Typhon Challenges Hugo

[dr e]

Typhonblue has requested a thread to challange Hugo to a debate. Here are the rules:

     1. Only Typhon and Hugo may post on this thread.

     2. They take turns in posting.

     3. No personal attacks

     4. No discussion of personal issues.

     5. No references to past writings or writings on other forums or blogs.

     6. Everything should be supported on this thread.



Does that sound acceptable?

[typhonblue]

I'd like to see Hugo respond to the following challenge.

Name one way that western society oppresses women that abides by the following rule:

1. It has to be socially condoned.

To be socially condoned a oppressive meme, law or social bias has to be one of several things:

1. Invisible with no high profile, government funded groups educating the public about it.

2. Visible but socially acceptable with no high profile government funded groups or enforced laws attempting to eliminate it.

3. Visible and socially promoted with high profile government funded groups or enforced laws upholding it.

Conditions

1. Which gender enforces the meme, law or social bias has no bearing. (If it did then female genital mutilation would not be oppression suffered by women in developing countries since it is mandated and carried out most often by other women.)

2. To be oppressive the meme, law or social bias merely has to restrict the choices and freedoms of one gender without corresponding restriction on the other. (For instance citing the restriction of females to certain roles would not count if males are likewise restricted to certain roles.)

***

Now that I've issued my challenge to you. I will take my own challenge in regards to men.

Mandatory registration for draft for men.

If a man fails to register he can be deprived of his citizenship, and if he does his life is owned by the state. Thus men only enjoy the privilages of citizenship if they are bound to responsibility to the state.

Women are not required to register, yet they enjoy all the privilages of citizenship. Thus women enjoy the privilages of citizenship without being bound to responsibility to the state.

This represents an oppression that men suffer. It fulfills criteria #3 for an oppressive meme, law or social bias.

[dr e]

I'd like to see Hugo respond to the following challenge.

Name one way that western society oppresses women that abides by the following rule:

1. It has to be socially condoned.

To be socially condoned a oppressive meme, law or social bias has to be one of several things:

1. Invisible with no high profile, government funded groups educating the public about it.

2. Visible but socially acceptable with no high profile government funded groups or enforced laws attempting to eliminate it.

3. Visible and socially promoted with high profile government funded groups or enforced laws upholding it.

***

Now that I've issued my challenge to you. I will take my own challenge in regards to men.

Mandatory registration for draft for men.

If a man fails to register he can be deprived of his citizenship, and if he does his life is owned by the state. Thus men only enjoy the privilages of citizenship if they are bound to responsibility to the state.

Women are not required to register, yet they enjoy all the privilages of citizenship. Thus women enjoy the privilages of citizenship without being bound to responsibility to the state.

This represents an oppression that men suffer. It fulfills criteria #3 for an oppressive meme, law or social bias.

I'm afraid I can't accept the conditions of this, largely because of the "socially condoned" caveat.

Rape is not socially condoned.  (Actually, some of my feminist allies would say that it is, but I won't go there for now).   Women are far more likely to be victims of rape and other forms of sexual assault.   From a feminist perspective, the problem is not that rape is socially condoned (though it is often excused, say, on college campuses), the problem is that insufficient resources have been devoted to protecting women from rape.  

The fact that rape is not socially condoned does not mean that women are safe from sexual assault.  The fact that government money has been spent to build shelters for women has not yet brought rape to an end.  From a feminist standpoint, far more education and direct action (which can range from everything to seminars to better lighting in campus parking lots) can be done to make women safer.  

Feminism, at least as I understand it, seeks equal access for women in all walks of life.  But granting legal access is meaningless if women cannot participate in public life as fearlessly as men can.   Fear of rape and assault continues to play a major role in women's decision making: http://www.cpa.ca/cjbsnew/1996/ful_senn.html

I'm afraid that I find typhonblue's insistence that all biases against women be socially condoned to be an unacceptable limitation to the discussion.

[dr e]

I'm afraid I can't accept the conditions of this, largely because of the "socially condoned" caveat.

Rape is not socially condoned.  (Actually, some of my feminist allies would say that it is, but I won't go there for now).

Rediculous.

Even the most fringe of male cultures condemn rapists. That's why they are incarcerated seperately from the majority of prisoners, otherwise they will be sexually tortured and *killed* by them.

Women are far more likely to be victims of rape and other forms of sexual assault.

