right?

So what are you saying?

It seems you are saying that we should not concentrate on reducing the incidence of rape because, according to these graphs you found, the incidence of rape has declined. Further you seem to be saying that reducing rape is a battle of our childhood.

Is that what you are saying with this? If so, are you really certain you want to be saying that?

Reducing violent crime, including rape, is best served by continuing what we're doing in that regard.

Meanwhile, threats to our wellbeing and our very existence as a species are being inadequately addressed.

don't need to do any more to reduce it? Because of global warming?

that said that.

PS. No, dear, I'm not a member of the History of Feminism (see, it's OK to use the word) group.

Let's focus on what they are.

and the someone who isn't there keeps saying things that aren't actually being said.

Odd, to say the least.

than what he stated very clearly and unemotionally, it's only in your own head it 'seems' so.

PS. No, dear, I'm not a member of the History of Feminism (see, it's OK to use the word) group.

directly, without any extraneous emotional content, sarcasm or snark.

you otoh, have included obvious and clear snark. it doesn't just 'seem' like snark -- there is no other reason for calling the poster 'dear' unless he is your dear.

and we know he's not.

is this passive-aggressive shit combined with denial supposed to exemplify feminism?

Perhaps if you read what has been edited, this will make more sense to you.

representative of feminism, no wonder so many women don't want that label these days.

I repeat: Is lumberjack jeff your "dear"?

You want to play games, feel free, but don't think you're fooling anyone.

every native english speaker understands the connotation of calling someone 'dear' who *isn't* one's 'dear,' my dear.

perhaps if you read the comments that were subsequently edited out, this might make more sense to you.

At any rate, "dear" is not a dirty word, dear. You can take all the umbrage you want, but it still won't make it an insult.

Which country handled the banking crisis rationally?

The most feminist country.

That is not a coincidence.

Surely you don't think that helps.

And no, Germany is far from the most feminist country.

The fact is we need women at the table. Shutting out women's voices is holding us back. That's all there is to it.

Your attempt to rally people to ignore the issues that feminists are fighting for is offensive.

But again... not germane to the OP.

Violence is decreasing because of the social trends that exist now. We need to extend that progress, and my view is that this can best be accomplished by focusing on the emergent problems that face us today.

ordinary women.

hilary clinton, condoleeza rice, sarah palin -- none of them represent me. they all represent the rich and powerful in their various ways.

having more women in politics does nothing so long as money controls politics.

your attempt to imply that women are genetically 'kinder and gentler' than men is offensive and sexist.

More women vote dem, though.

Please see my other reply to you re: your straw man nonsense. Now you're labeling it "sexist" too. Charming.

claim is ridiculous and sexist.

problem is not all it's cracked up to be.

only with issues most important to feminists? Surely, not.

To sum up, the idea in the OP is that feminist issues are not worth focusing on

My counterargument is that women are still vastly underrepresented, in large part due to the issues the OP characterizes as minor and not worth directing energy toward, and that correcting that situation will help.

a) Global warming, wealth inequality, corporate control and civil liberties erosion are or at least should be feminist values.
b) You are not the sole arbiter of what are, or are not, feminist issues. What I am saying is that the social trends that are reducing violence (including rape) already exist in what you alternately describe as "the rape culture" and "the patriarchy".

Either those concepts are false or they deserve the credit for creating a safer society. I'd argue the former.

of our time and attention?

However, perhaps you know lj better and have read other OPs? Nor did I see where he characterized those issues as minor. The "issues of our childhood" was certainly clumsy phrasing and I might have been tempted to ask for clarification.... When more women run for office, more women will be elected...because men have more easy access to the finances needed to run, they do. Getting money out of politics would go a long way toward serving the purpose of equal representation for women, imo. But that's a discussion for another day

Thanks for clarifying.

The solutions appropriate to today's problems need to take into account what they actually are.

that need to be addressed which do concern women more directly. There has been little to no progress on equal pay, for example. Or employer provided daycare, just two examples. While violent crime is significantly down...the problem has certainly not been eradicated.
The GINI coefficient would be much lower, if women were paid equally.

any number of other attributes.

putting women in positions of power per se does fuck-all for anything. women are not inherently kinder than men.

I'm saying we need diversity, and having women severely underrepresented is hurting us.

