Sharing stories of violence.

The other night, I went to see Spider-man. I'd read several reviews indicating that it was a different kind of superhero movie.

Some parts of it I liked. But the love interest story line had me seething. Lots of little quibbles, but two big ones.

One involved a rape scene, in which the girl next door is chased into an alley by several thugs on a rainy night. They push against her, pull out a knife, get her coat off so her clingy dress gets even more clingy.

Then the hero swings into action while she stands there. Once he's beaten down the thugs, she asks to kiss him, and she does, very sexily.

I cannot remember one review that even mentioned there'd be a rape scene in the movie. But then, it's so commonplace in entertainment, why mention it?

As well, I don't recall any review criticizing the movie for leaning on such a tired old cliche. I don't know of many women who feel sexy and want to french kiss a complete stranger in disguise after being threatened with a knife, do you?

Although your underlying point may be valid, you are looking for some realism from a film that is about a guy who mutates with a spider into a superhero and swings amongst buildings, bashes the bad guys with his amazing webs, defeats the evil character who is depicted as beholden to the capitalist-military-industrial complex, and in the end, the superhero... (well, I won't ruin the ending for those who haven't seen it, but it ain't conventional Hollywood fare!)

Valid point, perhaps, but please don't ask for realism from a summer blockbuster film about a superhero!!!

(Though it is more anti-capitalist, anti-military than your usual Hollywood fodder!)

I'm waiting for reviewers to warn guys when a film features a woman kicking a guy in the 'nuts' for laughs, as every second movie seems too.

quote:

---

So why do some guys insist that we're focusing on them first of all when, actually, we're not?

---

Whenever a guy in this forum makes a generalization about women, we justifiably jump all over him. We ask him to not apply stereotypes and generalizations to us because they're misleading and often harmful.

In the spirit of fairness, should we not extend the same consideration to them? Why should we expect them to swallow it uncomplainingly when we make statements like, "all men ... blah blah blah"?

quote:

---

This is not entertainment for a significant number of the world's population.

---

Depends on your idea of what constitutes significant (it is approx half and half!), but it makes buckets of cash for Hollywood and until they can be convinced more cash can be made by changing the fodder, they ain't gonna change it!

quote:

---

And for a "different" kind of superhero movie, it's gender play is old old old old old and as shitty as what you'll find in films from the 1950s.

---

Were you expecting Hollywood, that bastion of feminism, to be leading the charge? Your point is valid, I am just unsure why you sound surprised?

quote:

---

And here we are in a new era, with the same old garbage about women.

---

What new era? Said who?

quote:

---

I don't take analytical discussions of racism personally, although I'm a white woman and am in no doubt at all of the advantages that gives me

---

skdadl, I believe you completely. However, I have also seen a lot of people react extremely negatively to statements about racism and (for lack of a better word) first-world-ism. "But it's not [b]my[/b] fault" is the constant refrain.

"All Canadians benefit from the exploitation of the South."

"All white Canadians benefit from the theft of native land."

These are statements I believe, but I don't usually find them useful in casual conversation with the unconverted. (Not that babble is such a forum.)

My answer is that it is not about blame, it is about recognising where you fit in an unequal society. If you do not understand the power you have, for example, you are likely to use it inappropriately, by accident. This is something that we (male eurocanadians, say, in my case) have to learn, and why I think it is worthwhile meditating about what the statement "all men benefit from rape" means, along with the other ones above. (Hint: they do not mean that all men are rapists, that all eurocanadians are thieves, or that everyone who lives in Canada works for the IMF.)

Furthermore, the correct response is not necessarily to "reject the benefit". Sometimes there is the obligation to use the power / advantage / benefit that you have in order to rectify the balance. Sometimes, there is the obligation to recognise the unfair advantage and explictly counteract it.

It is not just up to the oppressed to reject their oppression. Nor is it just up to the oppressors to stop. "Innocent" third parties also have the responsibility to understand.

In all cases, one can only find the right path through a recognition of reality.

