When Men Rule Society Rape Exists

"Rape is not a natural act for men. A study by anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday found that in cultures with a high incidence of rapes, the economic, religious, and political structures are controlled by men. In Sanday's study of 44 societies that were not patriarchal, there was virtually no rape"(http://tinyurl.com/5peugt).

The evidence shows that male dominance causes rape. Men dominate women in our society politically, economically and socially, thus we suffer rape. I read one of Sanday's books about a gender equal society: the Minangkabau. The book called Women at the Center describes the Minangkabau society where women have as much power as men (http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~psanday/). Sanday lived with the Minangkabau for many years all summer each year and though she did a thorough investigation she found no rape and no domestic violence. There is division of labor so that women dominate some power centers and men dominate other power centers. For example, Minangkabau women inherit all property and have more economic power than men. But overall there is roughly equal gender power. Sanday said the people are very nice and the men are nurturing like women. Sanday wrote two books about rape so she's an expert (Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood, and Privilege on Campus, A Woman Scorned: Acquaintance Rape on Trial). She says what motivated her to write about rape was the amazing difference she saw in the way women were treated in the gender equal societies versus the way women were treated in the United States. Her studies document that rape is a problem when men dominate women in society. Thus, to end rape it is necessary to end male domination. The Minangkabau people view rape as the ultimate evil and have structured their society in a way to prevent it. We must restructure our society to put women at top levels of leadership in order for us to have gender equality to end rape. It is important to note that in order to eliminate rape it is not necessary to achieve gender equality in all spheres of life, but it's necessary that women have equal power as men overall. The key word: overall. For example women can dominate a powerful sphere and men can dominate another equally powerful sphere so that overall women and men have equal power. Currently, men dominate all three major spheres: 1) political, 2) economic and 3) social (religion, arts, media, etc.) Because of that women must strive for 50% equality in all three spheres. The result of the striving is we will eventually have 50% of the power in one sphere. At that point women may dominate that sphere and continue to make gains until the point where the sectors that men dominate will equal in power to the sectors that women dominate. Or, we have the option of 50% power across the board in all spheres [edited to explain balance of power].

Researchers all over the world documented that male dominance encourages men to rape. Bernard Lefkowitz in his book about the rape of a handicapped girl in the affluent suburb of Glen Ridge documented the community's male dominance and said the rape and the community's general decision to support the rapists instead of the victim "reflected the values embedded in the larger culture." Those values are that men should dominate women. Anneka Van Woudenberg, senior Congo researcher at Human Rights Watch who has documented the recent increase of military rape in the Congo where in some villages as many as 90% of women have been raped, explains that the rapes are about power: "This is not rape because soldiers have got bored and have nothing to do. It is a way to ensure that communities accept the power and authority of that particular armed group. This is about showing terror." Dr. Denis Mukwege, the director of Panzi Hospital in Eastern Congo, says of the rapes: "Sex is being used to commit evil" (CBS, War Against Women, Jan. 13, 2008, http://tinyurl.com/2ogl8s).

Please note: Many of my reply posts have been hidden. All my replies were polite and on topic so I presume I was censored because people wanted to hide information they didn’t want readers to know about. When I wrote my Sep 27, 2008 diary about ten of my replies were hidden which ended the conversation I was having with people so I decided I will no longer reply to comments on my diaries until this web site is changed to allow people’s posts to be viewed by everyone.

Tags: rape (all tags)

Comments

87 Comments

holy histrionic - but yes more women as leaders!

by canadian gal 2008-12-09 04:26PM | 0 recs
Funny you should mention rape...

...since your heroine, Sarah Palin, wanted women who were raped to pay for their own rape kits.  For a woman you wanted in a top leadership position in society, she doesn't seem to take our society's rape problem all that seriously, seeing as how she wanted rape victims to have to buy the evidence they'd use in court against their assailants.

by mistersite 2008-12-09 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Funny you should mention rape...

Silly. Sarah Palin has lady parts. That's all that matters. Not her view points on any issue or her lack of knowledge regarding any of dozens of important issues.

by Quinton 2008-12-09 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: When Men Rule Society Rape Exists

lol, how can gender power be equal if men can't inherit land?

are you fucking retarded?

if women couldn't inherit land, would you say gender power is roughly equal?

by theninjagoddess 2008-12-09 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: When Men Rule Society Rape Exists

Come on.  You should know better than to use the term "retarded" as a pejorative.  Just say "ignorant."  It's got all the oomph with none of the offensiveness.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-12-09 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Retarded Not The Same As Ignorant..;

Agree "retarded" is a very outdated term - 60s-ish.  But we knew that it was directed towards persons whose intelligent was below normal.