This is the perception, yes. But it may not be the reality.

On your website someone linked to a rape resource that put the precentage of rapes with men as the victim at 40%. Other resources I've seen indicate that the rate of "date rape victimization" between men and women is roughly equal. Further I've read researchers who have studied the phenomena of prison rape and conclude that the similarities between community rape of males and prison rape of males are compelling enough to suggest there may be a completely invisible epidemic of community rapes of males.

Further I know, anacdotaly, of a rapist who preyed exclusively on male hitch-hikers (young men from mid teens to mid twenties) who detailed his conquests in a journal and managed to victimize 200 young men before *1* went to the police.

All this suggests to me that you cannot say *definitively* that the majority of sexual assualt occures against women. That assumption is just that, an assumption, and it's based on systemic homophobic predjudice.

From a feminist perspective, the problem is not that rape is socially condoned (though it is often excused, say, on college campuses), the problem is that insufficient resources have been devoted to protecting women from rape.

This is where the idea of value comes in.

Rape, on the whole, is not socially condoned. But support and protection depends on the worthiness of the victim.

Let me list a "worthy victim" hierarchy for rape.

1. Wealthy white women.
2. Non-wealthy white women
3. Non-white women
4. Men

The funding for rape follows the heirarchy of worthy victims. With wealthy white women getting the most, as well as the most protection, and men getting the least and the least protection. Interestingly, aside from the ambigious catagory of male victims, the hierarchy also goes from "least likely to be victimized" ie. wealthy white women, to "most likely to be victimized" ie. non-white women.

As for the rape of men you could almost place it in the "socially condoned" catagory. What with common expressions like "if he was a real man he would have..." or "what does a man who's being raped sound like? 'Don't! Stop! Don't... stop! Don't stop!" and the never ending dropping the soap jokes.

Our society believes men would only refuse sex in a situation where it would compromise his sexuality. Similar to the patriarchal assumption that a woman would only refuse sex in a situation where it would compromise her good name or reputation.  Both are based on the apparent "inherent" venality of the oppressed gender (men or women). And then a gender biased society further says "if he was really a man he would have died before he let himself be raped"(matriarchal) or "if she was really a virtuous woman she would have died before she let herself be raped"(patriarchal.) Thus excusing itself from condemning the rape.

And as for the rape of non-white women. One could conclude that they inhabit an ambigious catagory between condoned and not-condoned. Their plight is highlighted when it suits their white "sisters", but generally ignored when it comes to the breakdown of resources.

The fact that rape is not socially condoned does not mean that women are safe from sexual assault.

And the fact that theft is not socially condoned does not make the wealthy safe from being robbed. Can we conclude from that that we live in a communist society?

Feminism, at least as I understand it, seeks equal access for women in all walks of life.  But granting legal access is meaningless if women cannot participate in public life as fearlessly as men can.

This is completely ambigious and impossible to measure. So as long as women "fear" being in public, we can ignore the greater rate of victimization that men suffer?

I'm afraid that I find typhonblue's insistence that all biases against women be socially condoned to be an unacceptable limitation to the discussion.

It was a challenge.

So you cannot find one socially condoned example of women's oppression?

Do you understand what that means? It means that society does not condone the oppression of women. Therefore we don't live in a society that is oppressive towards women.

This is the very basis of your belief system and you cannot support it.

[typhonblue]

Reply to what Hugo wrote on his blog follows::

Debates don't solve anything. Thoughtful, honest sharing of "where one is coming from" is worth more than highly structured, left-brain-oriented exchanges. It's not cowardice to refuse to participate in a forum where I did not set the rules and where I got handed a highly structured question.

Dude, the entire feminist movement is based on the "fact" that women are oppressed by society.

The structure of the question is due *solely* to the structure of feminist rhetoric.

Feminist: Women are oppressed by society.
Non-feminist: Could you give an example?
Feminist: Nothing is served by logical debate!

Unfortunately for you and me, this discussion only exists on the level of abstraction. I'm not going to argue that I have a direct experience of the oppression of men and I doubt you could argue the opposite.

And since we can't talk about how we feel, we can only talk about the logical basis for our conclusions about the opposite sex--about something we have no direct experience of.

Logic is at the base of communication. If we abandon it, we're either muddling around with competing subjectivities going no-where or we are privilaging one subjectivity over another.