I’m still officially on my Man Boobz staycation, but I felt I needed to mention yet another example of a woman saying that men can stop rape … and getting rape threats in return.
Political analyst Zerlina Maxwell went on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News earlier this week and made the terrible mistake of suggesting to a hostile audience that men aren’t really doing any favors to women by telling them to arm themselves against rapists. Instead, as Salon notes, she said this:
“I don’t think that we should be telling women anything. I think we should be telling men not to rape women and start the conversation there.” She told Hannity, “You’re talking about this as if it’s some faceless, nameless criminal, when a lot of times it’s someone you know and trust,” adding, “If you train men not to grow up to become rapists, you prevent rape.”
Indeed, increased rape awareness has contributed to a dramatic decrease in rape over the last thirty years.
But apparently a lot of men were shocked – shocked! – that a woman would suggest that their patronizing advice was less likely to prevent rape than rape prevention education aimed at the demographic group that is responsible for the overwhelmng majority of rapes. That is, men.
So, naturally, the angriest of these men decided they would show Maxwell just how wrong she was … by threatening her with rape on Twitter.
Here’s just one example:
Rape culture in action.
Maxwell’s supporters have stepped up to defend her and her remarks, and have started a hashtag — #TYZerlina — to continue the discussion. If you’re on Twitter, join in .
Here’s the Fox News segment in question featuring Maxwell:
G’night! (Don’t worry, we’ll still be here in the morning, potentially literally on my case, waaaay too much of my super brew coffee!)
Have you read Monstrous Regiment yet? Seriously, Pratchett was chanelling you.
Cassandra — that question for me? Because no, I haven’t finished Snow Crash yet (arg internet, stealing all my time!) and Lords and Ladies is after that. And then, um, And Then There Were None, and then something else…maybe then I’ll get into more Pratchett.
Christ I have one hell of a backlog!
Yep. I just think you’d find the character of Maledict oddly familiar.
I’m heading to work soon, but luckily I’ll probably still be on here because I can.
I’m packing my bags. Any of you ever drink a tea called Tension Tamer? Generally, I drink tea that comes loose leaf, but this stuff is brilliant. I’m not sure how much is placebo effect though, but it always makes me feel better.
LOL about Maledict!
Niters, Marie. 🙂
Cassandra – that wipes out mayo of any sort, then. I like eggs a lot, but mayo never tastes of ’em to me, it’s just like sweet glue they shove in everything to hold it together.
I think eggs for me are like chillies for you – doesn’t take much for me to be able to detect an eggy flavor, and it bugs the hell out of me when I can. Especially savory eggy – I don’t love, say, flan, but I can tolerate it more than savory egg things.
First, maledict turns up zero results on the Prachett wiki, it short for something?
Second, there’s someone akin to this on the kitchen table — http://larouchepac.com/node/25440
How am I related to these people?!
@The K…:
No I was accused of JAQing off after the second post, because I dared to ask “where is the evidence?” twice.
Well, to bad, that I didn’t admit that, only hellkell hallucinates that.
Maybe the problem is that those Feminism-101-like sites aren’t even able to be consistent with their basic terminology. Like I’ve seen at least three different incompatible definitions of privilege? They can’t agree if they want to include the social model of disability, they can’t agree if discrimination because of lifestyle choices should be included. Now, I wonder, what might fuzzy terminology be useful for…?
@hellkell:
*yawn*
The defence consists in an accurate statement of the point or essential question at issue.
I think you are able to do that for me.
@katz:
One defends against accusations of being a troll, but now the defense itself is used as proof to deliver the troll-verdict. Seriously, that’s so 16th century. floating on water = proof of witchcraft, drowning = innocence.
Cassandra accused me of being a sockpuppet of ???, whatever, gets praise how good zie is in spotting them. Amusing of course if you know that’s all in their heads.
OK, If you want it so desperately:
@CassandraSays:
Thanks for this suggestion, I’ll start with Thornhill and Palmer.
I fear zie will only give me 1/10 for that!!!!! <= here, opportunity to quote from 'Reaper Man'
Maledict is a character in Monstrous Regiment. Zie really, really loves coffee for, um, special reasons that turn out to be vital to the plot.
Meanwhile, Poxy is still wanking. Nobody cares.
“Well, to bad, that I didn’t admit that, only hellkell hallucinates that.”
You did, actually, right here.
When you start abusing people as “hallucinating” you’re giving up any claims of being here in good faith. You haven’t engaged with the answers given you despite repeated requests (ie. from Nerdypants, who was giving you the benefit of the doubt – as was I, to begin with). This last post is full of passive-aggressive nonsense and demands that we do things for you. Nope, not happening. You had a chance to talk in good faith and showed that you’re not really interested in doing so.