And that underrepresentation is due to many factors, some of which the OP seems to think are old news

I guess the Paycheck Fairness Act and VAWA are unnecessary to some. I'm glad not everyone thinks so.

I couldn't give less of a shit whether they are men or women - a decidely non-sexist approach.

But yeah, if your favorite group is "history of *anything*" it is likely that your focus will be on old news.

But here is the real kicker: Why does the OP frame feminist issues as being no longer necessary or deserving of energy?

We all saw how Hillary Clinton was treated. We all saw the global outcry after widely publicized gang rapes on several countries. We all see how the women who speak out about these issues have been attacked for speaking out.

Why this kind of OP, now?

Why no commentaries on VAWA or the Paycheck Fairness Act from those who are focusing more on my posts here than the OP... when the OP would seem to disagree with the need for those democratic laws?

a. How did iceland get into the situation where their banks were allowed to do what they did in the first place with all those feminists around?

b. Iceland actually *did* bail out its financial system, contrary to popular memes.

Since people continue to spread the factually dubious statement that Iceland “told creditors & IMF to go jump, nationalised banks, arrested the fraudsters, gave debt relief and is now growing very strongly, thanks” I find I have to write this here thing.

http://studiotendra.com/2012/12/29/what-is-actually-going-on-in-iceland/


The rest of your post is smoke to distract from the claim you made.

Furthermore, your interpretation of the events and legislation you talk about is not the only one that exists.

That seems to be the bottom line, here.

Iceland is the new Favorite Country because they have a PM who has spoken about censoring the internet traffic the Island gets, specifically blocking all the nekkid pictures. Never mind that such a feat is probably impossible.

Apparently Iceland already prohibits printed porn, which must be a great detriment to would-be masturbating analog-minded hipsters who enjoy entertaining themselves old school, with magazines under the bathroom sink as they listen to vinyl on the vacuum tube stereo.

So due to it's "progressive" pro-censorship attitude, Iceland is, now like, the "Most Feminist-est Country, Evah!" although what that has to do with the banking scandal is beyond me.

I tell you what, though, I don't think it has to do with Banking.

b) are tea leaves a form of research?

it is just the dumbest measuring tool there is. A Gini index of 0.39 - what the fuck does that mean? Does anybody know, because I will admit that I do not, although I surely could look it up.

Point is, I have studied this issue for decades and that stupid scale is still incomprehensible to me.

The other thing is, the range of it. We are supposed to get all excited and upset because the Gini index has gone from 0.39 to 0.47. Whereas anybody looking at that, especially the vast, vast majority who cannot translate the Gini index into something tangible that they understand, is gonna see those two numbers as practically identical. 0.39 versus 0.47. I mean, what the fuck, that is less than a dime's worth of difference (to COIN a phrase).

I think we should be advocating for violence against people who use the Gini index.

But that's just my 8 cents.

Yeah, I'd prefer they publish a "suck-ometer" but this is what we've got.

A gini index of 0 is one in which everyone held an equal share of the nations wealth. An index of 1.0 is one in which one person owned all the wealth and the rest owned nothing.

Mexico is home to the worlds richest man, with a net worth of $71 billion, and yet they only attain a 48.3.

.35 is good. .50 is very bad.

To answer you fully, quite frankly would be more work than its worth. As well as a long essay, with graphs and figures. In fact, I'd have to teach a class.

Crime is down in the US due to successful legislation like the VAWA. Right? Can we, as a progressive entitled first world country see what can do to eradicate sexism, racism, rape, homophobia and heteronormative standards while living in a world that doesn't have the resources or sometimes the inclination to fight these things? Is that really too much to ask?

Medical care and costs are prohibitive, we've made a start. I'm not dropping my work for women's rights and rape victims because this is so.

Global warming is GLOBAL, the stats you've posted, which I've read myself as well as read learned analysis of, do NOT say we are winning the 'war against women' here or anywhere else, as state after state brings up legislation threatening womens autonomy over their own bodies. As the backlog of unprocessed rape kits is in the hundreds of thousands.

What I was going to bring up then, are GlOBAL rape statistics, rape as War weapon, violence against women worldwide. If you want to expand your argument, expand your mind just a bit. Join the one Billion rising movement to end violence against women. We empower women globally, we have a stronger chance at fighting society's ills. We eradicate hate because of race creed and color, we have more corporative nations. We have conversations. Maybe less war.

I won the 'battles' of my childhood long ago. I'm a healthy, happy women who is active in fighting for what she believes in. Kind of condescending of you to think otherwise

The kinds of solutions which work are those that can agree on a set of facts, including the fact that violent crime was 3x as big of a problem when I was a young adult.

VAWA 1994 surely deserves a part of the credit.

Violent crime is down, in the US. Why is that? I suspect a lot of it is driven by demographics. An aging population, for one.

But it's worth wondering why, exactly, there is such opposition to even mentioning these statistics. Is it because people won't take rape seriously? Doubtful. I think, if anything, there has been a movement towards taking rape more seriously in society~ look at the pressure put upon local officials in Steubenville, OH. The bright light of the internet combined with free and uncensored communication makes it difficult for people like the Sheriff and the local prosecutor to get away with the games they seem to have tried to play, there.

These numbers are only threatening if one is attached to promoting certain sociological, cultural narratives.

A statistically impossible-to-ignore decline in rape numbers makes these narratives seem ridiculously implausible.

Underreporting is a problem. It has been a problem, although hopefully due to increased awareness and pressure (i.e. FBI letter, improved UCR definitions, etc) it is becoming LESS of a problem.

The other factor is the trend: Observing that the trend with rape is trending downward, as it is with all forms of violent crime, is not apologia for rape or certainly a call for less expansive definitions, etc. And if the definitions are getting better, and awareness is increasing, etc. then the trend is even more pronounced than the data suggests.

None of which implies that there isn't underreporting of rape. However, for the statistical trend to be the exact opposite of reality (as some seem to believe) not only would underreporting have to have been a problem in the past, it would have to be a vastly WORSE problem now. Right?

Everyone wants to see rape addressed, reported, and prosecuted. No question. One rape is too many.

However, there are people whose sociocultural narratives depend on ideas like "rape is getting worse" because cultural factors which they have spent decades asserting are linked to rape, with no evidentiary basis, HAVE increased.

I think how I would say it is similar, rape is trending downward, according to official stats, and even if you take the factors I posted, it's still trending down. This is according to sources I trust. The overall numbers are still horrid, especially when seen over, say a decade. Another deal is the longer the time line, the easier it is for things like the actual definition of rape, un-prosecuted rapes etc. to get factored out.

It's a gendered issue, which makes it problematic to discuss.

You might say something along the lines of 'hey it getting better' and I respond with 'no it isn't, how can you even think that way when the numbers are still over 200,000 a year' then you might point out another type of crime statistic saying 'what about these numbers,' or 'the DOJ stats on rape are these' then I'd say 'what does that have to do with anything, the only rapes counted are what falls under the official definition of rape' and so forth

And then we are discussing nothing worthwhile.

I think the right answer is the numbers are improving, awareness is improving--there was a report of a reduction of rape in Vancouver BC from the 'Don't be that Guy' campaign--so educating young males is a good idea and there are several men's movements that doing this--because we want no rape at all of course, and everything we can do to stop it would be done by the majority of us here.

The by far large majority of men are not rapists, but we, women and men both participate in a culture that tends to minimize rape, blame the victim or in the case of certain other things such as advertising, capitalize on it. I call this rape culture. I think recall from previous posts that you don't agree with the idea of rape culture. I'm not here to argue that point.

(I'm not talking CSI horror rape--that's part of capitalizing--but the casual attitudes of entitled sexual activity. The 'I deserve sex' subtext you can't get anyone to admit to. But, that's another topic.)

I also think the Internet has opened a lot of dialogue, good and bad, so we hear about things like rape a lot more. It becomes a larger topic than it otherwise would be. People speak there mind and tell their stories. And women are tired, I think of being frightened, of having the Spector of rape from cradle to grave. The stats will also tell you that it's mostly young women who are being raped, which doesn't help the 80 Alzheimer's rape victim at a LTC facility.

Myself, I want a worldwide discussion, which is why I participated in One Billion Rising. Women are rising, becoming, and these women are the mothers of sons that they will teach. I hope to see continued improvement in the efforts to eradicate rape, and being part of a global moment is an incredible thing

Maybe the thing to do is focus on what is being done right, at least in the context of that conversation.

