Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2018 21:51:22 GMT -5
YUSSSS (I was going to post an image of a potato gun, but the search results offered a list of YouTube videos - I foresaw being sucked into a time vortex, and becoming depressed. So... sorry. )
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 30, 2018 9:22:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 30, 2018 11:52:53 GMT -5
Ronan Farrow is kicking ass and taking names, and I find him very interesting. I get the impression he's on a personal crusade to avenge himself against other abusers the way he couldn't against his own father. (Woody Allen is, IMO, at least as sick as Moonves or Weinstein or any of these other creeps... he just hasn't been proven guilty of anything technically illegal.)
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 31, 2018 15:46:14 GMT -5
On Schneiderman and the "rough sex" discussion we had a few pages back, there's this piece, which I think is excellent and does a great job of explaining things: longreads.com/2018/07/25/the-rub-of-rough-sex/From it (it's a very personal piece for the author):
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 1, 2018 9:50:35 GMT -5
I find it hard to sympathize with the author of this piece, though it does sound like she was abused by her boyfriends. They may have been seething misogynists wearing feminism like sheep's clothing, but she admits that she went back for more and that she enjoyed it. Yet repeatedly, almost by rote, she informs us that this was contrary to her intellect and her ideals, implying, I guess, that it's all a form of patriarchal brainwashing that made her like rough sex. She is a poster child for the feminist chick who wants equality in theory but in fact loves the dangerous bad boy, makes excuses for this attraction that disavow any choice or agency on her part, and refuses to consider that maybe this pattern isn't 100% socially constructed, that there is more to men gravitating towards a dominant posture and women gravitating towards dominant men than artificial patriarchy convincing us all to play a role.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Aug 1, 2018 12:30:15 GMT -5
Two paragraphs from the article really stand out to me.
I see her condemning "the system." and rightly so, for allowing the "rough sex" defense for non-consensual acts. OTOH, I also note that in cases where her personal autonomy was violated, she also allowed the "rough sex" defense to her assailants, even though they violated the one inviolable law of such relationships. I find this dichotomy between the personal and the political leaves me cold.
Quite clearly, Schneiderman and her boyfriend were guilty of similar criminal acts and both should have been prosecuted.
She seems to me to be no more "woke" than those who are doing the abusing.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 1, 2018 12:54:43 GMT -5
I disagree,I think, with those two takes. It seems to me that she's acknowledging her own "failure" in this regard. As she says, "relationships are complicated and painful." We need to allow for the reality that not everyone is has their shit together, emotionally and psychologically. I'd guess that she fell back into these relationships, even though they were abusive, because she hoped/imagined that things would be better. She's hardly the first person to make such a mistake and she won't be the last.
I think you guys are being a little rough on her (no pun intended).
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 1, 2018 14:19:20 GMT -5
I'm being rough on her for two reasons:
1. I might be sympathetic to someone who can't help being attracted to someone who's bad for them, but not when they put all the blame on society, or the other person, or anyone but themselves. I mean, presumably she was not hypnotized; these "dangerous men" didn't have the power to make her want them, or choose to stay with them. And this isn't even the traditional "abused woman" situation where it's hard to leave because she's been conditioned and/or she's dependent and/or she's in fear for her life - no, she just wanted them to fuck her, even if she knew they weren't good relationship material. And then she writes a long essay about how this is all the Patriarchy's fault.
2. As I noted, all the denials that any of this behavior could be rooted in anything but artificial social constructs. Men act dominant, avoid looking weak? It's society inflicting "toxic masculinity" on them. Aggressive and dominant men often behave in ways the women who want to be fucked by them would prefer they didn't? "Masculinity is broken." Women are attracted to dominant men, and often (shamefully! regretfully! With horror, even!) like being submissive? The Patriarchy made 'em do it!
I mean, I am not endorsing the "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" extreme form of evpsych-based biological determinism here, but like most feminist writers in this space, she won't even consider the possibility that there might be something more to these familiar, stereotypical, and very, very common behavior patterns throughout history than an oppressive patriarchal society making it all up and shoving it into our heads.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 1, 2018 17:20:26 GMT -5
I mean, I am not endorsing the "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" extreme form of evpsych-based biological determinism here, but like most feminist writers in this space, she won't even consider the possibility that there might be something more to these familiar, stereotypical, and very, very common behavior patterns throughout history than an oppressive patriarchal society making it all up and shoving it into our heads. Generally speaking and not referring to this particular author or her experiences of which I know not: I don't know how you can use familiar, stereotypical, and very, very common behavior patterns in the same sentence to refer to the same thing. As far as throughout recent history, at least, so many very, very common behavior patterns are in all likelihood due to an oppressive patriarchal society. I mean, read the fucking Bible for example. Or watch Mad Men. Or watch a 1970's game show. It's fucking bizarre what people have very recently believed (and in some cases still believe) about "the sexes" and sex and women and men. It is so much better than it was, but I'm 46 and I remember, so... I think we're not quite completely au naturale yet.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 1, 2018 18:08:07 GMT -5
Generally speaking and not referring to this particular author or her experiences of which I know not: I don't know how you can use familiar, stereotypical, and very, very common behavior patterns in the same sentence to refer to the same thing. As far as throughout recent history, at least, so many very, very common behavior patterns are in all likelihood due to an oppressive patriarchal society. I mean, read the fucking Bible for example. Or watch Mad Men. Or watch a 1970's game show. It's fucking bizarre what people have very recently believed (and in some cases still believe) about "the sexes" and sex and women and men. It is so much better than it was, but I'm 46 and I remember, so... I think we're not quite completely au naturale yet.