We're all, regardless of IQ, ignorant in one way another; it means we just haven't learned a particular piece of information or truth yet.  Don't know how much "oomph" it has, but it sure beats "retarded".

by susie 2008-12-09 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Retarded Not The Same As Ignorant..;

The diarist may not be retarded literally, but the diary certainly is.  Literally.

by fogiv 2008-12-09 08:10PM | 0 recs
You May Be Correct...

But the fact is, I haven't found the diarist's subject matter compelling enough to read through thoroughly, once they became quite predictable.

I do continue to scan the comments, though.

by susie 2008-12-09 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: You May Be Correct...

seriously guys, it's idiocy like this that get's liberals the "pussy" label.

i'll call people retards when i want to.

by theninjagoddess 2008-12-09 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: You May Be Correct...

To be honest, comparing them to Nancy actually demeans people with authentic developmental issues.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-12-10 04:01AM | 0 recs
You May Be Correct...

"i'll call people retards when i want to".

I guess you will, and other anonymous commenters will reply in any way they want to.

Comes with the blogging territory.

by susie 2008-12-10 05:59AM | 0 recs
Re: You May Be Correct...

My son is 4 years old and has Down syndrome.  He has not, to my knowledge, ever been called a "retard."  However, I am active in Down syndrome online forums, and I have learned there how painful the use of this term as a pejorative is to people with cognitive disabilities and their families. (See, for example, the eloquent views on this matter of one young man with Down syndrome.) I don't think it's being a "pussy" to try to avoid language that those who are already facing major challenges find incredibly hurtful.

by markjay 2008-12-10 07:54AM | 0 recs
Unintentionally Funny Post of the Day

Nice.  Respond to a post calling you out on demeaning people with disabilities by using sexist language.  I think we're done here.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-12-15 09:22AM | 0 recs
now matter how bad Nancy K.'s diaries are,

your above comment is rather unfortunate and made in poor taste...

by louisprandtl 2008-12-09 10:39PM | 0 recs
Er...

Their culture is matrilineal, with property and land passing down from mother to daughter, while religious and political affairs are the province of men (although some women also play important roles in these areas).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minangkabau

It sounds like rather than gender equality, gender roles are very rigidly defined.  Shouldn't you be advocating that the US make "political affairs the province of men" in order to eliminate rape?

This subject deserves a much more sophisticated and intelligent treatment than you are able to give it.

by JJE 2008-12-09 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: When Men Rule Society Rape Exists

You point to a group that has men ruling the political and religious institutions almost exclusively, and then tell us that we need to be more like them.  Shortly thereafter, you tell us that we need more women in leadership roles.  You're funny.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-12-09 05:54PM | 0 recs
It may be time to take a vacation

Nancy -
Let me see if I can explain something to you.  Because of your historic postings lacking anything resembling fact based thinking. Sarah Palin comes to mind. And your continued confusing feminism and equality strictly based on the individual having the correct biological parts. It has now come to past that even when you try and write something that might be worth discussing, it fails.

We do not take you seriously and if you enjoy being constantly being dumped on, by all means keep posting.

by jsfox 2008-12-09 06:39PM | 0 recs
Yeah, but how does this mean Obama is a sexist

And Sarah Palin is a total genius?

Oh, and FOR GOD'S SAKE drop the winning PS note, we all get it.

The 20th time you posted it was enough.

The question is, since you don't like the rules of this site....

Why the hell do you keep posting this crap-ola here?

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-09 06:52PM | 0 recs
Isn't it obvious?

We've talked about this.  We know why she does it.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-10 04:26AM | 0 recs
Re: When Men Rule Society Rape Exists

Explain male on male rape.

by Pravin 2008-12-09 06:53PM | 0 recs
penatration = power

by psychodrew 2008-12-09 07:42PM | 0 recs
This diary is offensive ...

to men who are against rape. It may surprise you to learn that there are a lot of men who are against rape, many even in positions of power. And yes, even in heavily patriarchal societies, there are lots and lots of men who fervently oppose rape, and work against it all their lives. I know that is hard for you to believe, but it's true.