I find attractive the argument that we would all benefit from living in an egalitarian world. However, there are certainly some people who currently enjoy far too much privilege, and probably would have fewer benefits in such a world -- and there are more who fear that that would be the case. So helping those people to understand that they have nothing to fear is another responsibility that comes from understanding what the current power relationships are, and how damaging they are.

This argument is slightly easier to make in terms of socio-economic privilege than gender/racial privilege, because your socio-economic privilege can vanish overnight, and then you might wish that you had supported a better social safety net.

Making the argument in the case of factors which are slightly less subject to change requires a vision which endorses collectivity, the concept of society, social rights and social goals (what I would call socialism for lack of a better word).

There are, of course, those who honestly believe that unshackling the invisible hand of the market is sufficient, and that collective goals are meaningless. There are others who believe that the only path to collectivism is through the swamp of violent change.

I remain convinced that both of those strategies are erroneous. And, from a pragmatic viewpoint, the evidence is that neither has been particularly effective. I put my faith in clarity of vision, clarity of communications, trust in others, and a commitment to non-violence.

quote:

---

Surely, Apemantus, you've heard of feminism. Surely you've heard that things were meant to be different now to the way they were back in the bad old days.

---

Yeah, and who says that? Not the feminists, who knew what a long struggle it was gonna be, just the people with a vested interest in saying things had changed when they hadn't!

But, really, expecting either the film reviewing community or Hollywood to be providing examples of a new era is like looking to Iraq for examples of new human rights!

quote:

---

Yeah, and who says that? Not the feminists, who knew what a long struggle it was gonna be, just the people with a vested interest in saying things had changed when they hadn't!

---

Still, if you lack any kind of empathy for those who expect or hope for anything better... well, I don't think much of that. We can't all be as wised-up and worldly as you, Apemantus.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

(from Mandos, who makes some excellent points)

Then finally there is the question of guilt in one's own relationships. If all women are oppressed by the behaviour of some men, in such a way that makes all men responsible, then some men may feel that there relationships with the women in their lives are...what's a good word...less authentic maybe.

---

Yep. Not something you want to think about all the time, really. I live in Perъ -- the complexity of being a white northerner in Perъ colours all my relationships with everyone here. It is not easy. But guilt is not useful -- it is paralytic.

I hope that I have achieved authentic relationships (friendship, work, ...) with Peruvians, but I don't believe this would have been possible without an understanding of the privilege I am accorded, just because of my skin-colour, height, and gender. Awareness is the first responsibility.

quote:

---

Next week:

We analyse the feminist influences in Joe Esterhaz' screenplays.

---

Laugh all you like, Apemantus, but there were no better examples of explicitly [i]anti[/i]-feminist movies than, say, [i]Basic Instinct[/i], or -- a non-Eszterhas product -- [i]Fatal Attraction[/i].

Now, Eszterhas, by some accounts, can't get his calls returned these days, and maybe these movies couldn't get made either. Maybe. But it would only be because the studios were afraid of protests.

Think Hollywood's just a dream factory, with no connection to the RealWorld (tm)? Rubbish. There's considerable politics involved in the decisions as to what does and does not get made -- an indirect, subterranean, confused, and tacit politics to be sure, but politics, nonetheless. And sometimes not so indirect, etc.

quote:

---

"All Canadians benefit from the exploitation of the South."
"All white Canadians benefit from the theft of native land."

---

These are generalizations that most can agree with, with some exceptions. There are some aboriginal Canadians who live outside the mainstream economy and therefore don't benefit from the exploitation of the two-thirds world. And, I believe, all non-aboriginal residents of Canada benefit from the theft of native land. Hell, the US, Dutch, British and French air forces benefit from the theft of Innu airspace.

It can be stated, in fact, that most if not all members of the minority economic class that consumes most of the world's product benefits economically, in the short term, from the oppression and exploitation of most of the world's population. I say in the short term, because the rapacious rate of our consumption at the expense of others is not sustainable.

Here are a few more generalizations to add to the mix:

It's almost always okay to make generalizations about structures of power and oppression.