I used them to refer to the same thing in the same way I might describe a horse as "large, brown, and ill-tempered." They are all adjectives referring to the same thing. See?
I am not sure if you're disagreeing with me that dominant men and women being attracted to dominant men has been an almost universal phenomenon throughout history, or if you are disagreeing with me that there is reason to believe that this phenomenon may not be 100% socially constructed. Or if you are making some other point entirely.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 1, 2018 18:52:54 GMT -5
I used them to refer to the same thing in the same way I might describe a horse as "large, brown, and ill-tempered." They are all adjectives referring to the same thing. See? No, but I might be missing you just being clever. The point of something being stereotypical is that it is a widely held but oversimplified and often false belief. That I agree with. But to call the behavior familiar (something we've all seen many times) and very very common in the same sentence strikes me as a contradiction. I think the behaviors originated based on survival a very, very long time ago. I think with civilization and modernization, the natural evolutionary changes have been stymied (though not entirely) by those in power, in this case, the patriarchy. I think social messages about how male/female relationships are "supposed" to play out have affected men and women's behavior far more and far longer than any remnants of natural/survival instincts.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 1, 2018 19:11:25 GMT -5
"Stereotypical" usually implies oversimplified and false, but what makes behavior stereotypical may in some cases be the fact that it's actually common - i.e., not inaccurate. I think the behaviors originated based on survival a very, very long time ago. I think with civilization and modernization, the natural evolutionary changes have been stymied (though not entirely) by those in power, in this case, the patriarchy. I think social messages about how male/female relationships are "supposed" to play out have affected men and women's behavior far more and far longer than any remnants of natural/survival instincts.
Actually, I doubt this. If we are hypothesizing that evolution has at least some role in sexual behavior, then at what point did civilization and modernization make being dominant and aggressive no longer a positive survival trait for men? And thus an attractor for women?
Our modern civilization has only been around for a short time in evolutionary terms. I don't think, if you accept that our brains still operate according to some hardwired behaviors, that it's been long enough to really change much of our pre-industrial (heck, pre-agriculture) instincts.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 1, 2018 19:18:57 GMT -5
"Stereotypical" usually implies oversimplified and false, but what makes behavior stereotypical may in some cases be the fact that it's actually common - i.e., not inaccurate. Pffft. If that's true, why do so many people not act in the 'stereotypical' way?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 1, 2018 19:32:18 GMT -5
Because humans are sapient and have more agency than animals. We can choose to act contrary to our instincts. There is a reason we still experience "fight or flight" reactions, though, even in situations where our intellect tells us neither fight nor flight is necessary.
I also suspect that we have a wider degree of variability than animals, and to a degree, that our brief time evolving in "civilization" has begun to change us. But that's just a theory from a non-biologist.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 1, 2018 20:06:34 GMT -5
It's funny because I was just thinking about anxiety in relation to this conversation - I have this weird type of anxiousness that feels very instinctive but that I can successfully talk myself out of. (I don't presume this is the solution to anxiety, obviously.) In certain situations (e.g., driving over an overpass where you can't see anything but sky on either side of the road) I get all the symptoms, heart palpitations, sweating, nausea, the fear is real - but I have learned what to say inside my head in a very purposeful and specific way. I've done this over and over and trained myself out of my natural instinct. So, yay sapience.
Maybe instead of evolving I should have said adapting. We adapt because we use our brains.
eta: Sorry, I got interrupted and completely forgot the conversation topic. I think the way men and women act in romantic situations a lot of times could be because they've been informed of how they are supposed to act, and have completely internalized acting as they do, as opposed to naturally feeling that way. I think it almost can't be helped, with media exposure from a very young age. Though, again, it's better now, because media is becoming more varied and gives lots of options - not only for how a romance could develop but often how it doesn't, and it's okay, instead of devastating. More humor and reality and such. I think we're seeing more variations in today's actual romances and relationships, too, especially with young people. It's mostly some of my own generation I tend to give the side-eye to.
|
|