Bert’s post is now up.
Well I’m glad you let his post through, but to be honest, I’m not surprised he didn’t bother addressing any criticisms that we’ve made.
LOL. So you come up with something negative and immediately think to give it the name of specifically the female in species of dog and many other species of animals? How very sensitive of you. What is more you actually do this as you critique machismo (exaggarated, posturing maleness)? Residual misognysm much? Unwashed, unintelligent lower class males are bitches? How ironic in someone upholding the idea of a “rape culture”.
Maybe you need to think this over a little. Or what’s next? You’re gonna give us your mind on Spic-manners and Yid-schemes?
+++++++++1 Cortes
Clayton -
I like what Cortes has to say. “Rape culture” is probably just a symptom of how shitty people are in general nowadays, which I especially see in the younger generation ( because I’m in my low 20s, not because other age groups aren’t just as shitty).
Marko, I think you misunderstood me.
It refers to the idiom ‘bitch’ that has more or less become widely accepted in US (maybe other Western Anglo countries) popular culture to mean ‘unter’/‘inferior’/‘subordinate’. This is much in the same way ‘slut’ or ‘whore’ have become catch-all terms for women with active sex lives, although that word is far older of course. It’s along the same lines as ‘slut-shaming’.
Hope I got the point across.
The only rape-themed jokes I ever heard was either paedo black humor or involved homosexuals taking advantage of a guy passed out in a ditch from drinking. Which goes to invalidate the idea circulating jokes reveal your cultural positions in this way. No one can possibly argue there is a pro-child rape culture out there, and the only setting where a joke about the dangers of drinking for your butthole would remotely work would be among heterosexual machos drinking their 5th beer, or should we say the last company on earth which would actually attempt to defend or make appologies for a homosexual male-rapist of drunks.
Which is a problem in itself.
I’m not sure what your point is. What do you mean?
He’s obviously saying that the term “bitch” should be used strictly in referring to female dogs and should not be used outside circles on animal breeding and dog training. To use it in any other manner is inaccurate, offensive, and crude.
So setting the crime itself aside, what fundamentally is the difference between what happened here and what happened in the video from Steubenville?
Ok, but I still don’t understand his first response.
Does he think my term ‘bitch-mind’, referring to the use of ‘bitch’ is offensive? That wasn’t the intention here.
My point was that I chose that term specifically because it has become so widespread in contemporary language, and there’s a lot of interesting psychology behind its current use.
People who use the term ‘slut-shaming’ aren’t using it in a derogatory manner towards the woman called a slut. People who call themselves ‘genderqueer’ aren’t hating themselves by using ‘queer’ as a descriptive term. A person who quotes ‘nigger’ in Huckleberry Finn isn’t being a racist. The Ralph Bakshi animated movie Coonskin wasn’t being racist by using that title.
I’m not sure what the problem is.
Then, clearly, you have not spent enough time in Room 101, Cortes. Remember, two and two make five if they say it does.
Clayton -
The point is you’re apparantly unable to express a negative concept without bringing gender into it. What you describe has nothing to do with females specifically yet you can’t find a more appropriate word for it than a term of dispargement of women.
You aren’t able to say ‘inferior’ without bringing gender into it, and then in a vulgar manner. And you ask what’s problematic about that? At the very least it’s insensitive, which is to say unsophisticated.
It’s very much as if you spoke of dumb people as of being in posession of a ‘Nigger-mind’. It wouldn’t matter you didn’t actually think blacks were stupid, it would stil be extremely tacky that you’re apparently unable to say ‘dull’ without exploiting a term (of dispargement) for blacks for it.
Grasping at straws much? People who go on about ‘slut-shaming’ are not saying sluts should not be shamed. They are saying promiscuous or provocatively dressed women should not be called sluts. They are against the shaming of women as sluts, not against the shaming of sluts, LOL.
And I am against the increasing trend of institutionalized sociopathy, where people are taught either through peers or from higher-ups to refer to their perceived inferiors as their ‘bitch’.
Your general reaction is still giving me a big question mark. I have no idea why you’re writing any of that.
Clayton -
The prototype for the above subordination? Being a kid in the presence of adults (especially parents).
The news report I saw on Steubenville confuses me for a number of reasons:
-
I don’t think of it as “rape” unless the aggressor is employing their genitals. Who is pushing for more general definitions for this word?
-
Apparently the law says touching someone who is “impaired” is rape. What if they have 1 beer? Or what if they have the sniffles? Isn’t that “impaired”?
-
If two people are impaired, say drunk, and are touching each other, are they each committing rape on one another? This seems to be absurd.
I think impaired people can make bad decisions, like getting behind a wheel of a car. When they make other bad decisions like consenting, they have to face the consequences. I also think (based on witnessing parties where people try to draw on each other with magic marker pens) that a concious person can be extremely impaired and still audibly protest and be combative. Of course, a truly unconcious person can’t give consent. The distinction between concious and unconcious is sharp.
In short, I’d have an easier time understanding the story if people used a more traditional definition for “rape” and if the law and the reporters focused on conciousness, rather than “impairment”.
I also wonder if people refrained from aiding the victim because they were worried about legal problems affecting them, like “minors in possession of alcohol” or something.
I have to say all my information about the case comes from the wikipedia timeline section, so it can be highly biased.
Translating all the typical pseudo-neutral bullshit, here’s what I got from it:
-
A high school girl got really drunk with a bunch of high school boys.
-
Group sexual activities ensued.
-
Pictures were taken and published.
-
She woke up naked with a bunch of guys and lacking any memory of the previous night.
If no other substantial fact is missing, there can be hardly any criminal case here. Underage drinking perhaps, and probably the whole thing of posting photos online could be considered substance for a law suit, but not rape.
There is a large difference between waking up with a headache in an unfamiliar bedroom/basement, and being found barely conscious in a dumpster, with all sorts of bruises and broken ribs and internal bleedings and overflowing multiple kinds of semen, some of things people picture when they hear the word “gang rape”.
If she cannot remember being forced or abused, and there are no signs of violence in her body, and there were no witnesses to the abuse, the boys must be presumed innocent (of rape at least).
What seems to be happening is the whole idea that whenever there’s a rape accusation, everyone involved is presumed guilty from the onset and must prove their innocence, and not the other way around.
Perhaps because it’s easier to throw a few teenage boys in juvenille hall without proof than to accept that teenage girls could actually behave like that.
That’s the real “rape culture”.
Like in 2006 with that Lacrosse team from Duke University.
They got their names published and were crucified by the media for a long time, and then they discovered the prosecutor had forged evidence, but at this time their reputations were already destroyed.
Again, there might be other facts I’m ignoring here. I hope so.