It's almost always a bad idea to make sweeping generalizations based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] back at you.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

Well, the "all men benifit" statement kind of derailed this discussion, and while I don't regret that statement being challenged, I do regret that the thread has drifted from it's very important origin, and any role I played in that.

I thought more on this last night, specifically about "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" kind of thing.

Besides bluster from behind a keyboard, what do I actually DO to stop the kinds of things writer and others talked about? This is the question I asked myself, very much afraid I might come up with "nothing".

But, happily I didn't. I'm not a superhero, or knight in shining armour, but I recal that I've been in places or situations where I was concerned for the safety of complete strangers. I've dallied in parking lots late at night, say, for a women to get past the wannabe toughs hanging out at the 7-11 to her car. I've lingered in stores when I've seen female clerks handling trouble customers. When I've given rides to my daughter's friends, we always sit and wait until they've actually got into thier home before driving away. I've seen couples having squabbles in public, and I never just walk away until I know the woman is not in physical danger.

I don't mention this so I get Kudos for being a SNAG, or to say "look at me! I'm a hero!" I think quite honestly that I'm not that special, that I'm probably rather typical. Lord knows, everytime I do get to thinking I'm something special, the Universe seems to serve up a heapin' helpin' of mom's humble pie.

So, what I'm getting at is there IS probably a lot of men who do things that go un-noticed. Maybe they go a few stops past their own on the bus because they see something they don't like, and go home feeling foolish because it turned out to be nothing. Or maybe just being there prevented something from happening. We'll never know. Which is good.

The only people that can solve the problems of male violence towards women, are the men themselves.

Well, we can either apply the standard theory of Charles Darwin and just toss all rapists and child molesters onto Ellesmere Island buck naked in winter.

Or we can remove the underlying causes and motivations that are precursors to these acts of violence.

The men talking to men strategy is nice, but unsolicited conversations on this subject are probably going to puzzle a lot of people [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] I was thinking more along the lines of how do you present arguments to men that will allow them to accept responsibility for it. That is to say, most men will have the "not my brother's keeper" reaction to any discussion of violence against women, and if you try to justify it using arguments given on this thread, you get the "I'm not a rapist" reaction.

quote:

---

The problem is how to phrase these issues
in such a way that men will not feel so personally attacked as to be alienated from feminist ideas entirely; I know someone will object right here and say that feminists shouldn't pander to men, and I agree. But its a fine line to walk if you want to be understood and ultimately taken in a friendly way by men who are, presumably, well-meaning

---

One of the difficulties is that feminist theory does not always translate well as a tool for addressing gender inequity. The kinds of provocative statements Dworkin makes are more intellectual tools for understanding the roots of patriarchy and the forms it takes. They aren't the kind of thing to get the average guy onside - they're critical, often offensive and alienating, and virtually the antithesis of a consensus-building approach to social change.

You don't educate someone by yelling FIX THIS, ASSHOLE!

I dunno, I find it highly unlikely that most men want to be told that they are [b]personally[/b] evil oppressors of the women they live with. I've never seen anyone accept or believe that.

quote:

---

Though, conversely, that is exactly the sort of language some men understand. Touchy-feely can be as alienating to some men as a punch in the balls

---

Those are two extremes, neither of which would, in my opinion, be effective. Nor is depositing blame, however righteous, the way to go about coalition-building for change.

Then again, some people are just assholes, and will never change. And there ain't nuthin' you can do about that.

If I strip naked and set myself on fire, I'm going to get alot of attention too. But it won't change anything, it won't fix anything, and it'll hurt like hell.

quote:

---

I have a feeling it has a lot more to do with wanting to come home to a nice traditional woman and a home-cooked meal after a hard day of saving the world.

---

That's what I want. Where do I sign up for membership in the patriarchy?

quote:

---

Mandos we start with the men who are against violence towards women. Men can talk about it to other men at work etc.

---

Let me tell you a couple annecdotes concerning this kind of stuff.