The implications of your diary are very unfair to all those men, and to the women who love them. Please delete.

by itsthemedia 2008-12-09 07:00PM | 0 recs
When Mom rules society rap doesn't exist

Did your parents ever take a CD away from you?  My mother found the Boyz N the Hood soundtrack in my underwear drawer and made a display about destroying it.  Very embarassing!

by ihaveSTILLseenenough 2008-12-09 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: When Men Rule Society Rape Exists

this isn't a very good diary, but since it's an issue i've thought a lot about, i feel like commenting anyway.  

in the first place, i think that there are very few (maybe none at all) truly "gender equal" societies.  Most are patriarchal and there a handful of matriarchal societies, although they tend to be quite small and isolated.  but more to the point, simply installing women in positions of power will not shift the patriarchal paradigm.  What perpetuates patriarchy is a culture's myths.  most of our culture's shared history has judeo-christian background, and these myths more or less advocate men having the upper hand, or at least that's how they've been perceived for the vast majority of time that they have existed.  until a society develops new myths that provide a cultural framework for equality between the sexes (or female dominance, for that matter), patriarchy will continue.

i would argue that our society has come far towards a gender equality state, however, and that as the history of our country becomes more synonymous with freedom and equality, the more likely it is that parity between the sexes will be achieved.  

by bluedavid 2008-12-09 09:14PM | 0 recs
Fish... meet hook

by Why Not 2008-12-09 11:37PM | 0 recs
Stop speaking out about this
All the  boys here love favreau and what he did.
'
by iDemocrat 2008-12-10 12:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop speaking out about this

You have been identified already as a moran..

Do yourself a favor, stop reinforcing that viewpoint.

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-10 04:06AM | 0 recs
And I'll add this

I do actually believe that Favreau's actions condones overpowering a woman in a rape sort of context.

The man is scum.

If you are making excuses for him, then you are scum too.'

by iDemocrat 2008-12-10 12:05AM | 0 recs
Thanks iDem

While this diary is over-the-top, the premise that allowing men to get away with the type of behavior that Favreau has IS damaging to women (and to men who care about women).

Look at the date rape statistics on college campuses. 1 in 4 college women are victims of rape or attempted rape. Only 27 percent of these women realize that their sexual assault fell within the legal definition of rape. Only sixteen percent think what happened to them was a crime, 11 percent did not feel a crime was committed and 46 percent believed they had been victims of "serious miscommunication" rather than rape. One in 12 college men responding to the same survey admitted committing acts that met the legal definition of rape or attempted rape, but only 1 percent of those men saw their behavior as criminal.

The problem comes from not recognizing and condemning all types of sexual harassment, sexual discrimination and sexual violence (however tame) whenever it occurs. As a society when we stop seeing anything wrong with the small stuff, the big stuff seems less clear too?

I still cannot fathom that Favreau will be Chief Speechwriter, working in the White House. That fact is a big middle finger to women in my opinion.

by twinmom 2008-12-10 04:12AM | 0 recs
Re: And I'll add this

Scum? From one photo? That sort of snap judgment says a lot more about your character that it does about Favreau's.

I have ZERO doubt that you (and everyone reading this thread) has done something sexist or racist or otherwise awful at some point, something that if that instant were preserved, you would feel it unjust to have that define you.

Mistakes have consequences, and so should this mistake. But scum? That sort of hot rush to judgment would fit comfortably at Michelle Malkin's blog.

For you people defending Nancy's diaries, I wonder how tightly you want her sort of...monologue...to be associated with feminism? Is a rational young woman going to read this sort of thing and feel empowered or disgusted?

She's taking you down, and you are applauding her.

by Neef 2008-12-10 05:19AM | 0 recs
Sorry but no

I haven't ever done anything even remotely equivalent to Favreau. I'd hope that most people have not engaged in an equally offensive, degrading and demeaning sexist insult towards someone who is clearly their superior professionally?

The image of Favreau reeks with all the codes of date rape... especially the force-fed alcohol (totally passive woman), the party scene and the two guys.

This is so far beyond Clinton and Obama. The fact that so many don't seem to have any issue with the image and dismiss it as "boys will be boys" or "everyone has done this" is what I find more disturbing than anything else.

Obama should think long and hard about how imagery like this being condoned by his SILENCE and promotion of Favreau affects his own daughters.

