#notallmen attack or murder women for rejecting them.

But more than enough of them sure seem to. What's up with that?

http://whenwomenrefuse.tumblr.com/



I predict this thread will be ignored.

 

Thanks for the update.

 

Ugh, Tumblr??

 

It's a big old list of murders and assaults that's going to keep being updated, lest someone claim "isolated incident" or whatever.

Violence against women committed by men is far more common than, say, violence against non-muslims committed by muslims, or violence against civilians committed by the police, but you wouldn't know it from this place. What's up with that?

 

What's your solution?

 

This topic makes you uncomfortable, doesn't it? I wonder why.

 

Remember how Muad used to get whenever someone brought up slavery or segregation or institutionalized racism? That's how some of the guys here seem to act whenever you bring up violence against women.

 

If it made me uncomfortable, why would I be interested in hearing your proposed solution?

Are you interested in bitching on the sidelines, or doing something?

 

I'm still working on getting folks here to even discuss the topic in general. I know it doesn't directly involve Abrams Trek, Trayvon Martin, or conveyor belts, but you think it'd be able to get some traction here.

 

Why is "getting folks here to even discuss the topic" a necessary prerequisite to laying out your proposal?

Maybe more people would engage the topic if you supplied some meat to it?

 

That's certainly an interesting solution.

 

For any solution or plan to be implemented much less effective, it will have to recieve 'buy-in' from the community at large. Generally speaking this is easier to do when the larger group participates in coming up with the solution (people feel that they had a part in creating it, instead of it being forced down on them from a above).

The first step to coming up with a solution is to discuss the problem.

 

If I had to make a venture, I would recommend that people start teaching boys that women are not property, they're not trophies, and they're not there to exist at a man's whim and pleasure. If that means adding it to the classroom curriculum, so be it, but it would likely be more effective coming from parents, or even better, both parents and teachers. That would be a start, I think.

There will always be misogyny, just as there is still racism, because it's an irrational mindset, one that comes from irrational roots. That doesn't mean we should ignore it, or assume it will fade out, on it's own, over time.

 

Done.

It was part of my education at school, at home, and at church. I have passed it on in all three of those settings. Thus, I and millions of others have benefited and do benefit from what you propose.

Yet the problems remain. What does that show us?

 

No problem with that.

It's just the Tumblr and Freethought Blogs feminists take it too far, and want to teach boys to hate their own cocks, and if you disagree, rape apologist.

Fuck both extremes.

 

This. And to amend John's solution, all people should be taught that no person is property in any context.

 

How do the last four Commandments read in your preferred version?

 

I'm not sure what you're saying. Surely, you're not saying that since you have taken this action, the problem should have been resolved?

 

I'm so sick of this faggy not all women shit on my twitter feed. I've had to delete so many Lemmings.

 

1) I'm showing that your suggestion that people "start" doing this is nonsense; it was "started" over 50 years ago, and probably much longer. You should not think that because some people still find it convenient to mistreat women, that means no one takes a different position.

2) I asked a question, at the end of my post. Part of "what I'm saying" is to ask that question. What conclusions can we draw from the fact that abuses remain, even though a massive (and thoroughly appropriate) effort has been made for over a generation to teach the opposite?

 

I am not convinced that the effort so far has been massive, much less appropriate, at least measured against the effort needed to complete cultural change. It might well be massive measured against the difficulties that had to be overcome even for this effort to take place.

Cultural inertia is enormous, which not only means that more recent teachings are faced with strong opposition, but that they can hardly be full-hearted. Which is why I'm asking how you'd express the last few lines of the decalogue, which might shed some light on one part of that inertia as it applies to your own biography, which you've offered as an example.

 

Bingo.

I really don't see this problem as an education gap. Boys know that they "should" be nice to girls, but how do we propose creating a culture of greater accountability when individuals choose not to, as they're doing in no greater numbers since the dawn of time?

 

It goes deeper than boys learning they should "be nice" to girls. On the one hand, a guy who's raised with some old-fashioned chivalry and a "never hit a girl" attitude probably isn't going to shoot up a sorority house. On the other hand, some of those attitudes are STILL rooted in seeing women as something less than fully formed human beings.

 

Indeed, it is very difficult even for the most emphatic feminist discourse to clothe the issue in concepts that don't reiterate the basic setup of "males will do things to females, or refrain from doing things to them; here's what they should and shouldn't do to them".

 

And on that note, where are the people who are teaching boys that women are property? Because I don't think that's a common lesson, nor a frequently held view. So perhaps John's solution isn't a solution at all. Teaching people not to do something that nobody has suggested they do will not fix the minority with fucked up brains that make them believe it's okay to hit or otherwise abuse a woman.

 

I fail to see the point. How I would express them is not nearly as important as what they mean. Whether I prefer "Thou shalt not steal" or "Don't steal" seems pretty much irrelevant.

It would make better sense, if you think there is something pertinent, to ask me how I understand the meaning in our present culture of whatever aspect of it that interests you.

 

14th Doc lives in Edmonton. Which means that before he started this thread he probably stole a car, beat up a gay Indian and then raped a 14-year-old.

So I don't think he's in a position to offer solutions.

 

^ I see what you did there!

 

No, it wouldn't, because my point is that the meaning that you understand and that you're trying to express might well be one of emancipation, while the ideational tools you use for its expression might still teach strict distinctions and hierarchies between two genders. It is very hard to escape the cultural inertia in the words and symbols and concepts (!) in which you think and transmit that meaning, and my insistence here is that the intended meaning alone isn't the sum of what you do when you teach, much less when you teach involuntarily simply by acting.

Am I wrong to think that in teaching at home, at school, and at church, you do mention the ten commandments at some point? If so, my interest for now would not be what meaning you are consciously trying to teach when you do so, but what the form of those commandments transmits and conserves despite your efforts. Obviously, I am thinking of the desire for another man's wife, which in most versions is not paralleled by the desire for another woman's husband, but is in many of those versions paralleled to desire for another man's property.

There are parts of that that I can easily negate directly when teaching ("don't think the wife is the same as the mule or the house, people aren't property; don't just think from the male perspective"), and yet it will still be a correction, necessarily conserving that which was corrected. But worse, there are other parts that require a complete reconfiguration of ideas to really get rid of. I'm not sure I could easily phrase an exhortation to monogamy without paralleling marriage to property at least in the sense of their general structure.

 

Except blacks.