to think of themselves as bad people, and therefore, any suggestion that the terrorists have legitimate (at least, recognized) grievences implies to them that the tactic they use is just.
Of course, as we know, NO ONE is suggesting that the people who worked in the Towers were asking for it. And no one would argue that being in a nightclub that gets bombed made the people a target. We’re not suggesting that terrorists shouldn’t be punished, severely, when we say that we want to now why they’re doing it. We do on the other hand want to know just what the hell is pissing them off so much. That way, even as we bring the people who attacked us to justice, we can try to figure out how to keep more of them from popping up.
Rape on the other, not so much. This might be because we don’t see all of us as potential victims of rape, which is technically true – Most men are not at risk and most women are. On the other hand, because of the cultural damage, reinforcement of sexual stereotypes, sexual fear, mental scarring, the horror of having the people we love assaulted, and just the sheer physical terror that affects everyone around it, we are all, in some way, victims of rape.
I mean, GO USA! No, seriously, you know what I mean, I hope.
I guess my ill expressed point is that comparing terror to rape isn’t fair because aside from Greg’s question, which I think is a reasonbabe one to ask, we simply don’t talk about them in the same way. If only rape victims were accorded half of the blanket sainthood victims of terror are. And if only terror was treated with half of the “attempts to figure it out” that rape is.
And if only the victims in each case were allowed to live without being exploited (terror) or blamed (Rape).
In the end, the solution to both is understanding – understanding what we can do to prevent both. And neither point of veiw has to mean blaming the victims. Nor should they.
I really hope this made sense.
Comment by Ross — June 27, 2005 @ 6:47 pm
Well this discussion took the exact wrong turn I expected. For the record, here’s what I write in the footnotes :
The point I tried to make by mentioning terrorism is that I see a paralell between Ross’ complaint that a lot of men are losing sight of the fact that rapists are inhuman monsters with conservative complaints that liberals who hate the president lose sight of the fact that terrorists are evil. It was this narrow similarity (which I previously summed up as “Have you forgotten who the real villains are here?”) that I was hoping people would pick up on, but I guess that the overwhelming number of differences between the circumstances of rape and terrorism make the analogy between the two particular arguments a little difficult to see.
That said, good points everybody (except jes5199).
Comment by greg — June 27, 2005 @ 7:06 pm
i’m not a troll, i’m just annoying. what i mean is: you’re attempting the impossible. Rapists! Terrorists! Nazis! Child Molestors! Ignore the issues for a second and listen to the words. If we had ever figured out a way to measure emotion, these would be off the charts.
buy yeah, at the end of the day, yes, the Cock essays don’t really do much good, do they? i mean, okay, we live in a society without empathy. i’ve never been to new york city and i don’t care how many buildings get knocked down. i don’t have a vagina so i do care who puts what in them. i don’t have children, and i don’t read the “MISSING!!” posters at wal-mart. well, shit, guys. i mean, now what? hellohellohello, we don’t care, i mean, can’t hear through the lobotomies, no one’s writing any symphonies but it sure is convenient, wash all your troubles away, there’s only one legal drug in this place and it makes you numb and sick.
*breathe*
what i mean is, the difference between those two modes of “look over there at the real problem”, it only works as much as you’re willing to see everyone as a person. which is to say, terrorists are frightened, rapists are damaged. does that make me an apologist?
hey, look, that’s not the point you were making.
Comment by jes5199 — June 28, 2005 @ 1:20 am
Um, I have no idea what you’re saying jes5199.
Comment by Ross Lincoln — June 28, 2005 @ 9:07 am
3 : Or are points like this something that us guys should just shut the hell up about? I’d imagine most women are painfully aware of how dangerous things are by now and these reminders just make guys seem more patronizing than they mean to.
Ding ding ding ding ding! That is correct. Yes, everyone should teach their children to play it safe IN THE ABSTRACT, but when it comes to discussions of specific events and we start questioning the behavior of the victim, we get periliously close to blaming the victim.
Steve Gillard wondered if she was intending to have sex with all three of them when she “went off” with them, as if that is the only logical reason she would. I would imagine that she thought she was more safe because there were three of them–what kind of normal guy wants to whip it out and have sex in front of his buddies.
The problem with questioning a specific girl’s behavior is that there is no rape situation in which people can’t find something she was doing wrong. Well, she shouldn’t have been in that street at night. She shouldn’t have been alone with her new boyfriend . . . who then raped her.
Generally, do as Crosby Stills and Nash said and teach your children well, but don’t presume to teach adult women who’ve been hearing it all our lives. Especially not ones who have already been victimized. We know we take our lives into our hands every time we walk outside or spend time with a member of the opposite sex, but we also have to live.
Comment by Linnea — June 28, 2005 @ 9:27 am