I've always perceived strong whiffs of sexism coming from many male Obama supporters of a certain age. I'd try to let it go by telling myself that their immaturity and asshole behavior had nothing to do with Obama, weren't coming from his campaign, blah blah, blah. Call me a whiny female but the Favreau picture honestly angers me. It validates my worst fears (and suspicions) about large factions of Obama's closest supporters and their immature, boorish attitudes toward women.

Honestly, when I first saw the photo of Favreau I thought it was a Photoshopped JOKE.

To have so many Obama supporters defending Favreau just adds insult to injury in my opinion. I would have hoped that the outcry over his antics would have been universal outrage. Nope. Yet another instance where women are left to defend ourselves while being laughed at for being overly "sensitive". Sigh.


http://thenewagenda.net/media/press-rele ases/december-10-2008-infamous-favreau-g rope-posting-could-be-channeled-for-good /
Around the globe, one in three women will experience gender-based violence in her lifetime. In some regions of the world, that figure rises to 70 percent. Much of the violence is perpetuated by ideas, assumptions and behaviors like that demonstrated in the picture of Favreau and a friend groping a cardboard cutout of Sen. Hillary Clinton while pouring beer down her throat. This pervasive ignorance about gender-based violence is increasingly clear in US news coverage, as the Favreau story continues to gain momentum across the Internet, airwaves and news pages. For example, CNN's December 9 "Situation Room" coverage is full of chuckles, snickers, and "he was just having fun" defenses. "Wolf Blitzer even claims the Internet is at fault," Siskind said. "The lack of seriousness about this is just shocking."

by twinmom 2008-12-10 05:38AM | 0 recs
equivalent?

You're putting a box around this specific infraction. hell, I've never done this either. The question is, are you proud of every picture that could be taken of you, or every sound bite?

You've never made a sexist, racist, ageist, dwarfist, etc. comments, gesture or inferences? You've never made sexist remarks about another woman (bitch, conniving, vindictive)? You've never hugged your purse when a black guy gets in the elevator, or wondered aloud where one bought a nice car? You've never commented on how an older person is driving, or...bleh.

If every moment of your life is shame-free, worthy to represent the entirety of your life forever, then I salute you. I would caution you not to assume that even a fraction of your fellow humans can say the same.

by Neef 2008-12-10 06:02AM | 0 recs
To be clear

I am not dismissing what this fool did. I have said before, and I say now, it was deeply stupid, and he should probably lose his job over it.

What I am freaking about is the increasing tendency towards knee-jerk judgmental outrage I am seeing on these blogs. They are becoming the mirror image of the right-wing blogs, except that our social conservatism consists of pretending to some sort of perfect moral purity.

One f'd up snapshot and the guy is scum. A rapist.

I mean, wow.

by Neef 2008-12-10 06:36AM | 0 recs
Your examples

Have no relevance here. I don't understand why everyone defends Favreau from the point of view that he is somehow just like an average citizen? He isn't. And Hillary Clinton isn't some random stranger who we feel bias towards. She was the first viable candidate for POTUS, a US Senator, a former First Lady.

If the guy in the picture was a barista from Starbucks, I'd agree with you. He is not.

He was a high-up member of Obama's team. Hillary Clinton deserved his respect, just as anyone we interact with on a professional level does.

Honestly, it floors me (and alarms me) that nobody seems to think this is a big deal. Truly depressing.

by twinmom 2008-12-10 06:36AM | 0 recs
Why you do continue

to say no one thinks this is a big deal? it's obvious that the majority of us DO think it's a big deal.

There is a difference between this being a big deal, and this guy being a proto-rapist-scum, and THAT's the issue.

by Neef 2008-12-10 06:44AM | 0 recs
Aw come on.

Hillary Clinton deserved his respect

She did, and does, and I'm sure has.

Anthropomorphizing a cardboard cut-out is a bit extreme.  Clinton is neither two-dimensional nor flimsy cardboard.  If she's as tough and smart and independant as the woman you say you respect, I think we can trust her to decide when she's been wronged.

I suggested in another diary that Favreau should be sentenced to working in Clinton's department for awhile, to call her "boss," and perhaps get a cardboard cutout of himself that people can make fun of.

We all need to chill.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-10 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Aw come on.

Great suggestion, love the cardboard cutout of Favreau being the object of riducule.

If he were to get it made and present it to Clinton's staffers as an act of contrition?

Also, would love to see him have to do a couple months of making copies and getting coffee for Hillary's staffers....while they comment on his hot butt, or what a hot outfit he is wearing?

