Go on... rape her... she won't report it... [UniLad magazine article]

[equationgirl]

I was hesitant about putting that in. I was only five or something, but I still cringed when I wrote it.

Heroric ideals are never bad

 

[ymu]

Was just reminded of this on another thread. I don't think there's been a thread on it here yet, and this seems like the right thread for it.

This is a summary from the New Statesman. The story broke with a twitter hashtag: #mencallmethings

You always remember the first time someone calls you ugly on the internet. I imagine -- although it hasn't happened to me -- you always remember the first time someone threatens to rape you, or kill you, or urinate on you.

The sheer volume of sexist abuse thrown at female bloggers is the internet's festering sore: if you talk to any woman who writes online, the chances are she will instantly be able to reel off a greatest hits of insults. But it's very rarely spoken about, for both sound and unsound reasons. No one likes to look like a whiner -- particularly a woman writing in male-dominated fields such as politics, economics or computer games. Others are reluctant to give trolls the "satisfaction" of knowing they're emotionally affected by the abuse or are afraid of incurring more by speaking out.

Both are understandable reasons but there's another, less convincing one: doesn't everyone get abuse on the internet? After all, the incivility of the medium has prompted a rash of op-eds and books about the degradation of discourse.

While I won't deny that almost all bloggers attract some extremely inflammatory comments -- and LGBT or non-white ones have their own special fan clubs, too -- there is something distinct, identifiable and near-universal about the misogynist hate directed at women online. As the New Statesman blogger David Allen Green told me: "In three years of blogging and tweeting about highly controversial political topics, I have never once had any of the gender-based abuse that, say, Cath Elliott, Penny Red or Ellie Gellard routinely receive."

...

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/helen-lewis-hasteley/2011/11/comments-rape-abuse-women

 

[Frances Lengel]

Was just reminded of this on another thread. I don't think there's been a thread on it here yet, and this seems like the right thread for it.

This is a summary from the New Statesman. The story broke with a twitter hashtag: #mencallmethings

There is a lot of nasty mysogyny (sp) floatin about..... To pretend otherwise is misguided.

 

[Greebo]

There is a lot of nasty mysogyny (sp) floatin about..... To pretend otherwise is misguided.

Quite.

 

[Citizen66]

The funniest aspect of lbj keeping his 'sword arm' free is that in line with the nature of the direction the discussion has taken, sword is also a euphemism for a sexual organ.

 

[articul8]

Even by the standards of religious extremists this is shocking - Rabbi to the IDF says it's OK to rape non-Jewish women in wartime, in fact troops should do it cause it's good for morale :
http://972mag.com/idf-colonel-rabbi-implies-rape-is-permitted-in-war/39535/

 

[purenarcotic]

Even by the standards of religious extremists this is shocking - Rabbi to the IDF says it's OK to rape non-Jewish women in wartime, in fact troops should do it cause it's good for morale :
http://972mag.com/idf-colonel-rabbi-implies-rape-is-permitted-in-war/39535/

What a nut job, frankly.

 

[articul8]

Got me thinking about sexual consent and the church. "Thou shalt not rape" is not one of the ten commandments - I suppose there's the bit about not coveting your neigbour's wife - but rape within marriage, or sexual aggression more generally?

 

[DotCommunist]

Heroric ideals are never bad

No more heroes anymore

 

[Idris2002]

Got me thinking about sexual consent and the church. "Thou shalt not rape" is not one of the ten commandments - I suppose there's the bit about not coveting your neigbour's wife - but rape within marriage, or sexual aggression more generally?

It was definitely Catholic teaching that rape in marriage was not recognised - and may well be even today. I wouldn't put it past them in fact.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Even by the standards of religious extremists this is shocking - Rabbi to the IDF says it's OK to rape non-Jewish women in wartime, in fact troops should do it cause it's good for morale :
http://972mag.com/idf-colonel-rabbi-implies-rape-is-permitted-in-war/39535/

Bear in mind that a rabbi is no more of a consecrated spokesman for his (because they are mostly male) religion than an imam or mullah is, he's just a (more, or often less) learned person with an opinion, and is no more representative of that religion (even the extreme end of it) than any other individual.

BTW, the texts common to Christianity, Islam and Judaism all contain justifications for the rape of the women of an enemy. That this schlemiel expands on those justifications to endorse a putative "morale-booster" is despicable, but (unfortunately) entirely within the ambit of his religion, if not within the ambit of any normative morality.

