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:
Way late on this but Falconer I’ll hold the twins if you need a minute to compose yourself over the latest OOTS plot. Vampires! Whatever V’s doing! Don’t split the party…again!
If we’re relying on Roy, Haley and Elan, well, I almost hope Elan gets distracted by his banjo god. At least Haley and Roy can hold their own (against the entire Linear Guild? This looks bad…)
*goes back to rocking in a corner*
Argenti: For example, murder is wrong, that’s a nearly universal ethical belief, whether your god has called it immoral because it’s immoral, or you see it as immoral because your god says it’s immoral, the difference there is moot as the end result is the same — you, like the rest of us, see murder as immoral.
But the crime which is defined as, “murder” is different from place to place. In the Germanic/Nordic societies of the 7-11th centuries murder (as opposed to homicide) was killing someone in secret. If you said, “yes, I killed him” then it wasn’t murder.
Morality is a social construct. What we call “evil” is certain violations of those constructs. When cultures have a very different take on something; to the point on group thinks the other is fond of, “evil”, there is usually painful friction.
Pecunium — you around? I’d love to see you give Poxy a good dose of Kant!
Kant is, for the purposes of this discussion, difficult, not least because he was very religious, and people have a hard time separating that from the underpinnings of his moral imperatives.
But, when all is said and done, the Categorical Imperatives don’t rely on outside forces, but (and this is another problem with them) they suffer from the ability of people who have a lack of the empathetic compass (which seems to underpin most of what we think of as, “evil”, and ties into the Germanic/Nordic definitions of murder; having to do with the ability to establish redress for the death of someone) can decide that, “this is a universal rule for all mankind”, while ignoring the idea that people are ends, in and of themselves, and not means.
This is where Nietzsche gets misunderstood, with his understanding that one who has internalised morality (in effect the Categorical Imperatives of Kant) will then be able to dispense with conventional behavior becoming the idea that they free to do whatever they want; and so become a law unto themselves.
Counter you own point, of course.
The problem is moral relativism. There was a time in Ancient Rome when killing a slave wasn’t seen as that bad, while killing an ingenuus was horrible.
So what can you do if a religious person claims that the only way not to suffer from that relativism is to listen to God’s commandments? With Euthyphro’s dilemma you can at least prove that right or wrong must exist independently from God.
Was MRAL ever on the light side?
Kant thought wanking is evil. Therefore Kant is refuted.
@Argenti
Hopefully I’m not leaving you alone with Poxy, but I have to get to bed. I’ll be falling asleep at the internet again soon and that can’t be good for my dreams. *casts meaningful look at the troll*
@Poxy
Just fuck off.
Gemmules. Ergo Darwin is refuted.
@Argenti:
Evelyn Evelyn 😉
@Pecunium:
But if they violate means/ends here, I would say that’s not enough for a reductio ad absurdum of Kant.
Some Gal — no, you’re leaving me alone with Reid ^.^ G’night!
Pecunium — fair enough that the definition of murder, or any given crime really, is culturally bound, but that’s not really relevant to whether religious people are more able to determine, and abide by, morality than non-religious people. Hell, even religious morality is culturally bound.
“Morality is a social construct. What we call “evil” is certain violations of those constructs. When cultures have a very different take on something; to the point on group thinks the other is fond of, “evil”, there is usually painful friction.”
Tangentially, how much do you know about the end of ritual cannibalism? And/or kuru?
Poxy, that example is relevant because the people practicing that particular strain of ritual cannibalism did it for religious reasons, and science proved it dangerous, which is what led to the cessation of it. /massive oversimplification
Back to Pecunium, seeing how we both know that you know Kant way better than me, I shall defer to you on this and drop it.
Poxy — “counter your own point” wtf? From the relevant beginning:
Kitteh goes “wha?”
I say “I think he means…”
You reply with “counter with this…”
I ask if you mean you’re countering with it or I should counter my own point
You say I should counter my own point, of course
As if I intend to have a philosophical debate with myself for your viewing pleasure, no way is that happening.
Pecunium — I sort of get Nietzsche, that once you understand the social contracts we subscribe to you can create your own, I just can’t imagine intentionally killing someone without damned good reason to be acceptable. High heels being gender neutral again would be awesome though!
“Kant thought wanking is evil. Therefore Kant is refuted.”
Spot. That. Fallacy!!
Poisoning the well only scores you one point I’m afraid, you’ll have to troll harder next time.
Oh and no to this —
“Euthyphro’s dilemma you can at least prove that right or wrong must exist independently from God.”
You can’t prove that morality is independent of god using a debate over whether things are moral because god says, or whether god says things are moral because they’re inherently moral.
The first position there says that believers think that morality is ascribed by their god, the second says that believers think that god says things are moral because they inherently are. You’re little dilemma is entirely moot outside religious philosophy.
And for that matter, outside discussion of your religion’s philosophy. Thoughts on ritually consuming the bodies, and particularly the brains, of your dead relatives?