But any punishment above this, his summary firing as these diaries seem to suggest seems out of scale to me.

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-10 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Aw come on.

I personally think that Favreau should be cut some slack on this.  It was a stupid thing to do, but I don't think it should be a career-ender.

That being said, I disagree with your point that "anthropomorphizing a cardboard cut-out is a bit extreme."  If one of Clinton's key staff members had a picture taken with a noose around the neck of Obama's cardboard cutout, I expect you might see the issue differently.

by markjay 2008-12-10 07:43AM | 0 recs
That's because it IS different.

You don't see the difference between a noose around the neck of a representation of a black politician and minor mock sexual harassment of a cardboard figure of a woman?

One is an implied threat.  The other is someone being a damned fool.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-10 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: That's because it IS different.

Actually, I do see the difference.  That's why I said that I thought Favreau should get a pass on this, whereas in the latter example I wouldn't say the same.

I was just taking exception to your view that anthropomorphizing a cardboard cutout is extreme.  I don't think you can make such a general point (as demonstrated by my example.)

by markjay 2008-12-10 08:57AM | 0 recs
I get you.

I see where you're coming from with that.

All the same, I think there's a line to be drawn when ascribing things like "dignity" or "respect" to cardboard cutouts.

Your example was different because it's a clear implied threat against an actual person.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-10 09:44AM | 0 recs
BOTH are implied threats

Fondling a woman's breasts without her consent is a CRIME, not "minor sexual harassment".

I do agree with you that putting a noose around Obama is more offensive than the Favreau picture. But, at the same time, it is inconceivable that a Hillary staffer would ever do such a thing.

To me, this would be a more pertinent comparison:

Imagine if Patti Solis Doyle (when she was still working for Hillary Clinton) had gone to a party, got drunk and decided to put on this pin:
[linked image]

Is she guilty of any "crime"?

Is her action immature, tasteless, disrespectful and racist?

Would she be judged VERY harshly by this "little lapse of judgment"?

Would she have a job the next day?

by twinmom 2008-12-10 10:28AM | 0 recs
Wow

I expected something heinous. That was actually pretty funny.

Yes, she would catch holy hell over it (unfortunately in my opinion). She might lose her job, and it would be her own fault.

I wouldn't judge her as some sort of immoral, hateful person. I certainly wouldn't assume she wears white sheets on the weekend.

by Neef 2008-12-10 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

Well, it is funny like the Favreau picture is funny. The sad part is that the Favreau picture actually exits.

I actually have never said that Favreau is immoral or hateful. I do think he is painfully immature and sexist. I don't think he should be given the honor of being Chief Speechwriter for the Obama Administration. If Obama needs this guy, keep him in some backroom somewhere. This type of behavior shouldn't be rewarded.

If Obama doesn't fire or demote him, it does imply to me that this whole thing blew over like it is no biggie. To me, that is the bigger issue... WHY is this OK when the racist equivalent (even it were stupid and silly) most likely wouldn't be OK?

In many ways, the undertones of the Favreau picture are WAY more creepy and demeaning than the afro Obama image... and yet SO MANY people don't seem to see it that way? Not just here at MyDD but all over the commentary on this issue.

by twinmom 2008-12-10 11:24AM | 0 recs
First of all

I appreciate the honest dialog. I like your posts, and find your viewpoint enlightening. I especially appreciate it in this fairly heated thread. I think I'm actually offended by this diary, although I didn't realize it at first, and that has driven the aggressive tone of my posts. If so, I apologize.

As far as Favreau, I can't cross the "outrage gap". That's not sarcasm or irony - it just occurs to me that this is deeply offensive to a lot of people - and that it doesn't hit me that way. Therein lies a gap, and I'm not sure who's fault it is (if anyones), but it's unfortunate.

I see a fool, not a monster, not a rapist, not a scumbag. 20 years ago I could have been him. I will say that I am now fairly certain Obama should fire the guy, although I think that would complicate life for Clinton.

by Neef 2008-12-10 12:33PM | 0 recs
I'm glad you haven't left yet

It's good that you're still willing to talk about this.

That said, no, they're not both implied threats.  I doubt Favreau would think of ever doing that to the real Hillary Clinton, wheras someone who used the noose example almost would have to have thought of that at some time or another.

You're probably going to be offended at this, but I can't help but think that this false equivilency is the product of some puritanical American demonization of any and all hints of sex or sexual behavior.  