 

[DotCommunist]

also 'colonel-rabbi'

as in battle priest, notoriously mental.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What a nut job, frankly.

Unfortunately not. He's merely drawing on the same set of excuses and justifications as the peoples of the book have drawn on for millennia. He's no more nuts than any sincere believer who justifies their behaviour through religious texts rather than through what we might call a normative standard of decency.

 

[ViolentPanda]

also 'colonel-rabbi'

as in battle priest, notoriously mental.

How do you distinguish between delusions caused by battle trauma, and the delusion of worshipping a tentacle of the flying spaghetti monster?

 

[articul8]

N

It was definitely Catholic teaching that rape in marriage was not recognised - and may well be even today. I wouldn't put it past them in fact.

there are certainly some hardline Catholics who believe that abortion is wrong even for women who have been raped.

 

[DotCommunist]

How do you distinguish between delusions caused by battle trauma, and the delusion of worshipping a tentacle of the flying spaghetti monster?

(((loyola)))

 

[Pickman's model]

How do you distinguish between delusions caused by battle trauma, and the delusion of worshipping a tentacle of the flying spaghetti monster?

the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. if you'd said 'the delusion of worshipping a tentacle of cthulhu' then your hypoethetical might have some validity.

 

[purenarcotic]

Unfortunately not. He's merely drawing on the same set of excuses and justifications as the peoples of the book have drawn on for millennia. He's no more nuts than any sincere believer who justifies their behaviour through religious texts rather than through what we might call a normative standard of decency.

Perhaps, but I know few religious people that would stand by or support his interpretation. His interpretation is cunty and nuts.

 

[trabuquera]

Perhaps, but I know few religious people that would stand by or support his interpretation. His interpretation is cunty and nuts.

There is no blanket prohibition whatsoever of rape in any of the Abrahamic faiths and the nutter battle-rabbi is not alone.

the Old Testament states explicitly that while women who claim to have been raped outside city walls should be allowed to live (how generous!) and their attackers killed, the rule is different if the assault happened in town: in that case, it being presumed that any 'decent' woman would shout and be rescued, so if she didn't she wasn't a victim but a slapper and should be executed (by stoning) along with her co-fornicator.

There are various Quranic verses to do with what you are legitimately allowed to 'seize' in warfare .... which explicitly include the women of your defeated enemies. Muslim extremists (and islamophobic nutters) extrapolate from this that it's positively recommending that such captives SHOULD be enslaved and used for whatever you fancy. Can't remember the exact verse but it goes something like 'and what your left hand may seize, possess it for it is yours')

But they're not alone. In the very early medieval period (and earlier, just after Augustine's efforts) the Catholic and some branches of the Orthodox church didn't just 'fail to recognise' rape as a crime ... they too claimed that anyone raped by anyone OTHER than their husband was (by definition) not a 'rape victim' but a fornicator and thus due for punishment. Just like the loopier interpretations of sharia today (zina laws in Pakistan and Afghanistan etc.)

 

[ymu]

This story probably belongs here:

Twitter reaction to Ched Evans case shows rape culture is alive and kicking

On Friday afternoon, the Sheffield United footballer Ched Evans was sentenced to five years in jail for raping a 19-year-old woman. His co-accused, Port Vale footballer Clayton McDonald, was found not guilty.

Almost immediately, the #ChedEvans hashtag appeared on Twitter, and later, #JusticeForChed. Some tweets questioned why one defendant was found guilty and the other not. Others blamed the victim, particularly focusing on her being drunk; some could only be described as vile. Tweeters included fellow Sheffield United footballer Connor Brown who has since deleted his attack on the victim, which included calling her a slag, and which intimated she made her complaint for financial reasons.

Rape culture, which includes victim blaming, sexual objectification and trivialising rape, was demonstrably alive and well on both hashtags, and continued all weekend.

By early Sunday, the name of the woman who was apparently the complainant was being widely tweeted, it first having been seen on Friday. The insults became more personal, and the levels of abuse directed at the victim increased throughout the day.

Although the Twitter community had, since the hashtags started, attempted to correct the views of supporters of Ched Evans by reminding them that a jury had heard the full facts; that victim blaming was never right; that alcohol consumption can and does render a person incapable of consent, the community rounded even more so once the tweets started including the alleged name of the victim.