Technically not; original Mr. Al was Mr. Al, but not a sock puppet. But he is banned, so the set of people who can post and are Mr. Al is a subset of the set of sock puppets.
Poxy — FYI, Pecunium and I have a running conversation about Kant. In other words, he’s going for the simple version because he knows that I only sort of get Kant.
And Evelyn Evelyn is ridiculously ableist, and not funny. Also, terribly grating to listen to.
Pecunium — thank you for the continuing philosophy 101 lessons btw 🙂
katz — touché!
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table
David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel
There’s nothing Nietzche couldn’t teach ya
‘Bout the raising of the wrist
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill
Plato, they say, could stick it away
Half a crate of whiskey every day
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle
Hobbes was fond of his dram
And René Descartes was a drunken fart
I drink, therefore I am
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed
A lovely little thinker
But a bugger when he’s pissed
(The limit of my interest in philosophy!)
PS I tried to answer you a while back, Argenti, but wordpress ate my comment – I knew what PoxAl was getting at with his line about materialists not being able to distinguish evil from insanity.
Plus no need to tell us you’re evil, we know it. I mean, that
BasementCheshire Cat gravatar says it all! 😛O rly?
Actually this is what’s so stupid. You have occasionally interacted here like an intelligent and reasonable human being. You’re the only troll who people had some hopes would chuck all this MRM nonsense, go through your therapy and outgrow your baseless resentment of women. But then you’d throw a shitfit, real or feigned, start abusing people and being hateful in general. What was the point? One gigantic Poe effort?
Wouldn’t it be just as easy and a whole lot more enjoyable to be a decent person and use your brains instead of squandering them this way? It doesn’t have any long-term effects on us except scorn with a diminishing mixture of pity if we think about you at all, but it can’t be doing you any good. Wallowing in anger and obsessing over this site, pushing your way back in repeatedly, trying to show how smart and superior you are, fixating on Cassandra – that’s not mind games, that’s a messed-up mind.
@Poxy:
I’m glad you can see that. Though in the case of child abuse against children who are very young, you had a fair point, it is pretty-much utterley condemned by our society.
And what of your leap from ‘paedophiles can’t be reformed’ to ‘rapists can’t be reformed’? Have you rethought that? Because I don’t see any evidence that Rapist is an orientation like Paedophile is.
The recent rape decline suffers from a correlation/causality problem, even without the lead hypothesis. However, I would have thought the mechanism alone would have been enough to convince? Consider marital rape specifically – doesn’t it seem self-evident to you that if men think of sex within a marriage as a “conjugal right”, that they are more likely to rape their wives?
“Poxy” has been banned.
As for the decline in crime, my take on this is that no one knows why crime declined. There is no definitive explanation, and it’s not clear that different sorts of crime declined for the same reasons.
Like Nerdypants, I’m going to go out on a giant limb and suggest that changing perceptions of rape, driven largely by feminism/rape awareness programs, etc, had something to do with it. And certainly a lot more to do with it than, say, the decline of the crack epidemic did.
@joanimal
Sorry to drag this back up but I had a quick look in my Indian cooking bible and a first glance gave me Badaam vaali Palak. It’s spinach quickly cooked with panch poran, ginger, garlic, and chilli.The spinach is first quickly wilted to glaze it with the spices and then dried. It sounds similar.
*loves Indian cooking*
Sorry, Kitteh.
Wow, the banhammer came out. … I’m really not very good at this.
David, was zie a sock or just irritating? Or both?
ROFL!
Actually that’s really funny timing, I was walking through a food court this arvo that was full of the smell of Indian cooking, and thinking about all our food talk here, and that one more reason I can’t come at Indian food is that I dislike the odour.
I had a curious combination gelato tonight – strawberry with rosewater and flakes of chocolate. Not as nice as it sounds, alas. The rosewater was an odd sort of flavour, and pretty well killed the strawberry. Shan’t be trying it again. It’s a pity, because I’ve long fancied knowing what rose-flavours are like; when Mr K was little he wrote to his father asking for more rose-jam to be sent to St-Germain, because his guards kept eating it all and he was afraid there wouldn’t be any left for him. 🙂
Nerdypants – Poxy pretty much admitted he was Mr Al upthread. Don’t feel bad, it’s the regulars who dealt with him in his original incarnation who recognised him. I didn’t.
I was laughing (not at you!) on whatever thread it was when you were naming all the foods you can’t stand because IIRC,they are all my favourite. Indian food is absolutely my favourite and I make all my own masalas, spice pastes,pickles,chutneys,etc.
But I’ll eat pretty much anything except raw fennel.
Strawberry and rosewater sounded interesting…sounds like they went too heavy on the rosewater. Do you like Turkish delight?
I banned Poxy because I’ve been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt he’s MRAL.
Hey, cloudiah, would it be possible for you to send me a couple of the articles you mentioned upthread — the “your a slut” one and the one about the troll in a feminist forum?
Ah, MRAL, the gift that keeps giving.