In the old days, women couldn't show their ankles for fear of supposedly driving men into a state of ungodly sexual frenzy.  Prohibition was sold in the '20s and '30s as a method of preventing prostitution (of course it worked like a charm, right?).

I know a lot of feminists that are not at all interested in participating in a backlash against any behavior that could be marginally considered sexist or sexual, especially if there's no real victim.  One friend in particular, a woman who succeeds in a male-dominated field, I'm pretty sure that, had she known Favreau personally, would have told him that he was an idiot and moved on with her life, never losing a minute of sleep over how poor Hillary Clinton got "violated."

by Dracomicron 2008-12-10 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad you haven't left yet

You said that the Favreau image depicted "mild sexual harassment". I disagree, and so does the law. If that cardboard cut-out were real, what is being depicted is a crime (every bit as much as threatening hanging someone is).

The lack of professionalism is a huge issue in this for me as well.

But I've never accused Favreau of any crime. I don't think he is threatening Clinton in any way. I simply don't find the image funny AT ALL or as innocent as you seem to (and clearly you aren't alone).

I don't think Hillary Clinton was violated. I don't think any crime was committed. But...

It is not "puritanical" to see what Favreau did as sexist or sexual? It is not crazy to see it as disrespectful and degrading. Please tell me, how else should his gesture be interpreted? Or the gesture of his buddy?

I do think that the lack of serious outcry over this is disturbing. I do put it in a similar category as the fake Doyle button image which I posted... asinine, immature, dumb joke but also deeply offensive... not just to the one person in the actual image but to a much larger group as well.

by twinmom 2008-12-10 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah

When the hell did I say that?

Do I want him to be Chief Speechwriter with a position of prominence in the White House? NOPE.

The guy can still have a career. Demote him to junior speechwriter (even if he still produces all the good copy). Don't reward him for being a sexist, immature frat boy who doesn't know the meaning of acting professionally yet. Why does he deserve a prestigious position after this? It sends the strong signal of acceptance of his behavior.

I've never accused him of committing a crime nor said that he should be criminally prosecuted. Of course not.

by twinmom 2008-12-10 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: How is keeping a job

In my book anyone who has a desk waiting for them in the White House on January 20, 2009 is getting a HUGE reward... and anything can happen between now and then in the vetting of these people.

You don't approve of the word "rewarded" so I could also say it the other way that Obama is condoning Favreau's behavior if he allows him to stay on as Chief Speechwriter (which as I understand it is the top job in that area?)

If Favreau is not (at the very least) demoted than the Obama Administration has made the (by now very public) decision that this photo doesn't matter.

Obviously it is up for debate if it matters or not.

I hope it matters.

by twinmom 2008-12-10 12:47PM | 0 recs
Professionalism?

I'm not sure why you're expecting professionalism at a party.  Isn't that where you go so you don't have to be professional?

by Dracomicron 2008-12-10 12:03PM | 0 recs
Twinmom, I've defended you before, but...

...comparing goofing off with an inanimate cardboard cutout to date rape is lunacy, pure and simple.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-10 06:03AM | 0 recs
Glad you don't think it is a big deal

Hopefully your own wife or daughter is never a victim of "innocent" fun which demeans and degrades her.

I'm out of here. I am so disgusted with my party these days. Hope? Change? Not the kind I want.

by twinmom 2008-12-10 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Glad you don't think it is a big deal

My daughter, and most of the young women I see in her generation are tough as nails, they would see this frat-boy act for what it is...

She would not be "a victim" of this, and you're extropolation of this to our party OK'ing potential date rape does indicate you are still smarting from the Hillary lose and are hypersensitive to the extreme.

My party and my President had nothing to do with it, your wanting to tar them with this again shows more about your state of mind then theirs.

Sorry to see you go, you are an intelligent and wise voice on this boards, but you are clearly over-reacting to this, we have had three over the top diaries on this, which indicates more about the state of MyDD then about this incident.

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-10 06:39AM | 0 recs
And hopefully your son's career

isn't ruined by one stupid, inebriated photo.

by Neef 2008-12-10 06:40AM | 0 recs
Give it up twin Mom

Too many immature ones here, even if they claim to be older.  The absolute only people I can accept might find the image funny would be middle schoolers.  And as long time teacher of middle school students, I would be spending time with them explaining WHY the picture is inappropriate, hurtful and implies a lack of empathy for fellow human beings.  