Now it’s dictionary troll territory too – wahh, those sites by different people say different things, waaahhh, it’s all too difficult! Has it occurred to you that feminism isn’t a monolithic entity, that (gasp) different people will have different ideas, that there will be discussions and disagreements? Do you expect this sort of rigid adherence to one narrow meaning for other political, social or religious movements? If not, why do you expect it of feminism?
Seriously, this I’m-so-rational above-it-all troll stuff is old. We’ve seen it again and again, and yes, that’s why you’re being called a sock, because it’s sooooo familiar.
If you’re not, how about going away and having a think about the effect you’re having, instead of complaining more and more?
Actually, this isn’t too much of a spoiler since we find out in the very first scene zie is in – Maledict is a vampire. There is a direct connection between the coffee and the vampirism.
You should have been *completely* quiet.
0/10 !
Nah, I enjoy being bitchy to you, so 10/10.
Sometimes, Dawkins could make sense, but to me he mostly seemed to be a tool. He was certainly fond of the sound of his own voice and loved presuming the logic in his own head was unassailable even (or especially) when it was blindingly obvious it is was just an unsupported opinion.
Which reminded me of Poxy. I have the impression he didn’t know and therefore couldn’t believe he was trolling. Which reminded me of Dawkins, though not quite the tool that Dawkins was. I think Poxy wanted to mean well, but did’t realize the baggage he is hauling makes it difficult. His irrational hatred of lawyers didn’t allow him to see the point made back to him that for a lawyer to use mysoginy to defend his client, that mysoginy has to exist in the community where the jurors are drawn from, otherwise the jury couldn’t be swayed by it.
Oh well…
Speaking of that horrible case, in the 1980s, a LAPD detective told me that a defendent claiming that the child made them do it was a confession of guilt under California law. The victim’s behavior had no relevance because an underage child cannot consent.
On a lighter note, all this talk of Indian food is driving me crazy (in a good way.) Speaking of the 1980s, I ran across an Indian dish then which the chef just called dry fried spinach. Full of garlic and chilis, the spinach leaves were a cross between wilted and dried, I have lusted after that dish ever since that liittle place closed. Can anyone make a wild guess as to what an Indian might call this dish?
C’mon, Poxy, I’m still engaging you in good faith here, or trying to get a message across. You don’t seem to be reciprocating. If you don’t want to be taken for a troll, don’t act like one. It isn’t hard.
joanimal – best summation of Dawkins ever, lol!
That’s interesting about what the LAPD officer told you. Reminds me of a horrible thing I read years ago, a man saying his victim was encouraging him, patting the bed for him to sit down, touching his knee and so on. The victim was his four-year-old granddaughter. I don’t know the outcome of that case but I hope he is still in prison, assuming he’s still alive.
1. “His irrational hatred of lawyers…” should have been “For example, his irrational hatred of lawyers…”
2. Poxy, please stop digging that damn hole…
Speaking of vampires, anyone else here read Order of the Stick? *goes to rock in a corner*
Poxy, your continual lack of a point is boring, please run along. It’s like you’re actively trying to hit as many derailing for dummies points as possible.
As one of those people for whom sexual abuse proved far less harmful than religious indoctrination, I have to say denying that some of us do suffer long term as a result of religious indoctrination is no better than Dawkins’ implication most sexual abuse is less harmful than religious indoctrination. It’s a nuanced matter. Religious indoctrination and sexual abuse are nuanced matters. Everyone’s experience with one or both will differ so there will be no one right answer for everyone. The fact Dawkins is an incredibly insensitive, dismissive, condescending old man, blind to many of his privileges doesn’t mean what he believes doesn’t apply to some people.
marinerachel – I really hope I didn’t say anything that gives the impression I don’t think religious indoctrination can be lastingly traumatic; if I did, I apologise. You summed up the matter (and Dawkins!) very well.
@The Kittehs’:
And to me it’s old that everything is old to you. Also the WW2-term, it’s a given but it’s still interesting, psychologically. It’s like playing chess, guessing the moves (my top elo right now is 1453!).
Because it hurts me how you treat me, especially Cassandra.
Hi, MRAL.
@ marinrachel
Dawkins has a truly special ability to insult multiple groups of people at one time, including the groups of people who he’s pretending to defend. It’s like privilege cubed.
marinerachel — I’m sorry if my anger at Dawkins came off as minimizing religious abuse/indoctrination. I just think that he’s amazingly insensitive and that trying to creat some universal hierarchy of abuse will do more harm than good. And, in my book, religious abuse is emotional abuse which had damned well be considered abuse or you can take your ball and go home! Actually, everything I just said fits with what you said huh? I’m tired >.<
That all aside, I’m really sorry religion was used to harm you, in a sense, that is particularly shitty, you’re supposed to be able to trust religious figures.