Apples and... Round Red Fruits That Grow On Trees?

[botias]

Remember I was talking about how Joss Whedon is no stranger to eroticizing torture, for all that he gets his panties in a bunch if the torturee is a woman. Because he's a feminist and thinks women should be equal to men in all things. :|

Here's someone who looked at Whedon's record more closely: Torture in the 'Verse (from the su_herald)

And the FLDS thing got me thinking too. Within the last couple of years I've read at least two National Geographic Articles describing the marriage practices of African tribespeople that pretty much are equivalent to the practices of the FLDS. Pre-pubescent girls are available sexually to the young warriors-in-training until the girls start to menstruate. Then they are married off by their fathers to older men they don't know. The articles were presented without condemnation of any kind. It's just a different culture, right? Imagine the outcry if they had done an article on a FLDS "tribe". So, why the difference in perception? Is it a race thang?

Comments

[botias.livejournal.com]

But to focus on the treatment of women is not useless or pointless.

But it may very likely be sexist. :/ It may not be the focus that would reduce human suffering the most.

[bendy1.livejournal.com]

It's so odd that I'm arguing this POV when I focus much more personally on race and class.

I don't agree that the foundation of the argument is sexist. I do agree it can veeeeeeery easily become it and is sexist so often we have to be very careful when using it.

Where I disagree is this:

It may not be the focus that would reduce human suffering the most.

That's pretty much irrelevant. There is no hierarchy of compassion, and if we make it so that we cannot combat sexism before eradicating starvation... we'll never make it an issue.

[botias.livejournal.com]

I don't agree that the foundation of the argument is sexist.

Isn't it saying that the suffering and oppression of women is uniquely important? Not because the suffering and oppression of women is of a significantly greater than that of men, but just because, well, we're women and so woman stuff is more important to us.

Guys could easily say that coerced marriage just isn't that big a deal to them as an issue, cuz well, they're guys and guy stuff is more important to them. But if they did we'd say they were sexist.

[bendy1.livejournal.com]

But aside from some radfems, who is arguing this?

Not me.

Not the people who disapprove of torture porn.

Not anti-racist feminists.

To see the inherent sexism in the system you don't turn a blind eye to racism. You can't, for a start it's way too complex.

[botias.livejournal.com]

Well, the argument I've heard is that violent porn that guys like should be considered differently than the violent porn that women like because women suffer more often from sexualized violence than men do.

To which... I sort of went off on a tangent and argued that all the indignation over the present and historic victimization and oppression of women may be sexist. That men have historically been oppressed and suffering and victimized as much or perhaps more than women. But it's not a tangent really. My point was that I think our greater indignation over torture porn with female victims may spring from the 'women and children first' side of sexism, societal notions that women should be protected from violence and death more than men are, hence our strange lack of concern with the historical suffering of men. As women, we may be happy to discard 'Father knows best' but maybe we're not quite ready to let go of the idea that we should have special protections.

If women use this argument, if they insist on special treatment because they can't defend themselves from bad, mean men, and need society to do it for them, then it seems to me they are conceding the inequality that they want to deny.

[bendy1.livejournal.com]

the argument I've heard is that violent porn that guys like should be considered differently than the violent porn that women like because women suffer more often from sexualized violence than men do.

Yes, I agree with that argument. Reinforcing a bad pattern that exists already in society is... not something to be encouraged or whatever. I wouldn't say ban it (whatever it is), in the least. But I also don't want to see it simply accepted as a norm.

That men have historically been oppressed and suffering and victimized as much or perhaps more than women.

Yes, but I'm not arguing with that. It's different and we need to deal with it but I don't see how that conflicts with feminism.

My point was that I think our greater indignation over torture porn with female victims may spring from the 'women and children first' side of sexism, societal notions that women should be protected from violence and death more than men are, hence our strange lack of concern with the historical suffering of men.

Ah. No. I disagree that trying to tackle sexism equates to a lack of concern for/with men. I just think that conflating the issues serves only to allow certain ill treatments to continue, and sexism *is* endemic and *does* need tackling. So does war, poverty, blah de blah. But I think some people feel we need to ignore feminism in order to tackle 'society', whereas I believe one leads to the other, and vice versa.

If women use this argument, if they insist on special treatment because they can't defend themselves from bad, mean men, and need society to do it for them, then it seems to me they are conceding the inequality that they want to deny.

I haven't heard that as a serious feminist argument that non radfems would use since the eighties, in all honesty.

[botias.livejournal.com]

But I also don't want to see it simply accepted as a norm.

More honest discussion and enlightenment about the issue is always a good thing.

I don't think tackling sexism equates with a lack of concern about men either. But I think there is a reason why violence against women gets Whedon's knickers in great big twist, for example, more than say violence against conscripted soldiers. I think there's a reason why watching torture porn with a woman as a victim would make me very uncomfortable, but torture porn with a man as a victim much less so. I think part of that reason is sexist. I have been raised to believe that violence against women is worse than violence against men. That a man who hits a women is scum, but a man that hits a man, or a woman that hits a man... not so much.

Am I all alone in this? Maybe. But this is a very real part of my greater revulsion for violence against women. And it is sexist. I think perhaps instead of sending letters to (male) media moguls asking for their concern and protection, I might be a more true feminist if I went for my black belt and encouraged other women to do the same.

[bendy1.livejournal.com]

But I think there is a reason why violence against women gets Whedon's knickers in great big twist, for example, more than say violence against conscripted soldiers.

Well yes, that's because he is sexist.

I don't know what to say about violence except that my take on it is different. I'm a pacifist in all meanings of the word in real life.

The flip side is that fictional violence really can be hot. But the violence I like to read about isn't squicking me because it isn't... real? and can't really be found in reality?

[bendy1.livejournal.com]

and isn't reflecting the norms I disapprove of in society back in my face, with added pretty people.

[botias.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's OK for women to hit men, or for men to hit men. I would never, ever hit my husband nor can I imagine a situation in which that would be OK. Well... barring his full consent and enthusiastic encouragement :P I just know that my emotional response to these acts against men, both fictionalized and RL, is much different than to the same act of violence against women, and children and animals besides

[bendy1.livejournal.com]

Ah. I get that, and I get that it's a normal reaction, but I don't have it.

But I have a major violence squick in RL. Of course we protect children much more but really protecting women 'more' only involves giving them the agency men already possess.