Seriously who knew so called adults would defend this behavior?   The more I read the more I understand how far backward we have gone when it comes to gender discrimination.

by Jjc2008 2008-12-10 03:08PM | 0 recs
Oh and

I don't need you to "defend me".

by twinmom 2008-12-10 06:31AM | 0 recs
Yikes.

I hope your day goes better after this.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-10 06:37AM | 0 recs
Nobody is perfect. Nobody.

I think of women who are younger than me as "girls," even if they're actually "women."

I have bigoted cultural thoughts about many of the Indian people I meet, see, and talk to at work.  Their names are too long!

Am I a bad person?  I don't think so... but the fact remains and I'm not alone in having moments of imperfection.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-10 05:41AM | 0 recs
The problem is

You're honest with yourself. I think that sort of honesty, and the compassion it fuels, are becoming rare in progressive circles.

I've done things I'm not proud of, and from time to time I still do. I'm a work in progress, and I work pretty damn hard at it. Unfortunately, the progressive dialog seems to be becoming about perfection, not improvement. It's beginning to require a greater and greater suspension of disbelief to believe what we advocate.

I used to read the wingnut sites and roll my eyes.

by Neef 2008-12-10 06:15AM | 0 recs
We should take a page from Obama

When he called himself an "imperfect vessel," he wasn't just being modest.  He knows that he can be full of himself.  He knows that he can be inadvertently dismissive sometimes (we all remember "sweetie").  He knows that he can get cranky when cameras are filming him eating a sandwich or playing with his girls on vacation at the beach.

We have to get off our damn high horse.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-10 06:26AM | 0 recs
Did you believe Juanita Broaddrick?

Just curious.

by JJE 2008-12-10 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: When Men Rule Society Rape Exists

There is a gang up mentality on Nancy that is truly appalling to me.  As this is a Democratic blog, people understandably disagree with and are upset with many of her previous diaries.  But I find nothing trollish or objectionable about this diary.  I may or may not agree with its points, but both rape and male domination are extremely serious problems around the world, and this diary explores their relationship.  Especially given the subject matter of this diary, to see people gang up, insult, and make fun of a diarist writing about male domination and rape seems very inappropriate on a progressive blog.  If you don't think the issue is important, or you don't agree with the points that are made, either ignore them or debate them.

by markjay 2008-12-10 02:47AM | 0 recs
No

There's a discrepency between Nancy's facts and her conclusions.  Period.  She exists to make the liberal blogosphere look histrionic and extreme, to undermine us.

Even if she's sincere in her feminism (which I doubt), the net result is that she's somehow stumbled upon the perfect trolling method.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-10 04:31AM | 0 recs
Re: No

Hence my comfort guide at the top.  I recommend that we respond to Nancy with the gravitas she deserves.  How-to manuals and recipies.

by Why Not 2008-12-10 04:41AM | 0 recs
Better check Fair Use...

...While I thought it was funny, you want to make sure you're within Fair Use guidelines.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-10 04:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Better check Fair Use...

Yeah sorry about that.. was late I will be more dilligent to get long technical guides that are freely disseminated information.

by Why Not 2008-12-10 05:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Better check Fair Use...

PS.. could also use just 10% of a reaaaaallly long one..  that makes it legal right?

by Why Not 2008-12-10 05:12AM | 0 recs
I'm not a lawyer...

I couldn't tell you for certain, but you might be right.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-10 05:16AM | 0 recs
Re: No

That huge pile of bullshit I had to page past to read the comments?  I thought "comfort guide" was some kind of sex toy to be used with "comfort women."

by username 2008-12-10 05:18AM | 0 recs
Re: No

The point is to make troll diaries unreadable and especially to thwart the trolls intent which is to sow discord by short circuiting the acrimonious flame war which they are trying to provoke.  Hence the reason to fill up the comments to any of Nancy's diaries with information that has nothing to do with her attention grabbing BS.

by Why Not 2008-12-10 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: No

I was not impressed.

by susie 2008-12-10 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: No

good for you

by Why Not 2008-12-10 07:48AM | 0 recs
Disagree 100%

She's proven through her posting history to be a troll.  Your rationale is exactly the type of bleeding-heart reaction she's hoping to exploit.

While I agree that the relationship between rape and patriarchal structures should be examined, I do not agree that the person posting as Nancy deserves a pass simply because she picked a germaine topic for once.  There are a dozen other diarists on this site who could explore such a topic and be taken seriously.