Whether or not I 'believe in' or 'agree with the idea of' "Rape Culture", is sort of irrelevant. It's a label used to cover a variety of behaviors and attitudes, some of them noxious and unacceptable (starting with, obviously, rape)... I am unequivocally opposed to those things. But for one, I don't believe there is an ANY ****-culture. I think the United States, for one, is too big, too diverse, to chaotic and too messy to make blanket sorts of generalizations about "the culture". There are, certainly, smaller micro-cultures or sub-cultures or institutions or communities which may, through their attitudes and activities, serve to minimize, enable, or cover up things like abuse, rape, sexual assault. Steubenville's Football-Small Town-Local Official Axis. The Vatican. Many examples spring to mind.

I don't believe advertisements are causing anyone to rape. I'm not even sure how effective they are at getting people to buy shit.

you bring up several points, from rape culture to 'entitlement to sexual activity' which you suggest you don't want to discuss or debate, yet they seem to be central to the whole enchilada. This word "entitlement" seems to come up, a lot, when someone is describing negatively someone else's relationship to something that they feel that person doesn't deserve. We have seen a great push from the right to define Social Security, Medicare, etc. as "entitlements" because "entitlement", like "elites", tends to imply some asshole you don't like getting or doing something you don't approve of.

Similarly we hear about men who think they should be able to get "sex on demand" much as RWingers talk about birth control or abortion "on demand". Full of sneering. But .. "on demand", as opposed to what-- "wait 6 to 8 weeks for delivery"? isn't pretty much anyone who wants something, be it world peace, their partner to unload the dishwasher to a new blu-ray player, wanting it "on demand"?

So.. really; "entitled sexual activity"? I see this talk around not so much rape, but rather around things like sad-sack guys on OK Cupid who complain that they're "nice" (tm) but women still won't date them. Or, okay, screw them. So someone on a dating site is lonely and unhappy that they can't attract a partner? How precisely does that become "entitlement"? Are women on a fat acceptance website who complain that guys aren't interested in them unless they lose 50 lbs, are they displaying an "entitlement mentality"? Do they feel they are "entitled" to a partner? To romance, sex, love?

I mean, obviously, no means no. That is the message that should go out, and I think it does go out.. And yes means yes. I think when bloggers or others advancing cockamamie, half-baked sociological rationalizations for "nuance" around consent try to float their theories and agendas, we all ought to be unified in condemnation. People, consenting adults, have the right and should have the right to do with their bodies as they see fit. Period. That applies to all sorts of things, in my opinion, but fundamental to it all is the right to say no, or yes, to sex with someone who is also a consenting adult.

I welcome real discussions aimed at preventing rape and reducing the fear felt by women. I think tectonic shifts are underway in other countries, like India. Also, globally, I think religious fundamentalism, sexual repression and rigid traditional societal structures are responsible for a lot of the anti-woman stuff we see in many of these societies, and the wonderfully liberating free exchange of information on the internet is deeply destabilizing to all authoritarians who would control the behavior of others.

I don't necessarily WANT to debate certain things with you. Pointless.

Rape culture and male sexual entitlement being a couple of them. We haven't the same background; no doubt have different types of educations, read different books, (unless you like Sci-Fi) have a number of opposing viewpoints. From what I can tell, you don't have a background in women's study or feminist theory, nor would I expect you too, but it does make communicating harder.

I was trying to find commonality; I dislike pointless back and forth. For instance, I didn't mean advertisements were causing rape; my point was there are a number of them that show a female in some sort of compromising position that looks like a prelude to sexual violence. This is generally considered acceptable.

Your last paragraph I agree with, although we would not agree on how that sexual repression is actually expressed. Your second to the last paragraph seems to be generally directed, so I'm not sure who, or what you mean. The last sentence is a given, except when a free for all behavior destabilizes society, but I'm sure that's not what you meant.

Don't assume too much about my background; for one, I'm fairly well versed in both womens studies (at least the standard iteration as it was dispensed a couple decades ago) AND Feminst Theory, although of course -and not wanting to open up another pointless debate- it's worth mentioning that many people consider there to be more than one brand of "Feminism" which embodies several different, and sometimes conflicting, points of theory. But being versed in something doesn't mean I subscribe to it. I'm pretty well versed in the Bible, too.

All well and good. (I do have a decent background in Sci-Fi, too, although my appetite for fiction in general is not what it once was.)

So here's the question, because I do believe LJ's OP was more about providing statistical backup for some oft-challenged assertions than promoting any social agenda pertaining to rape; as far as commonality goes- this is clearly an important topic, and one which DU wants to discuss on the front burner, above and beyond specific stories like Steubenville or larger geopolitical questions around cultures like India- so how do you feel rape can be reduced, women can be made to feel safer, in this country? As a practical matter? Given that we all agree- we all SHOULD agree- those are important goals.

The prior thread seemed to center around whether teaching self-defense or personal safety was somehow tantamount to surrendering to the inevitability of rape, and posited teaching young men NOT to rape as preferable. I think they're both reasonable, if different, responses- For one, I think that being able to take care of oneself in a potentially dangerous world is always not a bad idea; that doesn't mean you're giving the world a pass, or tacit permission, to be dangerous.

That said, I think it's well known that our country spends a lot of stupid money in pursuit of what is laughingly considered "sex ed", most notably "abstinence only" education. Giving students a thorough grounding in the concept of consent, might make more sense. Although--- I came of age during the Reagan era, and nothing about date rape or any of it was ever presented in school, and even then yet we all knew it was not right, for instance, to have sex with someone too drunk to consent. Etc.

Even in that horrible Steubenville video, in a situation where yes, I would concur that school and that football team enabled a "rape culture", there were voices of reason. I'm of the opinion that everyone affiliated with that instance- from the sheriff to the coach to the prosecutor who is the mom of one of the 'rape crew'- who did NOT try to stop it, should be prosecuted. But some people, even there, knew what was happening, was wrong. So I'm not sure it's a question of a lack of education on the matter.

From where I sit, the first thing is the law has to take these things very seriously.

The actual questionnaire can be seen here. The NCVS captures men and women who self-report as being victimized by rape or sexual assault.

It's a questionnaire.

Because you have to look are areas where crime is high, as well as the causes.

Rape is down, but since VAWA, say, around four million women and no few men men have fit the accepted definition of rape Not an acceptable number. And it doesn't include children.

I think we've come a ways with awareness, I think some of the vile shit on the Internet is knee jerk reaction to that awareness. So yes, we can agree, crime is down, a lot of what we've done is working, and there is more work to do.

The thing about Global warming, is we have to come to an agreement with other industrialized nations, as well as developing nations. If a company wants put their disgusting pollutant in a war torn country that's trying to feed its children, I think it's a good idea to get to those nations on first, and helping women is a part of that. Raising awareness. Hard to hear when you've been violated in every way imaginable. But we try.

We need to reduce violence and increase education. Without the colonialist attitudes of the past.

And hold corporations responsible.

And these scumbags are using that wealth to commit acts of terrorism and are getting away with it by buying the most moronic, vile, stupid representatives (brainwashed by Fox News) they can. That's not progress.

People can work to improve multiple issues that matter to them, they don't have to choose.

I care deeply about 3 of the 5 things you listed at the end of your OP. I also care deeply about continuing to eradicate rape (and about things you didn't list, like animal welfare).

(I am assuming this is a spin off from the rape thread of the week.)

We don't all have to march in lockstep.

If I don't care about an issue someone else is deeply concerned about, I tend to ignore it... not tell them their issue is unworthy of caring about.

We aren't all clones and different things speak to us for different reasons.

There is a middle ground, this isn't an either-or thing.

False choice.

As for the "battles of our childhood" snark... don't know what to say, other than I don't care what statistics you are comparing to come up with your 85% decrease, rape is still far too common TODAY for my liking. This is about TODAY for me.

My main goal is to get past the idea that quantifying the magnitude of a social problem is "sickening" and tantamount to apologizing for it.

Numbers notwithstanding because of the ingrained cultural fear. Women might say "I'm not afraid of being raped, in fact I never think about it" Hell, I'm one of them, and I've experienced two close and very dangerous attempts in my life. (I responded by becoming a badass, or so I thought back then) but it's situational. That fear can creep up at any time. And it's too bad, really because its crippling for some women. It's costly; my job provides security rides to the parking lot for the nurses that work swing and night shifts. It's a predominately female profession. There've been incidents even with security, not rape, but harassment.