Good to see that the Twitterati responded so vehemently, but the author concludes with an excellent point:

While it may be without doubt that those who used Twitter in an unlawful way over this issue should be punished, and it is fair to say that the law is constantly being tested in its application in our new media age, what this weekend has demonstrated is how alarmingly alive and pervasive rape culture is. Isn't the biggest question what we do about that?

[Before it causes a bunfight, the law she wants used is that against naming a rape survivor, not merely being offensive on social media.]

 

[two sheds]

He's no more nuts than any sincere believer who justifies their behaviour through religious texts rather than through what we might call a normative standard of decency.

Sorry, I think that's just crap. So a Christian who rapes women because of a text in the bible is 'no more nuts' than Christians who devote their lives to helping other people inspired by the story of the Good Samaritan?

I don't like organized religion but I do feel there is a real arrogance on the boards against followers of religion. This is by no means the worst of the statements - usually they are on science-related threads. Just replace 'science' with 'Christianity' and many of the statements here could have been taken from religious tracts exhorting people to go out and civilize those old savages.

 

[ymu]

Sorry, I think that's just crap. So a Christian who rapes women because of a text in the bible is 'no more nuts' than Christians who devote their lives to helping other people inspired by the story of the Good Samaritan?

I don't like organized religion but I do feel there is a real arrogance on the boards against followers of religion. This is by no means the worst of the statements - usually they are on science-related threads. Just replace 'science' with 'Christianity' and many of the statements here could have been taken from religious tracts exhorting people to go out and civilize those old savages.

It was a subtle qualification, but VP did refer to behaviours that were justified on religious grounds rather than "normative standards of decency", ie the need to reach for religious justification because a behaviour is otherwise appalling.

I do have sympathy with your point though. Secularism is not the same as atheism, and some atheists go way too far down an anti-secular route to retain any kind of claim to the moral high ground.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sorry, I think that's just crap. So a Christian who rapes women because of a text in the bible is 'no more nuts' than Christians who devote their lives to helping other people inspired by the story of the Good Samaritan?

1) I'm not talking about Christians (plural) who choose to follow the philosophy set out in the religion they practice, I'm talking about individuals who justify their actions with regard to specific moral or religious prescriptions.

2) Anyone who depends on religion, any religion, as the centre of their "universe" is describable/diagnosable as neurotic under current medical health guidelines. That includes those for whom secularism is a religion.

I don't like organized religion but I do feel there is a real arrogance on the boards against followers of religion. This is by no means the worst of the statements - usually they are on science-related threads. Just replace 'science' with 'Christianity' and many of the statements here could have been taken from religious tracts exhorting people to go out and civilize those old savages.

I'm not a vocally anti-Christian poster, and (unluckily for you) I actually have a history on Urban of being rather too "live and let live" for some of the board's more devoutly (see what I did there?) secular posters. I dislike the people who staff the hierarchies of all organised religions, whether they be lay or part of a religion's "official" priesthood, and I dislike them because of what they historically get away with in the name of their religion, i.e. all sorts of things that the original religious philosophy they claim to follow would have found abhorrent. To paraphrase a Christian saying, I "hate the sinner, not the sin".

 

[two sheds]

Fair play.

I forgive you then .

 

[Citizen66]

Just like Jesus would have done.

 

[DotCommunist]

I think technically jesus intercedes on your behalf so that his old man does the forgiving

 

[ViolentPanda]

Just like Jesus would have done.

I'm not sure that Jesus would forgive me, seeing as I killed him.

 

[ExtraRefined]

The stereotype of the male student has shifted in recent years. No longer do cab drivers and grumpy newspaper columnists make jokes about spotty Adrian Mole-types sat around all day wanking their way to degrees in Countdown. In the public imagination, the male student is now someone who makes jokes about rape and tweets racist abuse at footballers who, in medical terms, have just died in public. All of which has alerted the world to the infiltration of British universities by a new breed of scholar: the anti-scholar, the beer-swilling, banter-puking cuckoo in the scholarly nest, The Lad.

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/a-big-night-out-withbritains-biggest-lads

What a lovely bunch.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

It was definitely Catholic teaching that rape in marriage was not recognised - and may well be even today. I wouldn't put it past them in fact.

Martial rape was not officially recognised in the UK until 1991.

 

[stuff_it]

I'm not sure that Jesus would forgive me, seeing as I killed him.

I knew you were older than me, but...