"Nancy" has proved over time that her posts deserve one of two reactions:

  1. Mockery
  2. The Silent Treatment

by Dreorg 2008-12-10 04:58AM | 0 recs
Yup...

That is why some of us are almost of the belief Nancy is pulling a scam, she trolls with legit honey and honest folks like TwinMom take the bait.

But, as you said, she is so over-the-top in ever case, she intentionally douses any chance of real discussion with her outrageous and undefensible claims.

She pulls the same act on Salon.

Some people leap to conclusions, Nancy warp-drives into them...

She was certainly simply throwing gasoline on the fire with her "Sarah Palin is a Genius" series of polemics.

Even RedState and Freeper sites never posted anything that hyperbolically bizzare as Nancy on Palin.

Either she really is a total loon, or this is ongoing perfomance art, trying to con the liberal blogosphere.

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-10 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Disagree 100%
#2. Is preferable.
If you don't like it, move on.
I find the disagreeable responses - er - disagreeable.
Who needs it?  
by susie 2008-12-10 06:57AM | 0 recs
Come on now

This diary makes the explicit case that men are rapists. But...it has references.

Would a diary making the case that women can't do math (with references) be ignored? Probably not.

Nancy is the feminist equivalent of Louis Farrakhan, and while I understand that her pro-female message is refreshing to some, her anti-male message is going to garner some pushback.

by Neef 2008-12-10 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Come on now

Good point.

And one of the reason Nancy generate such antipathy is her logical fallacies are so blaring but she refuses to post or discuss, so she virtually demands ridicule as a primary response.

There is typically the most tenious connection between her example and her conclusion, but she states with hyperbolic certainty that it does seem almost like a parody.

As many have stated, she leaves that work to folks like TwinMom, who are left high and dry to defend Nancy, too wimpy to do it herself.

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-10 07:46AM | 0 recs
Excellent point

about the lack of defense. That is a classic hit-and-run tactic, and I guess like every classic it still delivers.

by Neef 2008-12-10 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Come on now

This diary makes the explicit case that men are rapists.

Actually, the very first sentence of the diary (a quotation approvingly cited by the diarist) makes the exact opposite point.  It says that "Rape is not a natural act for men."

by markjay 2008-12-10 07:46AM | 0 recs
Read that sentence again

and then reconcile it with the diary. The first sentence is actually out of place. The diary explicitly states that when men run things women get raped.

I'm open to an interpretation that does not make the men (who are in power,and are doing the raping) the primary actors.

by Neef 2008-12-10 07:51AM | 0 recs
Exactly

Change some keywords and phrasing, and this would make a great 1960 circa argument about black males and crime.

Where there are high concentrations of black males, crime is rampant, almost inevitable.
Therefore, black men are inheriently born criminals.

Same logic, but a little less politically correct.

by WashStateBlue 2008-12-10 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Disagree 100%

Silence = Consent

(If you don't understand that in context, google "Act Up")

by Dreorg 2008-12-10 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Disagree 100%

sigh

I need to not post while on the phone at work.

Silence equals/implies consent comes from diplomatic circles, as well as debate.  It was adapted into the SILENCE = DEATH campaign by Act Up in the late 80s / early 90s to protest the government's lack of AIDS research funding.

Anyway... underlying point being... letting these posts go unchallenged creates the impression of consent with the author.

by Dreorg 2008-12-10 09:36AM | 0 recs
Precisely

If a casual reader of these blogs were to come across a Nancy K diary with no responses, they might think she represented the unchallenged beliefs of the MyDD community.

by Dracomicron 2008-12-10 09:49AM | 0 recs
Disagree 100% with Your Disagreement

Silence does not equal consent, and I have no intention of googling Act Up.

Example: Hours of silence today re your comment meant that instead of replying to a comment on a blog that will vanish shortly and is of no real long-term consideration to anyone in the everyday world of real life, I spent hours by my hospitalized husband's bedside, affording whatever comfort the presence of a lifetime companion can provide.

 

by susie 2008-12-10 06:27PM | 0 recs
Nope.

There's no reason to waste time actually reading Nancy K.'s diatribes/diaries.  She has proven herself to be a joke, and if she wants to engage in serious discussion, she should either issue a public apology or get a new user name.

by username 2008-12-10 09:47AM | 0 recs
Let's play pwnins!

Er, make that modus ponens.  The major premise seems unnecessary -- "rape exists," period.

by username 2008-12-10 09:44AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads