Saturday, September 8, 2007


Chris and I were cruising around northern NH and he bring up this post of mine from few months ago. He said he was with me until he got to the Radical Feminist stance that because there is an inherently unequal distribution of power between men and women in a patriarchy, true consent is impossible and because of this innate structure of our society, all heterosexual sex is essentially Rape.

I understand his concern, and appreciate his hesitation at being considered a Rapist because he is attracted to women (which I'll still argue he can't help.)It's good that Rapist is not a compelling title for him, that he doesn't want to be considered violent, abusive, destructive. These are not great things.

I also understand the power dynamic. Being of it and in it, recognizing that I've had a peachy life thus far. My problem is in taking offense to being called a Rapist, and being told he had no choice but to be such, Chris said that's when he stopped, and couldn't interact with the topic anymore. I think this is often the response to arguments that use such definitive and uncompromising language, but I agree with the feminist frustration at having to cater and sugar-coat years of a struggle so that we can get a little support from the opposite sex. I understand being defensive, but I think that should automatically call for one to then own up to one's own shit. Radical Feminist don't just say anything lightly, there's a reason. Defenses don't go up just for kicks, there's a reason. Check why. Maybe that automatic offensive taste in your mouth is an opportunity to engage.

It all comes down to privilege: White privilege, male privilege, adult privilege, the halo effect. Of course a heterosexual white man doesn't want to listen to a dyke feminist that he's a Rapist, doing so would force him to question his stance in society - and heaven forbid come to the conclusion that it isn't fair. Changing the world, making it equitable and ultimately better, is going to consist of those in power giving it up. I believe in giving it up for something better.

Most people I know want to deny that sexism/racism/any-ism exist here in 2007 - so in case you're being tantalized to that easy side of denial read this.

You never have to agree with everything, but I think it should be mandatory to consider it.


Kate's Dad said...

1. That movie is pure "spin". It's impossible to garner the facts from it, so I submit that it's a mistake to accept it at face value. The associated link at the bottom of your post leads me to believe that the black kid being prosecuted isn't exactly an angel. (Did you miss the part where he and five of his friends beat a white kid into unconsiousness and then kicked his body around?) Last but not least, Al Sharpton is up in arms about it. As a general rule, anything the reverend is against, I'm all for. (Let's play the Role-Reversal Game: If six white kids kicked the shit out of a black kid, would the Right Reverend Al be calling the black victim a "racist"?!) (And by the way, if three punks - of any color - took my my weapon away from me in a convenience store before it was empty, I wouldn't have them prosecuted - I'd hide in shame.)

2. "...all heterosexual sex is essentially Rape..."

It would be more accurate to call it all essentially prostitution. Men trade what they have for sex. Women trade sex for what they want. Call it prostitution, or call it marriage. It's biology. You aren't going to change it.

3. "...Of course a heterosexual white man doesn't want to listen to a dyke feminist that he's a Rapist, doing so would force him to question his stance in society - and heaven forbid come to the conclusion that it isn't fair...."

Usually it just makes our eyes roll back in our heads, and then we joke about it later. (Unless, of course, she's really hot, in which case we'll listen to her like she was Copernicus, Einstein, and Galileo rolled into one... then joke about it later.)

Kate said...

The white kids did kick the shit out of a black kid. Then the white kid made some racial slurs against the beaten black kid a few days later and got his ass kicked. Now his assailants are being charged with attempted murder and no one's said a peep about how it started in the first place.

Your prostitution analysis is correct.

kate's Dad said...

Kate said...
"The white kids did kick the shit out of a black kid. Then the white kid made some racial slurs against the beaten black kid a few days later and got his ass kicked. Now his assailants are being charged with attempted murder and no one's said a peep about how it started in the first place."

The two seperate assaults are apparently being judged seperately, as they should be. If the second is connected to the first, the black kid's defense attorney will undoubtedly bring it up and use it. If the white kid in the first assault wasn't prosecuted, it's not necessarily "racism". The D.A. presumeably had a good reason, or insufficient evidence. It's noteable that no one was injured.

The only "evidence" you and I have right now is an internet video of some dude's biased opinion. Without knowing the actual facts of the case, it's simply not possible to reach a considered opinion.

So far, this smells like the Duke "rape" case to me. Leaping to wild conclusions and slandering people with false accusations of racism is for the Al Sharpton's of the world, not us.

Kate said...

There are lots more articles, you can google them if you're interested.

Just because something is biased, doesn't make it a lie.

Disagreeing on the basis of someone else agreeing doesn't seem like a very scientific analysis either.

Kate's dad said...

Protesting when you don't have the facts isn't rule of law, it's mob rule.

Fan of Kate's Dad said...

Kudos to Kate's dad.

The video ends with a song saying "That's why corrupt governments kill innocent people with chemical warfare that created crack and AIDS; got the public thinkin' these were things that black folks made."

Don't you think they could have picked something that would convey a little more credibility than propaganda like that?

Why should anyone try to help these criminals? After all that is what they are. It appears as if both sides of this are guilty. Just because the police department and prosecutors don't press charges against the white students doesn't mean the black students who jumped a kid and knocked him unconscious should be set free or have any preferential treatment regarding their charges or sentences.

What is so unjust here? A white kid starts a fight where no injuries are reported or medical treatment is required. He gets arrested and sentenced to probation. A black kid steals a gun and is charged for it. Same black kid along with a group of his friends attack a white kid unprovoked and knock him out.

The attempted murder charges were reduced to battery. The white kid who got beat up did nothing but tease one black kid (who has been convicted); never raised a hand to them. The black kids jumped him and knocked him unconscious and continued kicking him.

The black kids did in fact steal the kid's gun. No doubt about it. There may have not been witnesses to show that the kid with the gun initiated the conflict but there's no disputing that the kid stole the gun. If he only wanted to remove it from the white kid he should have taken it directly to the police. Instead he kept it in his house which is a crime.

he common denominator here is the black kids that were involved in the fights. 6 black kids jumping a white kid and knocking him out and then continuing to kick him after he's out cold isn't a school yard fight... it's a pre-meditated assault.

The defense attorney is involved in the jury selection just as the prosecution is. If the defense attorney had a problem with any of the jurors or the lack of blacks on the jury he could have addressed that pre-trial.

And are you really telling me that being a victim of racism is a justification for violence? Because that is what it seems like. The white kid made fun of the black kid so the black kid rounded up 5 of his black friends and jumped the kid. And it wasn't just some bumps and bruises. He had a concussion and was unconscious.

There are clearly errors on each side; white and black. An overzealous prosecutor and a ridiculous (yet expected) uprising from the black "community."

But why should we "free the Jena 6" when the "Jena 6" are criminals with no plausible defense?

Kate said...

Hi Guys,
I'm really stoked that there's some conversation going on, and I appreciate opinions which differ from my own, but I'm going to ask that those who chose to comment will please do so research and educate themselves before doing so. Even a simple skimming of a few related news sources would suffice. I've posted some materials here to get the conversation started, but these are by no means the extent of information that I have myself consumed while formulating my opinion, and I would ask that you go a bit beyond, especially where there are such intense feelings of bias in the materials that I have provided.

I would also ask for a modicum of respect in articulating differences of opinions and focusing on the topic at hand without attacking, or drenching your comments in condecention and sarcasm.

Finally, the bottom line is that this is my personal blog and I can say whatever I want to. I try to adhere to my sense of ethics in doing this, and those make it difficult for me to censor, but ultimately, I will if I feel that the comments are unwarrented, uneducated, or offensive. If you don't like it, get your own blog.


Kate's dad said...

I just read everything over twice. What did anyone say that was the least bit disrespecful?