There was a worker who was charged and found guilty of either sexually assaulting, or sexually interfering his sisters over a long period of time. His sisters waited for years to lay charges, but finally they did.

The worker served his sentence, and the company took him back at work. (!?) A circumstance and priveledge not extended to anyone else aside from workers who were given "weekend" jail.

On the workers return to work another worker took the position that he didn't want to work with this person, talk to this person, or otherwise share the planet, let alone the workplace, with this person.

This worker was told that if he continued in this vien, he'd have a human rights charge levied against him and would likely be fired.

One cannot discriminate, you see, against a person based on their criminal record or something along those lines.

**************

On one of those bad days I went through between my ex leaving and us obtaining a legal separation, I had to take jibes from a guy convicted of not just assaulting his wife, but also the female officer that arrested him.

It's pretty tough, to sit there having your life in ashes around you, and although there may have been assignable fault to me on this score, I CERTAINLY didn't do anything criminal. Yet this guy is happy as a lark, he goes home in a nice new truck and his life seems to be fairly well intact. Materialy, he's far ahead of me and younger.

And of course, in deffence of my job, and the responsibilities to my girls, I couldn't just do what that reptilian part of my brain was demanding I do, which was to put my hand around the soft bit of his neck and squeeze for the rest of his existance.

I should have. At least after ten years in prison I'd emerge debt free.

******************

Many years ago a somewhat popular guy, a married man with a small child, came under the influence of cocaine. Leaving a party, he noticed a young woman go into her apartment. She left the door unlocked and passed out on her couch. The guy found a knife, a paper bag, and entered her apartment and raped her. During the rape, she sustained deffensive wounds from the knife.

The guy ended up doing hard time. He stopped by the Union Office one day to wrap up his affairs before his sentencing. Conversation took place, and during this one Union rep, sensing the guys genuine remorse for what he did, offered up the "well, maybe she was kinda asking for it" platitude.

I wanted to do a melt into the wall kind of thing. Maybe some people would be angry, but sometimes you just hear somethings from some people that make you just want to join another species.

The person who got angry was the rapist. He explained how it wasn't the woman's fault, or the cocaine, it was him. He explained in no uncertain terms what an evil act he had done, how he deserved to go to jail, probably for longer than he was going to, (the Judge was moved by his remorse later, and didn't give him the maximum sentence) how he ruined several lives, excluding his own.

**************

At a picnic table in the plant we were discussing the rape case of another worker, years later. This involved the date rape drug, rohipnal. It's controvertial, and the original guilty verdict has since been overturned and a new trial ordered.

However, I was trying to explain that the point was that no matter what the victim did or agreed to before she took the drug, once under it's influence she was rendered unable to give informed consent to any sexual act; therefore it was rape.

"But still," the young co-worker responded, "She was stupid, she shouldn't have been where she was, gone where she did."

That young co-worker was a woman.

ya, we talk.

skadie: It makes no difference if you remove the "evil." I put it there for effect. I hope that we agree that oppression is evil. What is instantly read into "All men are oppresors" is the implication (by no means the only one) that "all men are evil."

It is [b]not[/b] the same as saying that "All people are racist" or even that "All white people (or whatever) are racist." Racism implies blinkeredness but not necessarily always evil. If you said that "All whites are oppressors", you would get quite a few defensive reactions--but since it doesn't hit so close to home (and this is important), it doesn't get as much. But the point is, if you were to say "All men benefit from sexism in a way that oppresses women--here's how" then you wouldn't get as many defensive reactions.

We've mostly explored the "oppress" part, I think, but we still haven't covered the "benefit" part satisfactorily--maybe later. I too hope for a world without violence, but don't imagine that we will ever get such a utopia--and the fact is, there is more inherent potential (sheer physics and anatomy) and incentive for men to commit sexual violence against women than vice versa. So I don't think we will ever achieve the utopia you are looking for, but we can compensate--and it is important to try. (I know that this last paragraph will be especially controversial [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] )

And I wouldn't camp alone either. And I'm a big guy. But maybe its because I don't like camping; though it still seems to me like a risky thing to do.

rape